Football Denvers Oldest Tradition, Continued - Page 4

**Buck** · 10-05-2014, 10:30 PM

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/10/...dinals-broncos

rabblerouser · 10-06-2014, 06:48 AM

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That's just Denver.

MagicHef · 10-06-2014, 07:20 AM

Ok, since this place doesn't always operate based on facts, I'll go ahead and mention that this is the first chop block penalty that Denver has had since 2010. In that time period, KC has been penalized 3 times for chop blocks.

Garcia Bronco · 10-06-2014, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

Of all the nonsense rule changes in recent years to make the NFL more "flag football"ish, as most around here would say, I'm surprised the cut block hasn't been addressed.

Without cutblocks this game would be rather boring.

Every team cutblocks. Including the Chiefs

**LoneWolf** · 10-06-2014, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagicHef

Ok, since this place doesn't always operate based on facts, I'll go ahead and mention that this is the first chop block penalty that Denver has had since 2010. In that time period, KC has been penalized 3 times for chop blocks.

How many times have the Chiefs been accused of being a dirty team? What about Denver?

Now go away and shut the **** up.

**petegz28** · 10-06-2014, 08:42 AM

Thomas should be fined, the block should be made illegal and the Refs should be watching for this more often as it occurs more than we think.

My take on it is this, however, Denver has a history of pushing rules just enough over the limit to not be called but in reality are still illegal. Kinda like there is holding on every play. This is dirty football and this is what set DT off on the Monday Night Meltdown. It's a signature of the Broncos to play dirty while acting like they are above it all.

The Chiefs got called yesterday because a guy being blocked by an o-lineman accidentally brushed his arm into the facemask of a QB. If that's illegal than these knee-shots should most definitely be illegal.

listopencil · 10-06-2014, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

How many times have the Chiefs been accused of being a dirty team? What about Denver?

Now go away and shut the **** up.

Oh, you mean like back in the 90's when Marty put a bounty on QB's like Elway?

ThaVirus · 10-06-2014, 09:47 AM

How long is Calais supposed to be out from this?

Skyy God · 10-06-2014, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

How long is Calais supposed to be out from this?

3-4, I think.

listopencil · 10-06-2014, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Thomas should be fined, the block should be made illegal and the Refs should be watching for this more often as it occurs more than we think.

My take on it is this, however, Denver has a history of pushing rules just enough over the limit to not be called but in reality are still illegal. Kinda like there is holding on every play. This is dirty football and this is what set DT off on the Monday Night Meltdown. It's a signature of the Broncos to play dirty while acting like they are above it all.

The Chiefs got called yesterday because a guy being blocked by an o-lineman accidentally brushed his arm into the facemask of a QB. If that's illegal than these knee-shots should most definitely be illegal.

What set DT off is that he was dating Sharpe's ex. Sharpe infamously asked him, "How does my dick taste?"

**petegz28** · 10-06-2014, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

What set DT off is that he was dating Sharpe's ex. Sharpe infamously asked him, "How does my dick taste?"

Yeah, no

ta900 · 10-06-2014, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

How many times have the Chiefs been accused of being a dirty team? What about Denver?

Now go away and shut the **** up.

Yes this coming from a forum fanbase that only last week had a poster proclaim one of his favorite chiefs v. patriots moments recently was taking out Tom Brady's knee.

DanT · 10-06-2014, 10:01 AM

That play does not look dirty to me. First of all, the tight end hit the defender first, then the tackle hit him. That's a "reverse chop" block. Secondly, the defender does not get to decide who hits him. That's the defender's fault for not protecting himself. So purely on the video, I don't consider that play from the tight end to be even borderline dirty. That looks to me like a good block.

On top of that, for me to consider a play to be "dirty", I'd also like there to be some fairly good evidence of intent. The Broncos linemen are claiming they didn't intend to both engage the defender. There is nothing about that play that makes me think the Broncos are lying about that. The dual engagement is a necessary element for a "chop block".

The technique of the defender on that play, by the way, was risky, in my opinion. If the tackle didn't hit him--and it doesn't look to me that the tackle hit him with anything more than the amount of force that fathers giving away their daughters at wedding use--there wouldn't have even been a discussion of the term "chop block", which has to do with nearly simultaneous engagement high and low. The injury to the defender was, in my opinion, the result of the low block from the tight end and the obliviousness of the defender to the possibility that such a block may be delivered. The tackle didn't cause that injury, but the fact that the tackle gently touched the defender is what made it a "chop block".

But I'm looking at this from the way that we used to play on the line of scrimmage when I was in high school back in the 80's. Maybe the rules are different nowadays, either in the letter or in the interpretation.

In general, though, I've never had any problems with the fact that the Denver Broncos block players on offense. That's what the hell you're supposed to do. And you don't need to get permission from defenders to block them, either.

**petegz28** · 10-06-2014, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanT

That play does not look dirty to me. First of all, the tight end hit the defender first, then the tackle hit him. That's a "reverse chop" block. Secondly, the defender does not get to decide who hits him. That's the defender's fault for not protecting himself. So purely on the video, I don't consider that play from the tight end to be even borderline dirty. That looks to me like a good block.

