• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Shafer hit vs Harper hit

Namib said:
The "fan" in your name makes sense. The players are not coached to strike the knees except maybe at Sacramento State. They are taught to hit below the center of gravity so the upper body weight pulls the player down. Just because there is not a specific rule banning strikes to the side of the knee doesn't make it okay. I'd be happy to demonstrate the difference to you some time.
Click to expand...
Namib said:
The "fan" in your name makes sense. The players are not coached to strike the knees except maybe at Sacramento State. They are taught to hit below the center of gravity so the upper body weight pulls the player down. Just because there is not a specific rule banning strikes to the side of the knee doesn't make it okay. I'd be happy to demonstrate the difference to you some time.
Click to expand...

I don’t think we are disagreeing as much as you imply, but that’s kinda the point.

Nobody is coaching a DB to “strike knees.” They’re coached to hit low, wrap, and get a much bigger ball carrier on the ground, especially right after the catch. At game speed, angle and timing matter — “below center of gravity” versus “side of the knee” isn’t a conscious decision.

The issue is consistency. One hit gets called “unfortunate” even though it drew a targeting penalty, while another is labeled “dirty” despite no flag and no rule violation. That’s outcome-based judgment, not intent.
 
bobcatfan123 said:
I don’t think we are disagreeing as much as you imply, but that’s kinda the point.

Nobody is coaching a DB to “strike knees.” They’re coached to hit low, wrap, and get a much bigger ball carrier on the ground, especially right after the catch. At game speed, angle and timing matter — “below center of gravity” versus “side of the knee” isn’t a conscious decision.

The issue is consistency. One hit gets called “unfortunate” even though it drew a targeting penalty, while another is labeled “dirty” despite no flag and no rule violation. That’s outcome-based judgment, not intent.
Click to expand...
.
 
Last edited:
5280Griz said:
Tim was a very good football player as well all the way through the NFL. Shannon Sharpe mentioned Tim Hauck as one of the hardest hitting defensive players he ever went against in the NFL. Shannon Sharpe was teammates with guys like Ray Lewis, Steve Atwater and Bill Romanowski in addition to Tim Hauck.
Click to expand...
Tim, “Hitter Hauck” was great. Thanks for the reminder. Also, being mentioned in the same vein as Steve Atwater is nothing to sneeze at. Do you remember the hit Atwater put on Christian Okoye? That’s one of the top 5 hardest hits I’ve witnessed in my lifetime…
 
Ursus Horriblis said:
Tim, “Hitter Hauck” was great. Thanks for the reminder. Also, being mentioned in the same vein as Steve Atwater is nothing to sneeze at. Do you remember the hit Atwater put on Christian Okoye? That’s one of the top 5 hardest hits I’ve witnessed in my lifetime…
Click to expand...
That was around 4 years before I was born so I don’t remember it ha but I have heard about how great of a player Steve Atwater was. I’ve been a Broncos fan my whole life.
 
bobcatfan123 said:
I don’t think we are disagreeing as much as you imply, but that’s kinda the point.

Nobody is coaching a DB to “strike knees.” They’re coached to hit low, wrap, and get a much bigger ball carrier on the ground, especially right after the catch. At game speed, angle and timing matter — “below center of gravity” versus “side of the knee” isn’t a conscious decision.

The issue is consistency. One hit gets called “unfortunate” even though it drew a targeting penalty, while another is labeled “dirty” despite no flag and no rule violation. That’s outcome-based judgment, not intent.
Click to expand...
In the situation with 84, the defender went for the knee. It is a conscious decision. He may have been afraid of 84's size, but it is just wrong is say it was not a conscious decision. You have obviously never played d-back, especially in college. Probably never played it. It wasn't just a snap decision. The defender had time to see the ball and 84 coming. The defender went low to the knees. Dirty play.

You can say all the crap you want about this, but on this narrow point, you are dead wrong. It's shows you never played the game. If I runner is lowering his head, making a move, getting hit by others from behind or the side, then the analysis is different. That wasn't the case here.

The "intent" was where to hit/tackler 84. It is always dirty to hit a receiver like 84 in the knees in this situation. It just IS.

