What's the dirtiest hit you can remember on an Iowa player? Was the hit on Aaron Rodgers dirty?

[Franisdaman]

To be honest, not sure I can remember the last "dirty hit" on an Iowa player.

Regarding Aaron Rodgers, do you think the hit on him this past Sunday was dirty? The Packers head coach and several Packer players say it was. The Vikings head coach says it was not a dirty hit. To me, the hit seemed fine.

Here is video of the hit: www.espn.com/video/clip?id=21034808

Here is the related story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sport...s-hit-aaron-rodgers-an-illegal-act/770357001/

As you can see, this is what the Packers players/coaches had to say:

Packer Linebacker Ahmad Brooks: "...I think in this situation Aaron had already released the ball as the guy was engaging into him. He could’ve just laid off on him. Or even if he wanted to go tackle him, he didn’t have to drive him into the ground. That’s the problem. I think he did extra. It looked like he hit him, and he just piledrived him to the ground. When I hit people, I never hit them like that. He put more effort into making sure that he pile-drived him to the ground, rather than just tackle him.”

“I didn’t like the hit,” head coach Mike McCarthy said. “I had a chance to watch it last night on the plane. He’s out of the pocket. He’s clearly expecting to get hit. To pin him to the ground like that, I felt it was an illegal act. To sit here and lose any of your players on something like that, it doesn’t feel very good. Yeah, I didn’t like the hit. It was unnecessary.”

Right guard Jahri Evans, another longtime NFL veteran new to Green Bay, said he thought Barr hit Rodgers to send a message. Evans said it was a dirty hit. “The ball was gone,” Evans said. “So he probably could’ve pulled up, but I think he wanted to make his presence known, and not have a running QB outside the pocket. I think it will be turned in (to the league), and I think it’s up to them to assess it the proper way. As far as our side, yeah, you would say (it was dirty). That’s a hit on the best player on our team, possibly the best player in the league. If you think that way, that’s a significant loss.”



Thoughts?

 

[GarryO37]

Not a fan of either team or the NFL in general.

The tackle on Rodgers was a clean hit. End of story. If Rodgers didn’t have such brittle bones, he would be just fine.

Maybe the Packers should focus on getting ready to play without Rodgers, instead of crying about a big nothing burger.

 

[bigfridaynite]

I believe every injury that's occurred on big name players was on artificial turf I think that's still an issue in football.JMO

 

[anon_e8k0ass4g2w2j]

Hit was fine IMO. Seen a lot worse. It's only an issue because Rodgers got hurt.

 

[CFNiteHawk85]

2010 Wisconsin fullback chop block Adrian Clayborn.

 

[sober_teacher]

I forget the player but the 09 game vs sparty featured a dirty hit against (I believe) sandeman that would be a targeting penalty today.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

I forget the player but the 09 game vs sparty featured a dirty hit against (I believe) sandeman that would be a targeting penalty today.

That was called in the game. But I think they called it unnecessary contact to the head or something. It wasn't targeting back then. I just remember him laying there stiff as a board and not moving.

My brother was in Spartan Stadium that night and all the fans around him were claiming Sandeman was faking it and that it wasn't a penalty. Looked pretty obvious on TV he was out.

 

[Im4Iowa]

Hit was fine IMO. Seen a lot worse. It's only an issue because Rodgers got hurt.

This. Easy to watch a replay ten times in slow motion and say he could've pulled back or not hit him as hard. And a huge lol at the linebacker saying he's never hit anyone like that.

 

[bojihawk44]

This. Easy to watch a replay ten times in slow motion and say he could've pulled back or not hit him as hard. And a huge lol at the linebacker saying he's never hit anyone like that.

Yeah, the hit clearly wasn't dirty and didn't warrant a penalty and certainly doesn't warrant a fine.

And the linebacker that said that, Ahmad Brooks, is the one who almost broke Drew Brees' neck on a hit and also hit one of his teammates over the head with a beer bottle multiple times. So yeah, his opinion is meaningless.

 

[cb_Iowa]

Recently? Probably this one.

 

[bojihawk44]

View embedded media

Recently? Probably this one.

Man that kid was a loser. And it's hilarious that in basically every Iowa highlight against Nebraska the last few years he's running behind our guys as they head into the end zone.

 

[bagdropper]

The hit on Rodgers was unfortunate in the result, but in no way dirty nor illegal.

It's injuries like this where I think the sport will evolve to where the QB injuries will force constructing offensive systems to where the QB throwing the ball will be less a staple 20 or so years down the road, or teams will have multiple QB's on the roster and rotate them within each game or over a full season, much like say a pitching staff in baseball - to where an injury to one guy doesn't debilitate a team as much.

 

[sober_teacher]

That was called in the game. But I think they called it unnecessary contact to the head or something. It wasn't targeting back then. I just remember him laying there stiff as a board and not moving.

