Broncos' D makes a statement in win over Redskins

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The only blemish on the Denver Broncos' 7-1 season came last week, leaving the league's 32nd-ranked pass defense in the spotlight.

Defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio's troops bounced back emphatically in Sunday's 45-21 victory over the Redskins, hitting Robert Griffin III more than 15 times and ultimately knocking him out of the game in the fourth quarter.

After an underwhelming season debut in Week 7, All-Pro pass rusher Von Miller was a difference-maker while spying Griffin for most of the afternoon. Miller turned in a strip-sack and another tackle for loss while the Broncos held RGIII to the lowest passer rating and yards per attempt figures of his career.

Now that Miller is channeling his 2012 form, Denver is once again taking on the look of the AFC's superpower.

rest - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000270748/article/broncos-d-makes-a-statement-in-win-over-redskins

[Joel]

Last week wasn't our Ds fault; they played a very good game against an elite offense. Yet they played an even better one today against another offense that's pretty good itself. Turnovers cost us last weeks game:

Hollidays fumbled return at our 11 made Indy short pass for a TD (enough by itself to win the game) way too easy,
Mannings strip-sack-safety gave them 2 more points and the ball and
Mannings tipped pass thanks to poor blocking gave them another 3 points even though our D held them to a three-and-out.

Even if we credit our D for Indys TD when they got the ball following the safety, the 27 points we allowed was no more than Seattles very good D allowed the same elite offense.

Yet even with four turnovers Indy only just beat us by 6 at home; Washington's not nearly as good and weren't at home, so four turnovers wasn't enough to keep them in the game, let alone win it. Our D is for real; if Millers return lets him and Wolfe get the kind of pressure they did in the second half today, our excellent secondary and runstuffing DTs will make them nearly as scary as our offense.

[spikerman]

They played well and it was about damn time.

[G_Money]

Looked like the D finally figured out that Manning might not save them and they'd have to make plays.

They made plenty. Trailing in this game wasn't their fault, any more than losing last game was their fault, but they decided to make sure the game would stay in reach if the O ever pulled their head out, and once they did the game was ours.

We have a couple months yet to fine-tune the D. If we can stop getting guys injured (Champ, Nacho and Harris are all kinda useful...) then we should be right on track.

I hope the D treats SD and KC's offenses like we treated the Skins.

~G

[G_Money]

BTW, I don't think it's a coincidence that Woodyard was back out there and all of a sudden guys weren't out of position nearly as much. The QB of our D is pretty vital.

Somebody give him next week off. ;)

~G

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

This game was Griffin's worst qb rating and worst yards per attempt of his career. Our front 7 was lights out.

[Dzone]

Von Miller is going to be ready to stop some good qbs after the bye

[Broncolingus]

BTW, I don't think it's a coincidence that Woodyard was back out there and all of a sudden guys weren't out of position nearly as much. The QB of our D is pretty vital.

Somebody give him next week off. ;)

~G


This game was Griffin's worst qb rating and worst yards per attempt of his career. Our front 7 was lights out.

Agree with both these posts...this is absolutely Woodyards defense...without question.

This was, by far, the best game the front seven has played all year...

On the road against SD and NE will be good tests to see if they are as 'tight' as they need to be against playoff offenses...

Need to get some folks healthy during the bye and then STAY that way for the rest of the season...

[Ravage!!!]

It's the FIRST game of the season where we actually had all three starting LBs on the field at the same time. That's a HUGE benefit to any team over having to start back-ups.

[SoCalImport]

Now if we can just get Big Vic to hold up the QB when he gets there late instead of knock them down and pray there's no flag. Dudes got some anger issues this year and it's cost us dearly. What did Fox say to him after that unnecessary roughness call? "I can't watch anymore!"

[Joel]

BTW, I don't think it's a coincidence that Woodyard was back out there and all of a sudden guys weren't out of position nearly as much. The QB of our D is pretty vital.