Not saying anyone is coached to do this, nor that injury was the intention, nor that the kid is a bad kid. But hitting in the knee was "intentional" because that's where he chose to make the tackle. It was an accident. In football and rugby, I can't even tell you have many 1000's, perhaps 10,000's, tackles I made in the career. I played rugby in 5 decades. I was a tackler from the beginning to the end. Could still tackle at the end, just couldn't catch anyone or track anyone down unless they were right in my path.
 
mthoopsfan said:
In the situation with 84, the defender went for the knee. It is a conscious decision. He may have been afraid of 84's size, but it is just wrong is say it was not a conscious decision. You have obviously never played d-back, especially in college. Probably never played it. It wasn't just a snap decision. The defender had time to see the ball and 84 coming. The defender went low to the knees. Dirty play.

You can say all the crap you want about this, but on this narrow point, you are dead wrong. It's shows you never played the game. If I runner is lowering his head, making a move, getting hit by others from behind or the side, then the analysis is different. That wasn't the case here.

The "intent" was where to hit/tackler 84. It is always dirty to hit a receiver like 84 in the knees in this situation. It just IS.

Not saying anyone is coached to do this, nor that injury was the intention, nor that the kid is a bad kid. But hitting in the knee was "intentional" because that's where he chose to make the tackle. It was an accident. In football and rugby, I can't even tell you have many 1000's, perhaps 10,000's, tackles I made in the career. I played rugby in 5 decades. I was a tackler from the beginning to the end. Could still tackle at the end, just couldn't catch anyone or track anyone down unless they were right in my path.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize you played rugby as well, or that your daughter does too — that’s actually pretty cool that you share that.

You’re right, I never played past high school. I was a mediocre athlete who worked hard but was never a standout. Most of my takes come from observation and logic more than my limited playing experience.

That said, one thing I’ve noticed — especially with DBs — is that they’re often great in coverage but not always textbook tacklers. Their job is speed, leverage, and reaction, not form tackling like linebackers.

You’ve got 20+ years between football and rugby, so you’re clearly more of a subject-matter expert than I am. I’m happy to learn from that perspective — and yeah, sorry I was smart ass earlier.
 
bobcatfan123 said:
I don’t think we are disagreeing as much as you imply, but that’s kinda the point.

Nobody is coaching a DB to “strike knees.” They’re coached to hit low, wrap, and get a much bigger ball carrier on the ground, especially right after the catch. At game speed, angle and timing matter — “below center of gravity” versus “side of the knee” isn’t a conscious decision.

The issue is consistency. One hit gets called “unfortunate” even though it drew a targeting penalty, while another is labeled “dirty” despite no flag and no rule violation. That’s outcome-based judgment, not intent.
Click to expand...
Yea we agree some. The targeting was definitely by the book and coaches do not typically coach to hit the knees though I sometimes wonder. Where your lack of understanding comes in is your perception of time and intent. Time for you is so fast that you probably would have to watch a replay several times to truly understand what happens. In combat, which football is, time slows way down. Your eye and brain make an incredible number of calculations right up until the point of impact. Ultimately, the body part your eye and then your brain is controlling is where you ultimately hit. 200 pound defensive college football players do not close their eyes. This is not peewee football. #24 hit what he was looking at. He chose to hit that spot. He probably finished the tackle with one of those oh shit moments, but you can't write this off as a "game speed" unintentional error. That's just not the way it happens. Was he saying to himself "I should hit him in the knees so he has a career ending injury"? I doubt it, but he did aim and hit a couple of inches above the side of the knee. Granted the probable consequence was not a factor since that takes a fully developed frontal lobe which is by all reports not happening in these boys until much older. Might be appreciated if he reached out to #84 if he regrets what happened. I know I'm going to catch hell for saying it, but even though I'm a huge Montana Griz Fan, I'm also a Montanan and will be rooting for you guys (I cant's say the words) down in Nashville. Play hard, play clean and bring the trophy back to Montana. We'll kick your ass next year.
 
wbtfg said:
so what you're saying is that you don't really have a clue.......?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I don't have to be able to perform the evaluation to know that in every game I've watched when targeting happened the player is evaluated off to the side it takes more than 40 seconds or one play. I think that shows disrespect for the player who is his own worst enemy in a concussion situation.
 
mthoopsfan said:
In the situation with 84, the defender went for the knee. It is a conscious decision. He may have been afraid of 84's size, but it is just wrong is say it was not a conscious decision. You have obviously never played d-back, especially in college. Probably never played it. It wasn't just a snap decision. The defender had time to see the ball and 84 coming. The defender went low to the knees. Dirty play.