My brother was in Spartan Stadium that night and all the fans around him were claiming Sandeman was faking it and that it wasn't a penalty. Looked pretty obvious on TV he was out.

Thanks, I couldn’t remember if it was flagged but I remember ferentz being pretty upset about it. Also remember the booing by the fans in that game.

 

[MadDogC]

Wasn’t dirty—just a perfect opportunity. Matt Roth trucking that stupid Purdue kicker who forgot he was in a football game—and shoulda been defending a potential return of a blocked kick. Matt shoulda hit him harder—he deserved it.

 

[Herkmeister]

Man that kid was a loser. And it's hilarious that in basically every Iowa highlight against Nebraska the last few years he's running behind our guys as they head into the end zone.

He was a douche bag. I recall he went to high school in the Sioux Falls area and people spoke about his terrible behavior then.

 

[*hawksrock*]

 

[DodgerHawki]

The hit on Rodgers was unfortunate in the result, but in no way dirty nor illegal.

It's injuries like this where I think the sport will evolve to where the QB injuries will force constructing offensive systems to where the QB throwing the ball will be less a staple 20 or so years down the road, or teams will have multiple QB's on the roster and rotate them within each game or over a full season, much like say a pitching staff in baseball - to where an injury to one guy doesn't debilitate a team as much.

I would agree and I love the Pack. If you outlaw taking the QB to the ground at all, then it ceases to be football. Could have Barr pulled up as he saw the ball released and just shoved Rodgers rather than landing on him? Probably. But as soon as a defender does that, Rodgers can fake and keep running.

The evolution of rotating QB's sounds good, but the issue is you still have talent like a Rodgers or Brady who are way better than the other options. It sounds good but in baseball there are physical limitations as to why a Justin Verlander can't pitch every game. In football teams would be foolish to not run the best guy out there and take advantage of his skills.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

Cheapest I’ve ever seen against Iowa was against Illinois in 92. Illinois olineman took an Iowa D lineman out at the knees directly from behind in the open field. It was a deliberate attempt to injure

 

[scotthawk1964]

I don't think it was a dirty hit, it was all within the rules. However. They give the defender a couple steps once the QB has released the ball to get his lick on the QB. I think if the defender can obviously see the ball has been thrown, he should pull up, if he is in a position where he cannot fully determine the QB's release of the ball, he should hit him. But I think to many QB's take shots where it is obvious that he has thrown the ball. College included. But then again, now your making a ref have to make a judgement call on what the defender was thinking. Now when the QB tucks and runs, I think the D should knock the s**t out of him if he chooses not to slide. Make him think twice about running. See Maryland. That is one reason that JT doesn't run as much at tOSU as he could. Throwing is different as the QB is defenseless. Or we can just go back to the roots where football was a man's game and for better or worse, it was settled by the players on the field on there own. LOL

 

[cb_Iowa]

He was a douche bag. I recall he went to high school in the Sioux Falls area and people spoke about his terrible behavior then.

And he couldn't play in their bowl game because of academics.

 

[rufus-hawk]

That was called in the game. But I think they called it unnecessary contact to the head or something. It wasn't targeting back then. I just remember him laying there stiff as a board and not moving.

My brother was in Spartan Stadium that night and all the fans around him were claiming Sandeman was faking it and that it wasn't a penalty. Looked pretty obvious on TV he was out.

I was there, too. The crowd was ugly.

Sandeman missed 4 games after that, I believe. You'd think MSU would be able to recognize fake injuries, no?

 

[bagdropper]

I would agree and I love the Pack. If you outlaw taking the QB to the ground at all, then it ceases to be football. Could have Barr pulled up as he saw the ball released and just shoved Rodgers rather than landing on him? Probably. But as soon as a defender does that, Rodgers can fake and keep running.

The evolution of rotating QB's sounds good, but the issue is you still have talent like a Rodgers or Brady who are way better than the other options. It sounds good but in baseball there are physical limitations as to why a Justin Verlander can't pitch every game. In football teams would be foolish to not run the best guy out there and take advantage of his skills.

Then you force it to occur.

My view on the future of professional football from a survivability standpoint while "keeping it the same game we all know and love"...

a) 53 man rosters are a joke as far as players' health. Make it 84 with a 21 man taxi squad for the entire season and 84 active for any particular game (and of course, lower the floor on salaries as a result), and players can only play 3 quarters during any game outside of OT. You'd designated pre-game the quarter of the squad ineligible for any particular quarter (for example, these 21 players cannot play in the first quarter, equally spread across offense, defense, special teams etc)
b) If you keep the 16 game season, players can only play 12 regular season games (hence the 21 man taxi squad).
c) Enact a Manhattan Project style development of uniforms/equipment paid for by the owners (without them having any input whatsoever as far as total spend nor regulations hindering the advancement) to mitigate "collision injuries of all types" that truly protects the players in a tackle such as Rodgers' - in short, if it costs billions to produce a truly protective uniform, so be it.