Somebody give him next week off. ;)

~G
I honestly don't know how that happened, because NO ONE thought Woodyard was big enough to be a starting Mike, let alone a very good one. Since I started screaming for Wilsons successor a full year before we lost him though, I won't argue with results. I don't know how we found our defensive QB, but evidently we did; he covers, he plays the run, he blitzes, he reads offenses, he calls audibles: Woodyard's not just a great Will, he's a fine Mike we sorely needed. Now, it should still go without saying failing to find Wilsons successor in '05 left us in the lurch in '06(-'12,) so let's not do that again. ;)

[BroncoNut]

I honestly don't know how that happened, because NO ONE thought Woodyard was big enough to be a starting Mike, let alone a very good one. Since I started screaming for Wilsons successor a full year before we lost him though, I won't argue with results. I don't know how we found our defensive QB, but evidently we did; he covers, he plays the run, he blitzes, he reads offenses, he calls audibles: Woodyard's not just a great Will, he's a fine Mike we sorely needed. Now, it should still go without saying failing to find Wilsons successor in '05 left us in the lurch in '06(-'12,) so let's not do that again. ;)

so glad I got a Woodyard Jersey last order. yay for me

[NightTrainLayne]

Now if we can just get Big Vic to hold up the QB when he gets there late instead of knock them down and pray there's no flag. Dudes got some anger issues this year and it's cost us dearly. What did Fox say to him after that unnecessary roughness call? "I can't watch anymore!"

I've said for 17 years that if I ever saw Michael Dean Perry face to face that I would punch him in the mouth. . . .he'd surely demolish me at that point, but he had earned one well-placed punch in the jaw.

I am now adding Vickerson to that list.

[claymore]

Id like Vickerson to hit the QB much harder and make the penalty worth it. I think one a game is worth it.

[Nomad]

I've said for 17 years that if I ever saw Michael Dean Perry face to face that I would punch him in the mouth. . . .he'd surely demolish me at that point, but he had earned one well-placed punch in the jaw.

I am now adding Vickerson to that list.

You never know, you may have a chance.....here's hope:lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t94ixGSEgyU

[LTC Pain]

The Broncos should cut Vickerson at the end of the year. Sign a FA DT next summer or draft one. Vickerson is like the thug/goon on a hockey team that always takes a stupid penalty each game while not contributing much. Maybe inactivate his ass and let Sly play the next game!!!

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

LTC, Vick is a big reason our run D is soo good this year. I wouldn't say he hasn't contributed.

[Joel]

LTC, Vick is a big reason our run D is soo good this year. I wouldn't say he hasn't contributed.
Agreed, and just because he doesn't look where he's going when WALKING after a play and QBs know to flop if he so much as brushes them doesn't make him a "thug." Luck and RGIII probably got hurt more when they hit the ground under their own power than when Vickerson hit them. He's not Albert Haynesworth, for Petes sake. :rolleyes:

[Northman]

Yea, i thought the call yesterday was very ticky tack as he just basically walked into Griffin but when yous start getting a rep for late hits they will throw the flag.

[Dzone]

Woodyard back! Gotta have him for the chrgers chiefs patriots stretch

[TXBRONC]

BTW, I don't think it's a coincidence that Woodyard was back out there and all of a sudden guys weren't out of position nearly as much. The QB of our D is pretty vital.

Somebody give him next week off. ;)

~G

I've said that in many respects when Woodyard was missing from the line up it was in many respects a bigger hit to the defense than losing Miller.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

TD made a great point this morning. He said something like the Broncos offense scores so quickly most of the time, that the defense is out on the field a lot.

[SR]

The Broncos should cut Vickerson at the end of the year. Sign a FA DT next summer or draft one. Vickerson is like the thug/goon on a hockey team that always takes a stupid penalty each game while not contributing much. Maybe inactivate his ass and let Sly play the next game!!!

Vick's play isn't the problem. Sly is still on the roster???

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Terrence Knighton is on with Vic now on Xfinity Monday Live, and Terrence said that Wesley talked to the defense before the game, and that Peyton treats every practice as if it was a game.

