you stated that playing with a chip on your shoulder is never a bad thing. I pointed out that one of our players might not come out of this game with a chip on his shoulder, but rather with temerity. What's so hard to understand?
I guess that I didn't see how Ingram would have a "chip on his shoulder" from a mistake that he made...... who's he mad at, himself?
Have you never gotten mad at yourself over a mistake you've made? That must be a much more stress-free reality than the one I live in.
Sure, but that's not the same as having a chip on your shoulder. It implies being mad at some slight done to you..... by someone else, not yourself.
I never said that it was. I said that instead of having a chip on his shoulder, he might come out of this week's meetings overly self-conscious of his behavior, and behave with temerity as a result.
I don't think temerity is in Ingram's make-up. A bit more aware - OK. But temerity hasn't gotten him where he is & I seriously doubt that it's the first time he's been flagged for roughing up a skirt-wearing QB.
temerity might have been a stretch, but he might be overly self-conscience. Anyway, my hope is that he'll simply get it into his head that he doesn't get to drill the QB if he doesn't have the ball, and that he has to hit the QB in the strike zone.
He hit him in the chest & slid up. It was a correct call with the rules being what they are today, but it was also a close call. I'd wager well over 50% of QB's in this league wouldn't have gotten that call. Brees, Brady, & Peyton Manning are the only ones who will get it consistently.
I'm not saying that it was an egregious error, but I don't think that it has to have been in order to have an effect on him. Also, what were our coaches doing in their meetings this past week? Did no one mention that the strike zone on Brees's head is defined by his ego and not by the actual size of his helmet? Jokes aside, our coaches should've been telling our defenders to aim for his belt when tackling, and with princess Manning coming up, I hope that that's a point of emphasis coming up. I don't know why he's trying to tackle Brees through the chest anyway, if you look at what you're tackling then the likelihood of being able to put your helmet on his chest without touching his helmet is 0.
I'm not so certain that he could necessarily adjust where his momentum was taking him (and this time I'm using momentum as physical force, not emotional balance). I don't believe it was at all intentional. **** happens. With the speed of this game, all of the warnings in the world aren't going to prevent it from happening. What it CAN do is cause the temerity that you spoke of. Am I saying not to coach with intent to reduce/remove head shots? Absolutely not. But I also don't think that it needs to be dwelt on to the point that players' reactions become stunted & over-thought. Again - the hit was illegal by today's rules, but the call/rule is soft when you view how the game unfolds on the field.
I think a lot of this is Sportscenter. Big high hits get on the plays of the week and quality form tackles around the waist just don't. Melvin needs to learn that a quality sack driving through the QB with his face up at the waist is going to be a better play than tackling him high.
My take is Melvin's momentum took him where it did & Brees' height did the rest. My only real complaint about the play, aside from the obvious 14 point swing, is that Brees' wasn't carted off the field holding his record-setting football in his rectum.
I get that, but Melvin has the ability to choose where he points himself before contact is initiated. It's not like he's an inanimate object.
You're right - he's very animated. And that very animation, combined with emotion, speed, the other player's movement, etc., causes this to not be as simple as a coaching moment that can eliminate the mistake. Can it help? Sure - but it can't fully prevent. The folks writing these rules & sending out fines don't always seem to understand that. You can bet that Melvin will be getting a request to send the league office a check. IMO, they should write it off as just another act in the narrative that unfolded as desired on Sunday night.
Ingram hitting Brees lower would still have resulted in the old driving the quarterback into the ground rule, they have something for everything in the NFL.
It is not and could not have been the driving the QB to the ground, Ingram did not do that. Making contact with any part of the QBs head is a foul. In this case I feel it should not have been, because from what I saw, Ingran hit Brees, which brought Brees' head forward making contact with Ingram.
As I said in another thread, if that was Ray Lewis hitting Christian Ponder on local Baltimore area TV then I seriously doubt it gets called. By strict interpretation it probably was a penalty, but if I'm Pagano I'm not going to got after Ingram about it, I'd be buying him a steak dinner and letting him know not to worry about it. It's high time the Chargers D puts the fear into other teams. And I do think it all happened so fast that Ingram did not intentionally lead with his helmet or try to hit Brees in the head at all, it's just how it played out.
If the refs were going to be flag happy as it seemed they were, they could call anything QB wise. I believe I even seen Seau get flanged for a blow to the head that never happened, of course that was years ago but it's still stuck in my head.