On top of that, for me to consider a play to be "dirty", I'd also like there to be some fairly good evidence of intent. The Broncos linemen are claiming they didn't intend to both engage the defender. There is nothing about that play that makes me think the Broncos are lying about that. The dual engagement is a necessary element for a "chop block".

The technique of the defender on that play, by the way, was risky, in my opinion. If the tackle didn't hit him--and it doesn't look to me that the tackle hit him with anything more than the amount of force that fathers giving away their daughters at wedding use--there wouldn't have even been a discussion of the term "chop block", which has to do with nearly simultaneous engagement high and low. The injury to the defender was, in my opinion, the result of the low block from the tight end and the obliviousness of the defender to the possibility that such a block may be delivered. The tackle didn't cause that injury, but the fact that the tackle gently touched the defender is what made it a "chop block".

But I'm looking at this from the way that we used to play on the line of scrimmage when I was in high school back in the 80's. Maybe the rules are different nowadays, either in the letter or in the interpretation.

In general, though, I've never had any problems with the fact that the Denver Broncos block players on offense. That's what the hell you're supposed to do. And you don't need to get permission from defenders to block them, either.

right, just like when they run picks and as opposed to plain blocking guys, the WR spins around, acts like he is expecting the ball and falls back into the defenders then says "I thought the ball was coming to me"

listopencil · 10-06-2014, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Yeah, no

Yeah, yes.

DanT · 10-06-2014, 10:07 AM

My previous post depends on the definition of a "chop block", especially the element of simultaneous or near-simultaneous engagement. Some fans are upset with Thomas because they consider what he did a "cut block". I do not have a problem with cut blocks in general, and especially not on the line of scrimmage, unless the player being cut is engaged already with another player above the waist, which would turn the legal cut block into an illegal chop block.

10-05-2014, 10:30 PM
Buck Take a Chill Pill Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Carolina Casino cash: $8319900	Denvers Oldest Tradition, Continued http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/10/...dinals-broncos
Posts: 44,562

10-06-2014, 06:48 AM	#46
rabblerouser left blank intentionally Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Belize Nuts Casino cash: $4694897	The more things change, the more they stay the same. That's just Denver. __________________ MY ADOPT-A-CHIEF : Jody Fortson Jr.
Posts: 32,166

10-06-2014, 07:20 AM	#47
MagicHef The Seated Villain Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Seattle Casino cash: $2460247	Ok, since this place doesn't always operate based on facts, I'll go ahead and mention that this is the first chop block penalty that Denver has had since 2010. In that time period, KC has been penalized 3 times for chop blocks.
Posts: 10,537

10-06-2014, 08:42 AM	#50
petegz28 Supporter Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Olathe, Ks Casino cash: $2784127	Thomas should be fined, the block should be made illegal and the Refs should be watching for this more often as it occurs more than we think. My take on it is this, however, Denver has a history of pushing rules just enough over the limit to not be called but in reality are still illegal. Kinda like there is holding on every play. This is dirty football and this is what set DT off on the Monday Night Meltdown. It's a signature of the Broncos to play dirty while acting like they are above it all. The Chiefs got called yesterday because a guy being blocked by an o-lineman accidentally brushed his arm into the facemask of a QB. If that's illegal than these knee-shots should most definitely be illegal.
Posts: 128,000

10-06-2014, 09:47 AM	#52
ThaVirus Settle this once and forever Join Date: Sep 2007 Casino cash: $2072369	How long is Calais supposed to be out from this?
Posts: 44,267

10-06-2014, 10:01 AM	#57
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4491711	That play does not look dirty to me. First of all, the tight end hit the defender first, then the tackle hit him. That's a "reverse chop" block. Secondly, the defender does not get to decide who hits him. That's the defender's fault for not protecting himself. So purely on the video, I don't consider that play from the tight end to be even borderline dirty. That looks to me like a good block. On top of that, for me to consider a play to be "dirty", I'd also like there to be some fairly good evidence of intent. The Broncos linemen are claiming they didn't intend to both engage the defender. There is nothing about that play that makes me think the Broncos are lying about that. The dual engagement is a necessary element for a "chop block". The technique of the defender on that play, by the way, was risky, in my opinion. If the tackle didn't hit him--and it doesn't look to me that the tackle hit him with anything more than the amount of force that fathers giving away their daughters at wedding use--there wouldn't have even been a discussion of the term "chop block", which has to do with nearly simultaneous engagement high and low. The injury to the defender was, in my opinion, the result of the low block from the tight end and the obliviousness of the defender to the possibility that such a block may be delivered. The tackle didn't cause that injury, but the fact that the tackle gently touched the defender is what made it a "chop block". But I'm looking at this from the way that we used to play on the line of scrimmage when I was in high school back in the 80's. Maybe the rules are different nowadays, either in the letter or in the interpretation. In general, though, I've never had any problems with the fact that the Denver Broncos block players on offense. That's what the hell you're supposed to do. And you don't need to get permission from defenders to block them, either.
Posts: 4,225

10-06-2014, 10:07 AM	#60
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4491711	My previous post depends on the definition of a "chop block", especially the element of simultaneous or near-simultaneous engagement. Some fans are upset with Thomas because they consider what he did a "cut block". I do not have a problem with cut blocks in general, and especially not on the line of scrimmage, unless the player being cut is engaged already with another player above the waist, which would turn the legal cut block into an illegal chop block.
Posts: 4,225