[Northman]

Terrence Knighton is on with Vic now on Xfinity Monday Live, and Terrence said that Wesley talked to the defense before the game, and that Peyton treats every practice as if it was a game.

Woody is da man.

[NightTerror218]

Big Vick might need to start splitting reps with Williams

[Joel]

TD made a great point this morning. He said something like the Broncos offense scores so quickly most of the time, that the defense is out on the field a lot.
That's always the downside of big play passing offenses: Score too quickly and their D's barely winded, while ours is right back on the field before the Gatorade cups are half empty. The ABILITY to strike fast and often is good, and it's admittedly hard to maintain game efficiency at it without doing it a lot in games. Yet there's definitely such a thing as scoring too quickly, especially with a speedy D and/or against opponents who can and will grind them down running. The Run 'n Shoot Oilers were notorious for being all "shoot" and no "run," which came back to bite them hard in the largest NFL comeback ever (in the playoffs, no less.)

[powderaddict]

That's always the downside of big play passing offenses: Score too quickly and their D's barely winded, while ours is right back on the field before the Gatorade cups are half empty. The ABILITY to strike fast and often is good, and it's admittedly hard to maintain game efficiency at it without doing it a lot in games. Yet there's definitely such a thing as scoring too quickly, especially with a speedy D and/or against opponents who can and will grind them down running. The Run 'n Shoot Oilers were notorious for being all "shoot" and no "run," which came back to bite them hard in the largest NFL comeback ever (in the playoffs, no less.)

BS.

If you can put 7 on the board, do it. That puts pressure on the opposing team to try and keep up.

Sure the players may get "gassed" a bit more quickly. But any chance to put 7 on the board, you have to take it. Even with a tired D, it's asking a lot of the opposing offenses to try and keep up with Manning & Co. The vast majority cannot.

[Ravage!!!]

Yea, i thought the call yesterday was very ticky tack as he just basically walked into Griffin but when yous start getting a rep for late hits they will throw the flag.

It absolutely was ticky-tacky... never even as bad as the one against Indianopolis....but he DID do it intentionally.

Like all D-lineman, they like to let the QB know they were "almost there" to get into their head and get the QB thinking. DL used to always be sure to touch you, slap you, brush you as they rushed by, after you got rid of the ball to make you fell "damn I was just right there." So Vick has it in his head he wants to do the same thing, get into the QBs head with the "I Was just right here" bump.

The one in INdy was stupid but Ticky Tacky... the one in Washington was flat out DUMB after getting the penalty in Indy. Glad Fox sat his ass down.

[Ravage!!!]

BS.

If you can put 7 on the board, do it. That puts pressure on the opposing team to try and keep up.

Sure the players may get "gassed" a bit more quickly. But any chance to put 7 on the board, you have to take it. Even with a tired D, it's asking a lot of the opposing offenses to try and keep up. The vast majority cannot.

Well.. tell that to Manning and Moreno at the end of the Dallas game when they decided for Moreno NOT to score the 7 points and instead just get the 1st down so that they didn't leave time on the clock.

I get what you are saying, and I agree. But it IS something that offenses have to consider. It's no different than going 3 and out and not giving your defense a chance to rest. Although it's not like you can simply "choose" when to score and when not to, sustaining a drive and using clock ABSOLUTELY has merit and is a part of MANY offensive schemes.

[powderaddict]

Well.. tell that to Manning and Moreno at the end of the Dallas game when they decided for Moreno NOT to score the 7 points and instead just get the 1st down so that they didn't leave time on the clock.

I get what you are saying, and I agree. But it IS something that offenses have to consider. It's no different than going 3 and out and not giving your defense a chance to rest. Although it's not like you can simply "choose" when to score and when not to, sustaining a drive and using clock ABSOLUTELY has merit and is a part of MANY offensive schemes.

In very specific and rare circumstances, such as at the end of the game/half as you mentioned, yes there are times when not scoring on any given play is a benefit.