I know this won't prevent all injuries, nor will it make the owners happy...but it has to make the rigors of a season and career less threatening to players' long term health. It keeps them all fresher over the course of a season and game (raising their effectiveness when they do play), and reduces the chances of a "that's football" injury from occurring like what we saw with AR, and finally keeping the game itself essentially the same as far as what made it great.

Yes, the quality of play initially would suffer, but over time coaches and organizations would adapt to where they figure out how to raise an individual's team level of play over time to where they would simply, eventually, get us back to what we see today.

 

[HobbieHawk]

easy, the TWO helmet targets on Shonn Greene in one play vs jNW in 2008.
You can't tell me they were not coached to do that.
F*c*ing Fitzgerald white trash

 

[volknut]

If it was anyone else but a QB would this even be discussed?

 

[sober_teacher]

Then you force it to occur.

My view on the future of professional football from a survivability standpoint while "keeping it the same game we all know and love"...

a) 53 man rosters are a joke as far as players' health. Make it 84 with a 21 man taxi squad for the entire season and 84 active for any particular game (and of course, lower the floor on salaries as a result), and players can only play 3 quarters during any game outside of OT. You'd designated pre-game the quarter of the squad ineligible for any particular quarter (for example, these 21 players cannot play in the first quarter, equally spread across offense, defense, special teams etc)
b) If you keep the 16 game season, players can only play 12 regular season games (hence the 21 man taxi squad).
c) Enact a Manhattan Project style development of uniforms/equipment paid for by the owners (without them having any input whatsoever as far as total spend nor regulations hindering the advancement) to mitigate "collision injuries of all types" that truly protects the players in a tackle such as Rodgers' - in short, if it costs billions to produce a truly protective uniform, so be it.


I know this won't prevent all injuries, nor will it make the owners happy...but it has to make the rigors of a season and career less threatening to players' long term health. It keeps them all fresher over the course of a season and game (raising their effectiveness when they do play), and reduces the chances of a "that's football" injury from occurring like what we saw with AR, and finally keeping the game itself essentially the same as far as what made it great.

Yes, the quality of play initially would suffer, but over time coaches and organizations would adapt to where they figure out how to raise an individual's team level of play over time to where they would simply, eventually, get us back to what we see today.

I’m confused by a. I would add a 2nd bye week, mandatory before a Thursday game. Also, dress the entire 53 man roster. I’m confused why the 53 man roster but only 46 dress on game day.

 

[TKingpin]

easy, the TWO helmet targets on Shonn Greene in one play vs jNW in 2008.
You can't tell me they were not coached to do that.
F*c*ing Fitzgerald white trash

Beat me to it. Caused a concussion which knocked him out of the game and caused us to lose. IIRC we were either leading or at least tied when it happened. I don't know what the referees were looking at, but it should have been called. Definitely leading with the crown of the helmet.

 

[hwk23]

View embedded media

Recently? Probably this one.

Yep, also Gerry waiving his fist as Tevaun Smith laid there injured. What a douche.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

2010 O$U defender decleated Adam Robinson with a cheap shot targeting his head on a screen at the end of the game.

defender should have been banned from the rest of the season for that play.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

View embedded media

Recently? Probably this one.

that was ridiculous, he was obviously not attempting a tackle. he was attempting to remove his head from his shoulders. eff that guy.

 

[bagdropper]

I’m confused by a. I would add a 2nd bye week, mandatory before a Thursday game. Also, dress the entire 53 man roster. I’m confused why the 53 man roster but only 46 dress on game day.

Agreed, and it is ridiculous.

First off, I'm no doctor...

My theory is is makes any particular player more susceptible injury by sheer number of plays exposed to it. Therefore, expand the active rosters available for every game, and force teams to use them all in games, yet limit total games for every player.

If my math is correct, instead of being "exposed" to 64 quarters of play in a regular season, this cuts that down to 36.

I believe the human body quite frankly is not built to absorb the punishment for really any more than 12 games a season, and that is over roughly 12 total football seasons over a lifetime. This is from say junior high through adulthood.

I remember seeing a thread on the main CFB board last week, they posted a youtube video of a 1939 game between the Brooklyn Dodgers and Detroit Lions that was filmed in color. Posters viewed the bodies of the players and noticed how physically different they looked back then.

A player back then was probably on average 180 pounds, and as far as being in prime athletic shape in comparison to today was light years behind.

What has changed physically since then? Sheer size as well as nutritional and athletic football training. Players are bigger, they are stronger, they are faster, and the "art of football" itself has revolutionized itself as far as how to apply these physical traits to the game and opposing player.

