zeno just posted in the Whis talks to Big thread that there is a rumor that the cardinals are in negoations with davis. he said it was rumor to be a 4 year deal. if this is true i have some flip flopping of my own to do. so i am not going to post any more on davis vs. pettigout. i will just let davis play speak for him some more. i don't want to hear from y'all that he is overpaid when he gets leinart and james killed again. i don't want to hear when how davis killed a scoring drive with his false starts.
PFT Report: GIANTS CHOP THREE
- Thread starter BACH
- Start date
joeshmo
Kangol Hat Aficionado
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Posts
- 17,247
- Reaction score
- 1
Heucrazy
Pretty Prince of Parties
From a NFL site describing how to perform a cut block.
As the outside ear hole hits the DB's backside leg, the WR should rip his outside arm up in a powerful movement to ensure more contact on the DBs lower body. The WR must cut the DB's backside leg, or the DB will slide off the block.
So it seems that if you don't cut the back side leg than the block won't work. Hmmm......did Big's guy slide off the block and injure our franchise QB? Yep.
Here's another tasty tidbit from another site.
Cut blocking
This might be the most controversial, and least understood of all the blocking techniques. A properly executed cut block is not intended to injure an opposing player, but rather to get the defender to the ground and stop his pursuit. It is completely legal, although not always ethical, to execute a cut block between the tackles on the line of scrimmage (Rule 9-1-2-III). The technique that is taught should be to step with the play side foot, and aim your helmet at the play side thigh of the defender. Once you make contact, continue to drive your feet and work to the play side and cut off the defender?s pursuit. This will usually result in cutting the defender down without injury or rule violation.
That's weird. Why wouldn't "to only get his hands down" be the proper way to execute a cut block? And stopping the guys pursuit? How did that get in there? Weird. Bring the defender to the ground? Weird.
And this from another site:
There is a gray area between the legal cut block and the illegal chop block. The cut block occurs when a player (usually an offensive lineman) blocks another (usually a defensive lineman) below the knees with his helmet in front of the player.
That same term keeps coming up over and over again. Which term you might ask? BLOCKS. Not brings his hands down but BLOCKS. Strange isn't it?
Now I agree with you that Leinart should have gotten rid of the ball. But Big didn't even give him a good cut block which if he had would have brought SF's DE to the ground. WHICH HE DID NOT DO. And if the guy would have gone to the ground then Leinart would have had a couple of extra seconds to get rid of the ball.
Big wiffed and Leinart payed the price. The point of a cut block is not just to bring down the guys hands but to actually block him as well.
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
All right, this is stupid. I'll use small words in the how that you understand it.
The technique that Big was demonstrating on that play had two purposes:
1) To get the defender's hands down so that he can't knock down the ball
2) To induce the defender to move further into the backfield and thus away from the play, which would run behind the defender to the wide receiver.
Big's responsiblity on that play wasn't to block the guy. In fact, the result of such an act would have been perverse, since it would have left the defender closer to where the ball was supposed to be, since his movement into the backfield would have been slowed or stopped.
It's the same idea as a screen pass, where you barely touch the pass rushers in the hopes of inducing them toward the quarterback and away from where the pass is actually going to go. The difference with that play is that it's supposed to develop before any lineman could get out and block the corner or safety outside the hashes.
Does that make sense to you now?
Heucrazy
Pretty Prince of Parties
No because in your own words "it's stupid".
Big didn't need to pull to block just like you said. And the play was designed to go to the WR at the line not in the backfield. We've all seen that play a 100 times and the QB never throws it backwards to the WR. So Big actually blocking his man (which he obviously tried to do but failed) wouldn't have been detrimental to the play at all. Where as Big not blocking his guy turned out to bad for the team.
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
What's the difference? On a two-step drop, the QB is essentially at the LOS. Big wasn't pull blocking. He was doing what is was supposed to. If you don't want to agree with Matt Leinart over whose fault that play was, that's your perogative. If you don't want to like how the play is designed, that's your right. But Big did what he was supposed to on that play; the linebacker went where the play designed for him to go. The Cards run that play successfully all the time. When it happened, it was obvious that it was Leinart's fault.
You can't disprove a negative. If you want to illustrate what should have happened, find a film or screenshots of the play and explain how it ought to have gone. We've all seen it a dozen times and the only person who doesn't seem to believe it is you, fella. Big did his job because his man got into the backfield and away from the intended receiver.
What turned out to be "bad for the team" was Leinart not throwing the ball.
OP
OP
BACH
Superbowl, Homeboy!
COME ON!!!!
It was a designed WR screen/WR Stay play. The other WRs and TE goes in front of the receiving WR and block for him. Big's job was:
1) Cut block the DE, so he can't get his arms up and becomes unable to make the tackle on the play right behind him.
2) Get the DE in the backfield, so it creates distance between the DE and the WR.
Big didn't execute to perfection, but he did do an okay job. Matt should have thrown the ball away, since the play it designed to be executed within 1½ seconds or so.
?? That's why you want to get rid of Davis? For consistency's sake?
For the record, I don't think I ever called for his removal from the line-up. But even if I did and changed my mind on the issue after A) he started playing better, B) the options (or lack thereof) presented themselves, so what? It doesn't change the fact that unless the offensive line is somehow touched by God, they're going to be worse without him.
OP
OP
BACH
Superbowl, Homeboy!
Fine. It was Leinart's fault that Big didn't slow down his guy at all and since Leinart hadn't gotten rid of the ball already then he deserved what he got. Happy now you bunch of harpies?
No, because you still don't seen to understand that the play was designed for Leinart to throw the ball after one second. If it had been another play, then Big wouldn't have blocked it that way, hence it wasn't Big's fault that the DE could hit Leinart after 3-4 seconds.
Last edited:
Heucrazy
Pretty Prince of Parties
I get that. I've gotten it since it happened. It still doesn't excuse Big's complete wiff. A few of you guys think it does. I don't. Plays break down all of the time in the NFL and with the play not being there, then Leinart should have gotten a chance to try his second option, a chance he never got because Big wiffed his block.
Guess what guys, if Big had cut blocked SF's DE well and took him to the ground like he was supposed to then the guys hands still would have went down and Leinart's shoulder would have been fine.