My comment was to the idea that scoring on drives too quickly is a problem. If a drive ends in a TD, then I don't really care how fast it happened. The other team still has to match it. Not too many teams can keep up with this offense. Even with a "gassed" defense.

[Joel]

It absolutely was ticky-tacky... never even as bad as the one against Indianopolis....but he DID do it intentionally.

Like all D-lineman, they like to let the QB know they were "almost there" to get into their head and get the QB thinking. DL used to always be sure to touch you, slap you, brush you as they rushed by, after you got rid of the ball to make you fell "damn I was just right there." So Vick has it in his head he wants to do the same thing, get into the QBs head with the "I Was just right here" bump.

The one in INdy was stupid but Ticky Tacky... the one in Washington was flat out DUMB after getting the penalty in Indy. Glad Fox sat his ass down.
I don't think the Luck hit was even deliberate; Vickerson's head was turned 90° away watching the 3rd down pass, hoping to get the ball back with a chance to score a TD and pull within 2. Then, all of a sudden: QB. Luck flops, refs give them 15 yds and a first instead of making them punt from their end zone (with Bruton hoping for another block,) and we helplessly watch the last grains of sand trickle through the hourglass. Had it been Manning the refs probably call him for Unnecessary Roughness on the linemans shoulder. :rolleyes:


BS.

If you can put 7 on the board, do it. That puts pressure on the opposing team to try and keep up.

Sure the players may get "gassed" a bit more quickly. But any chance to put 7 on the board, you have to take it. Even with a tired D, it's asking a lot of the opposing offenses to try and keep up with Manning & Co. The vast majority cannot.
Had the Chargers played Indy that way Luck would've lit them up for 40 points. Instead he sat on the sidelines fuming as his team trailed most of the game and he had to wait for a rare opportunity to comeback, knowing he couldn't afford more than a few punts or he'd lose. Which, incidentally, is what happened.

Speaking of Dallas, they were up by 10 in the fourth Sunday when Detriot went on a long drive for its first TD, but Dallas immediately answered with a long TD pass—and put their exhausted D right back on the field so Detroit could score another TD. Give the Dallas D credit; when their offense couldn't score again they forced a Detroit punt, but a costly penalty on 3rd down stopped the clock with >1:00 left even though Dallas was in FG range, and after the kick Detroit zipped downfield for the winning TD against a defense that had played a great game but was utterly spent by that point.

Or a simpler example: If a team puts together a long scoring drive and the other one runs the kick back for a TD, another scoring drive isn't guaranteed, but it's very likely, and the longer the drive lasts the more fatigued the defense becomes. Defenders get tired; it's just that simple. A three play scoring drive doesn't rest them or tire opposing Ds any more than a three-and-out; it just gives them more cushion.

[powderaddict]

I get what you are saying, and I'm not saying that quick scoring drives are as effective as long scoring drives, but I'm saying that you score as often as you can. This offense is so powerful, so potent, that when they are going, points and drives come quick. If it's working, don't slow it down.

Many times Manning takes the playclock down to just a few seconds. That's great, keep it up! But I don't buy this "scoring too fast" as a bad thing in any way. If the passing game is working, and the team is scoring TD's, no need to dial it back. If you can get the running game going and extend drives, then great! Do it. Once the game is out of reach, sure, run the clock. But until that point, take every point you can get!

I don't see where a quick TD is ever a bad thing (game/half ending scenarios excepted). Should players take a knee when they have a clear path to the endzone in order to extend the TOP? Quick TD's puts pressure on opposing offenses, and teams cannot keep up with this offense. I'm just saying I don't feel there is ever a "too quick" TD - again, end of game/half scenarios excluded.

For the record, the Broncos defense got BETTER yesterday as the game went on. Points from the offense were coming fast and furiously, and the Defense did not look tired out - they were imposing their will on the Skins by the end of the game. The Redskins defense, however, looked tired and beaten by the end of the game.

[Ravage!!!]

