Hits on manning:
 

I for one was happy to see us getting to the QB even if it wasn't always a sack. Its a step in the right direction.

That said many of the talkshow hosts have said they expect fines against the skins for hits on Manning. Even though Manning is the NFLs golden boy, I didn't see any fineable hit given. THere was one that was very rough, but nothing illegal done.

When are fines handed out for the week, and when will we know.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

Not sure about the fines, but I was happy to see the hits as well. Unfortunately, the Colts adjust to it in the second half and we did not

Re: Hits on manning:
 

You mean you can make adjustments at half time? Someone should tell our coaching staff that!

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Daseal;233724]That said many of the talkshow hosts have said they expect fines against the skins for hits on Manning. Even though Manning is the NFLs golden boy, I didn't see any fineable hit given. THere was one that was very rough, but nothing illegal done.[/quote]

I disagree that the Daniels and Carter hit wasn't illegal. They called roughing the passer on a much lesser hit on Brunell. Daniels and Carter damn near broke Manning's back.

When I first saw the hit, I thought it was bad, but not finable. Then I read a quote from Daniels in the Washington Post about it, and he said something like "we had him where we wanted him, but we let him off the hook". That sounds like some punk shit to me. He's basically saying "we can't defend him, so lets injure him". They probably will be fined if the NFL decides to look into it.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[QUOTE=Daseal;233733]You mean you can make adjustments at half time? Someone should tell our coaching staff that![/QUOTE]

Joe Gibbs used to be the black belt master of that. but all we saw was more of the same. make me think it's just Brunell succumbing to his checking down habit.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;233734]I disagree that the Daniels and Carter hit wasn't illegal. They called roughing the passer on a much lesser hit on Brunell. Daniels and Carter damn near broke Manning's back.[/QUOTE]

The hit that you are talking about was a clear cut case of a blow to the head of the QB, and even if it had been on a RB or WR it probably would have still been flagged for facemask. Freeny hit Brunell right in the bars which knocked his helmet a good 3 inches lower on his forehead than it was before.
The hit on Manning was more just a gang tackle where Daniels' arm got around Manning's neck. There were no hands to the face and Manning never got hit in the head.
The ref was in the same position for both hits, so I'm pretty sure he called them how he saw them.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=ArtMonkDrillz;233739]The hit on Manning was more just a gang tackle where Daniels' arm got around Manning's neck. There were no hands to the face and Manning never got hit in the head.
The ref was in the same position for both hits, so I'm pretty sure he called them how he saw them.[/quote]

I've never seen a play where the ball was gone, the quarterbacks helmet gets ripped off and nothing was called. And as I said, I didn't think much about the hit, until Daniels made it sound like they were intentionally trying to injure Manning.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

I was surprised they didn't call Daniels hit, but I guess they made up for it by calling a totally non-roughing call on Washington when he fell into Manning on accident.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233734]I disagree that the Daniels and Carter hit wasn't illegal. They called roughing the passer on a much lesser hit on Brunell. Daniels and Carter damn near broke Manning's back.

When I first saw the hit, I thought it was bad, but not finable. Then I read a quote from Daniels in the Washington Post about it, and he said something like "we had him where we wanted him, but we let him off the hook". That sounds like some punk shit to me. He's basically saying "we can't defend him, so lets injure him". They probably will be fined if the NFL decides to look into it.[/quote]

I guess if you want to twist it that way, I took it as him saying they had the Colts down 14-13 at the half and they let the game get away in the 2nd half.

I really don't think he was trying to say that he was trying to hurt him. Daniels has never been known to be a dirty guy.

Look at the context of the quote, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the hit:

[quote]One lasting memory of this game will be of Manning's elegant passing after the assault he took in the second quarter when Redskins end Phillip Daniels bent him backwards over Andre Carter and ripped the helmet off his head. The torque in Manning's spine sprung him back so violently that he flew face-first -- a 180-degree flip -- into the turf. Once back on the sideline, he still had a dozen bits of artificial turf imbedded in his forehead. On one subsequent series of downs, he seemed to be taking a standing eight count.

"We had him where we wanted him," Daniels said, "but we let him off the hook."[/quote]

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233734]I disagree that the Daniels and Carter hit wasn't illegal. They called roughing the passer on a much lesser hit on Brunell. Daniels and Carter damn near broke Manning's back.

When I first saw the hit, I thought it was bad, but not finable. Then I read a quote from Daniels in the Washington Post about it, and he said something like "we had him where we wanted him, but we let him off the hook". That sounds like some punk shit to me. He's basically saying "we can't defend him, so lets injure him". They probably will be fined if the NFL decides to look into it.[/quote]
Your wrong about the quote it does not ask him about the hit at all. It was just inserted into that paragraph about the hit and never said anything about asking Daniels about the hit.
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102201162_2.html]Manning's Hits Hurt - washingtonpost.com[/url]

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=firstdown;233764]Your wrong about the quote it does not ask him about the hit at all. It was just inserted into that paragraph about the hit and never said anything about asking Daniels about the hit.
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102201162_2.html"]Manning's Hits Hurt - washingtonpost.com[/URL][/quote]


Thanks for the clarification, but Daniels was obviously referencing the hits they put on Manning, because it was the Daniels and Carter hit that put Manning in the "standing eight count". And if he was referencing the Colts in general and not Manning, I imagine he would have said "we had [B]them[/B] right where we wanted them" and not "we had[B] him [/B]right where we wanted him".

Re: Hits on manning:
 

then why no flag on manning when that pass hit his lineman?

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233787]Thanks for the clarification, but Daniels was obviously referencing the hits they put on Manning, because it was the Daniels and Carter hit that put Manning in the "standing eight count". And if he was referencing the Colts in general and not Manning, I imagine he would have said "we had [B]them[/B] right where we wanted them" and not "we had[B] him [/B]right where we wanted him".[/quote]
With his statement just inserted without knowing the question there is no way of knowing. Maybe the question was about containing Manning and then his statement would make sense. I fell the play its self was just one of those plays where everyone is going full speed and just happened. With his angle comming in on the Manning he probably had no idea he pitched the ball out to avoid the sack.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233787]Thanks for the clarification, but Daniels was obviously referencing the hits they put on Manning, because it was the Daniels and Carter hit that put Manning in the "standing eight count". And if he was referencing the Colts in general and not Manning, I imagine he would have said "we had [B]them[/B] right where we wanted them" and not "we had[B] him [/B]right where we wanted him".[/quote]

Take it anyway you want I guess...

But I really don't think he was directly referencing the hit. The article may make it seem that way, but context is everything.

If you want to squabble about them or him, since Manning is basically their entire offense, saying him really isn't that out of place.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

This is ridiculous. The hit was completely legal. I mean the fact that he got twisted up was unfortunate but I mean what should they do put a red jersey on QB's now ?