How do you make a bone impervious to damage? Or a ligament, etc? Do you ever hear an athlete working out state "I'm working on my collar bones today"?

Players tear their Achilles or Patella Tendon nowadays just by planting and applying muscular force in a straight line...that has to be caused by the muscles being stronger than these can support over time. It cannot be any other reason.

IMHO, the human body is simply not built for the damage a game like football is capable of delivering today. So, how do you limit that without changing the basics of how the game is actually played (blocking, tackling, hitting, etc)?

It has to be total number of plays over time, from games up to careers.

That's as far as my thinking goes...unless someone knows how to make a human bone, tendon, ligament, or cartilage stronger in relation to the muscle and total abuse we're piling on them.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

I was there, too. The crowd was ugly.

Sandeman missed 4 games after that, I believe. You'd think MSU would be able to recognize fake injuries, no?

There as well and still remember when the crowd started that stupid "Go Green, Go White" chant as Sandeman was still being attended to. Thought that was so tacky and disrespectful. Be like Iowa fans doing the I-O-W-A chant as trainers tend to a knocked out players from the visiting team.

As for Rodgers hit I've seen Clay Matthews and several other Packers players do the same thing. Hit was legal and done all the time. How many times have we seen Cam Newton take this same hit last few years.

 

[Franisdaman]

View embedded media

that is hard to watch; no doubt that is targeting and immediate ejection by today's rules

 

[cecilB]

that is hard to watch; no doubt that is targeting and immediate ejection by today's rules

yes, and i remember Dantonio arguing madly with the officials just feet from an extremely injured player, That was a final straw for me with that guy. At least when Tevaun Smith got drilled by Gerry, the first people to his side was NU staff/trainers

 

[kceasthawk]

That was called in the game. But I think they called it unnecessary contact to the head or something. It wasn't targeting back then. I just remember him laying there stiff as a board and not moving.

My brother was in Spartan Stadium that night and all the fans around him were claiming Sandeman was faking it and that it wasn't a penalty. Looked pretty obvious on TV he was out.

You should have asked them if he was faking the convulsions as well. I was really concerned for him after that play. Of course the douche Dantonio went crazy on the zebras for calling that penalty, when he should have been more concerned about the health of one of the combatants.

 

[kceasthawk]

View embedded media

Recently? Probably this one.

Vicious. The crazy thing is, I think Smith came back and played later in that game. It thats not a case for concusion protocall then there isn't one.

 

[Franisdaman]

Hit was fine IMO. Seen a lot worse. It's only an issue because Rodgers got hurt.

Agreed.

Rodgers had words for the guy that hit him, too.

I am glad people are giving their opinion in this thread. I am a Vikings fan and I saw nothing wrong with the hit. I have seen and heard a lot of Packers fans think it was dirty. Obviously both fan bases are going to be a bit biased.

I just find it funny that NFL QBs scramble (either to the side or straight ahead) and a defensive player is not supposed to hit them, and if you do, you are labeled dirty. NFL QB's are protected enough as it is!

 

[spbc7]

Rodgers hit was clean. Packers fan, but they're whining about nothing.

View embedded media

Recently? Probably this one.

Ehh, he turned his head and went low for the hit. What else is he supposed to do, just stand there and let him catch it? Correct call on the targeting and ejection, but I don't see a "dirty" hit there. If you're trying to hurt someone, you don't hit them with the side of your helmet. It's similar to the Jewell hit against Miami(OH). You could tell he wasn't aiming for the head, but he sold out for the hit and the other player ended up losing his balance and head-to-head contact happened.

 

[Franisdaman]

This. Easy to watch a replay ten times in slow motion and say he could've pulled back or not hit him as hard. And a huge lol at the linebacker saying he's never hit anyone like that.

agreed. heck, defensive players are licking their chops when they get a chance to drill the QB

 

[Gary-Waterloo]

In game speed, the hit on Rodgers looked fine. Barr tackled him and was on top but it is far from some of the hits you see where the player is really driven into the ground. This is a big deal because Rodgers got mad and showing it on slow motion makes it look worse than it was. Now the highlight of the Steeler player going down low on Alex Smith is an example of a dirty shot.

 

[Franisdaman]

Yeah, the hit clearly wasn't dirty and didn't warrant a penalty and certainly doesn't warrant a fine.

And the linebacker that said that, Ahmad Brooks, is the one who almost broke Drew Brees' neck on a hit and also hit one of his teammates over the head with a beer bottle multiple times. So yeah, his opinion is meaningless.

Great point on Ahmad Brooks; what a hypocrite he is!

Here is that hit: www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000285060/article/ahmad-brooks-fined-15750-by-nfl-for-drew-brees-hit