I don't think the Luck hit was even deliberate; Vickerson's head was turned 90° away watching the 3rd down pass, hoping to get the ball back with a chance to score a TD and pull within 2. Then, all of a sudden: QB. Luck flops, refs give them 15 yds and a first instead of making them punt from their end zone (with Bruton hoping for another block,) and we helplessly watch the last grains of sand trickle through the hourglass. Had it been Manning the refs probably call him for Unnecessary Roughness on the linemans shoulder. :rolleyes:

No, Vick did it on purpose. He sticks his chest out as if giving a belly-bump. He definitely did it on purpose and Luck absolutely laid out the flop. But Vick shouldn't have touched the QB. As we saw in the following week to RG3, he feels he HAS to. Vick just needs to give that BS up as that penalty BEAT us against the Colts. That was a HUGE stop by our defense that Vick completely ruined with STUPID STUPID shit.

[claymore]

No, Vick did it on purpose. He sticks his chest out as if giving a belly-bump. He definitely did it on purpose and Luck absolutely laid out the flop. But Vick shouldn't have touched the QB. As we saw in the following week to RG3, he feels he HAS to. Vick just needs to give that BS up as that penalty BEAT us against the Colts. That was a HUGE stop by our defense that Vick completely ruined with STUPID STUPID shit.

Hopefully with Miller back Vickersons frustration subsides, or he grows up. That stuff is ridiculous.

[Joel]

I get what you are saying, and I'm not saying that quick scoring drives are as effective as long scoring drives, but I'm saying that you score as often as you can. This offense is so powerful, so potent, that when they are going, points and drives come quick. If it's working, don't slow it down.

Many times Manning takes the playclock down to just a few seconds. That's great, keep it up! But I don't buy this "scoring too fast" as a bad thing in any way. If the passing game is working, and the team is scoring TD's, no need to dial it back. If you can get the running game going and extend drives, then great! Do it. Once the game is out of reach, sure, run the clock. But until that point, take every point you can get!

I don't see where a quick TD is ever a bad thing (game/half ending scenarios excepted). Should players take a knee when they have a clear path to the endzone in order to extend the TOP? Quick TD's puts pressure on opposing offenses, and teams cannot keep up with this offense. I'm just saying I don't feel there is ever a "too quick" TD - again, end of game/half scenarios excluded.

For the record, the Broncos defense got BETTER yesterday as the game went on. Points from the offense were coming fast and furiously, and the Defense did not look tired out - they were imposing their will on the Skins by the end of the game. The Redskins defense, however, looked tired and beaten by the end of the game.
The object of the game isn't to score lots of points, but to outscore the opponent. If that sounds contradictory, an example: Which is better, winning 7-0 or losing 35-38? Score points AND run the clock; the only time running the clock shouldn't be part of the equation is when a team is trailing by multiple scores late in a half, and needs multiple possessions to pull even/ahead. If we only have one drive per quarter that's fine if it ends in a TD, keeps our defense fresh and completely wears out the opponents. Given our Ds dismal record of scores on possessions beginning with <1:00 in a half, scoring as time expires should be a high priority.

For the record, the Broncos D got progressively WORSE as the first half continued, because our offenses perpetual three-and-outs left them on the field far too long, until they were completely gassed by the time the Redskins began their final drive, finishing in our end zone.

They got better as the second half went on, but except for 3 play TD "drive" that began on our 19 they spent half the third quarter on the sideline for a Denver TD drive so long it featured 12 plays and a 4th down conversion. Of course our D was good after that; they'd only run three plays in the past hour. After that they ran 6 plays and gave up a first down before forcing a punt to our 17 for a drive that lasted 16 plays and ended with another 4th down conversion (for a TD) to start the fourth quarter.