You can say all the crap you want about this, but on this narrow point, you are dead wrong. It's shows you never played the game. If I runner is lowering his head, making a move, getting hit by others from behind or the side, then the analysis is different. That wasn't the case here.

The "intent" was where to hit/tackler 84. It is always dirty to hit a receiver like 84 in the knees in this situation. It just IS.

Not saying anyone is coached to do this, nor that injury was the intention, nor that the kid is a bad kid. But hitting in the knee was "intentional" because that's where he chose to make the tackle. It was an accident. In football and rugby, I can't even tell you have many 1000's, perhaps 10,000's, tackles I made in the career. I played rugby in 5 decades. I was a tackler from the beginning to the end. Could still tackle at the end, just couldn't catch anyone or track anyone down unless they were right in my path.
Click to expand...
Great reply. I told this guy the same thing. You hit what you are looking at and you look at where you intend to hit. Simple choice. Are you really 75? I didn't know football players lived that long. Tucker, GA class of 68.
 
mthoopsfan said:
In the situation with 84, the defender went for the knee. It is a conscious decision. He may have been afraid of 84's size, but it is just wrong is say it was not a conscious decision. You have obviously never played d-back, especially in college. Probably never played it. It wasn't just a snap decision. The defender had time to see the ball and 84 coming. The defender went low to the knees. Dirty play.

You can say all the crap you want about this, but on this narrow point, you are dead wrong. It's shows you never played the game. If I runner is lowering his head, making a move, getting hit by others from behind or the side, then the analysis is different. That wasn't the case here.

The "intent" was where to hit/tackler 84. It is always dirty to hit a receiver like 84 in the knees in this situation. It just IS.

Not saying anyone is coached to do this, nor that injury was the intention, nor that the kid is a bad kid. But hitting in the knee was "intentional" because that's where he chose to make the tackle. It was an accident. In football and rugby, I can't even tell you have many 1000's, perhaps 10,000's, tackles I made in the career. I played rugby in 5 decades. I was a tackler from the beginning to the end. Could still tackle at the end, just couldn't catch anyone or track anyone down unless they were right in my path.
Click to expand...
You're right. You're always right. Except when you're wrong which is nearly always. But I digress. The defender simply should have tried to make the tackle against a 280 pound freight train at 18 mph at chest level, been pummeled into submission, allowed the Griz to score, waived a white flag in the end zone with small print that said 'Hulahoops is a stable genius!', and allowed the Griz to win. Huge tactical error. Has it occurred to you that analysts who are paid to actually watch football, are younger, smarter, better versed, and professional disagree with you at a 100% clip? A better question; are you paid to promote Griz football and Bobby Hauck regardless of facts, stats, & overwhelming video evidence?
 
Vamos Gatos Vamos said:
You're right. You're always right. Except when you're wrong which is nearly always. But I digress. The defender simply should have tried to make the tackle against a 280 pound freight train at 18 mph at chest level, been pummeled into submission, allowed the Griz to score, waived a white flag in the end zone with small print that said 'Hulahoops is a stable genius!', and allowed the Griz to win. Huge tactical error. Has it occurred to you that analysts who are paid to actually watch football, are younger, smarter, better versed, and professional disagree with you at a 100% clip? A better question; are you paid to promote Griz football and Bobby Hauck regardless of facts, stats, & overwhelming video evidence?
Click to expand...
You are clueless about football, tackling by a d-back in football, and tackling in that situation. It is always a dirty play and wrong to tackle/hit a knee in that situation. ALWAYS. Because such a tackles leads to exactly what happened. You never played the game; I did. I played in the secondary. No one has suggested hitting the TE at chest level. You tackle him above the knee in the thigh or mid-level. Only a total pussy would be afraid to tackle there and from the 2/3 angle. Is he afraid to tackle? What is wrong with you? You don't know what you are talking about. No one who understands tackling in that situation in football disagrees with me.
 
Last edited:
After reading this entire thread, I feel it is obvious that a Move-Up is the best choice for UM and MSU. Just ask JMU and Boise State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top