Let's put that another way: After the half time break, our D ran 9 plays in the third quarter (3 on a 19 play TD drive) and Washingtons ran 34; gee, I wonder why our D was so good in the fourth quarter. ;) Partly BECAUSE they were still fresh, they forced a three-and-out after we tied the game, and, partly because Washingtons D was so fatigued (and partly because of Roccas awful punt,) Moreno took a screen to the end zone for the lead on the very next play. I'd rather it had taken longer, but that three-and-out didn't fatigue our D much, and Miller and Wolfe combined for a strip-sack on the next drive; our offense couldn't do much, but the FG gave us a two score lead.

After that it was a nightmare scenario for Washington: Down two scores in the fourth, on the road against a defense that's barely played a dozen downs since the end of the first half. The 'Skins quickly went into one-dimensional Two Minute Drill mode, and our rested D took full advantage of fresh legs and the certainty they could sell out on the pass. Our D played very well in the first half, but finally wore out and broke down at the end because they'd been on the field too much; in the second half the offense kept them off the field for most of the third quarter, which made them even better in the fourth.

Scoring is always good, but winning requires not just scoring, but scoring with a favorable rhythm and tempo. Rest your D, tire theirs, keep opposing Mannings, Rodgerses, Bradys and Lucks innocuously on the sideline (the way SD beat Indy.) The Pack didn't lose SB XXXVII because they "let" Denver score, Denver won it by scoring the championship TD with <2:00 left. That's why todays commentators talk about "Four [or even five] Minute Drills" as much as Two Minute: Because once there's <5:00 left in a half, the team with the ball should concentrate as much on having the ball last as on scoring.

Just to round things out, that goes for BOTH halves; the team that has the ball last in the first half effectively gets an extra possession (i.e. it's as good as a turnover,) either because they had to start the first half or will GET it to start the second half. It's hard to do, but worth the attempt; a team that kicks to start the game can be down 10 on its final possession of the half yet be up by 4 the next time their opponents get the ball, simply by managing the clock so they score a TD to end the half, then get the ball for another TD drive to start the second.

There is definitely such a thing as scoring too quickly; Dallas found that out on CONSECUTIVE drives against Detroit last week, consequently, we haven't beaten a winning team.

[Joel]

No, Vick did it on purpose. He sticks his chest out as if giving a belly-bump. He definitely did it on purpose and Luck absolutely laid out the flop. But Vick shouldn't have touched the QB. As we saw in the following week to RG3, he feels he HAS to. Vick just needs to give that BS up as that penalty BEAT us against the Colts. That was a HUGE stop by our defense that Vick completely ruined with STUPID STUPID shit.
I don't think he COULD have done it on purpose, because as soon as the pass was released (before Vickerson even crossed the goal line) he turned to watch the ball to see whether the Colts would punt from their end zone, up by 9 with 5:00, or a first down completion would give them (at least) three more plays to burn the clock. Likewise, I don't think he stuck his chest out, I think he belatedly pulled up when bumping Luck reminded Vickerson he was still quite present and far more relevant than he should be after a pass. Take another look; how well does that fit the video? http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/10/andrew-luck-flop-broncos-kevin-vickerson/

If Vickerson wanted to tag Luck to "let him know he was close," I don't think would've looked away THREE STEPS before getting to the QB, then given him a little lovetap: He'd have watched long enough to ENSURE contact, and made certain that contact was felt. After all, he knows refs will flag him for even breathing on a QB; if you KNOW you're getting flagged, might as well make the hit worth it, right?

Note: Even by that interpretation it was still an inexcusably careless boneheaded play, because we DO know refs WILL flag ALL QB contact, and Vickerson should have the sense to know the guy he was charging a couple seconds ago is still in front of him: Watch where you're GOING; the refs and your teammates will let you know if it's 4th down or 1st. Of course, had he been looking ahead when another lineman knocked the ball back to bounce off his shoulderpads we'd be screaming about the dullwitted tunnel-visioned ox who can't stop thinking about crunching QBs long enough to snag an easy game-changing TD interception. :rolleyes:

[TXBRONC]

BS.

If you can put 7 on the board, do it. That puts pressure on the opposing team to try and keep up.

Sure the players may get "gassed" a bit more quickly. But any chance to put 7 on the board, you have to take it. Even with a tired D, it's asking a lot of the opposing offenses to try and keep up with Manning & Co. The vast majority cannot.

I agree with you that if you can put seven on the board quickly do it. The downside is that defense might be winded on the other hand the pressure it puts on an opposing offense can force into mistakes.

[Ravage!!!]

I don't think he COULD have done it on purpose, because as soon as the pass was released (before Vickerson even crossed the goal line) he turned to watch the ball to see whether the Colts would punt from their end zone, up by 9 with 5:00, or a first down completion would give them (at least) three more plays to burn the clock. Likewise, I don't think he stuck his chest out, I think he belatedly pulled up when bumping Luck reminded Vickerson he was still quite present and far more relevant than he should be after a pass. Take another look; how well does that fit the video? http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/10/andrew-luck-flop-broncos-kevin-vickerson/

If Vickerson wanted to tag Luck to "let him know he was close," I don't think would've looked away THREE STEPS before getting to the QB, then given him a little lovetap: He'd have watched long enough to ENSURE contact, and made certain that contact was felt. After all, he knows refs will flag him for even breathing on a QB; if you KNOW you're getting flagged, might as well make the hit worth it, right?



He did it on purpose. It's pretty obvious to everyone, and the ref, that he did it on purpose. I don't know what you are looking at, and if you want to believe he did it on "accident" that is your right. But I think that's like believing the child tht said they didn't "mean" to get into the cookie jar. Honestly, it truly is trying to look away from the obvious facts by saying Vick did that by accident.

As far as "making it worth it".... No. You've completely missed the point. They know refs flag of HITS, and he thought/thinks that "bumping" isn't hit, but will let the QB know I'm there. It's been that way for YEARS, and even when QBs were allowed to be tackled, DEs and DTs watned to always let you know they were "just this close" by giving a small bump. That bump is enough to let a QB know they were "close" without having to go to the ground.

He figured the "bump" wouldn't get him the flag, not to mention, wouldn't get him a fine. That's why he didn't pull the EXTREMELY STUPID move of hitting him hard figuring "make it worth it." That would have been beyond retarded.

[Joel]

He did it on purpose. It's pretty obvious to everyone, and the ref, that he did it on purpose. I don't know what you are looking at, and if you want to believe he did it on "accident" that is your right. But I think that's like believing the child tht said they didn't "mean" to get into the cookie jar. Honestly, it truly is trying to look away from the obvious facts by saying Vick did that by accident.

As far as "making it worth it".... No. You've completely missed the point. They know refs flag of HITS, and he thought/thinks that "bumping" isn't hit, but will let the QB know I'm there. It's been that way for YEARS, and even when QBs were allowed to be tackled, DEs and DTs watned to always let you know they were "just this close" by giving a small bump. That bump is enough to let a QB know they were "close" without having to go to the ground.

He figured the "bump" wouldn't get him the flag, not to mention, wouldn't get him a fine. That's why he didn't pull the EXTREMELY STUPID move of hitting him hard figuring "make it worth it." That would have been beyond retarded.
It USED to be that way; now refs flag ALL contact with QBs, and have since Franklin entered the pros three years ago; it's not news. Defenders can't legally "remind" QBs anymore, because it's ALWAYS flagged (unless against Denvers QB; then, y'know, just don't use a lead pipe or (loaded) gun.) Franklin knew all that before the Colts game, so there was no reason to knowingly bump instead of level knowing both would get the same flag. If he genuinely was trying to bump Luck he walked (not ran) a LONG way facing the other way; he's not looking at Luck at ANY point in the clip, which is a challenging way to "target" anyone.

There's a strong case to be made—it just won't CHANGE anything, because everyone but the NFLs top-paid passer is untouchable and will remain so. Therefore, neither Franklin nor anyone else can afford the luxury of losing track of the QB after a throw; he'll just have to watch the QB till he reaches his own sideline and hope that doesn't make him miss a key play elsewhere.