The Steelers/Bengals game horrified Peter King, and as the NFL's moral barometer, he wants the players
to think of the children.
This is what America—families watching together, fathers, mothers and children, teens, college kids, everyone else along the football spectrum, all important consumers of your game—saw in the last 17 minutes of this game...
I find it strange that King lists families and various members of families, but then dumps single and/or childless folks into an "everyone else" bucket. And why are the fathers alone but the moms are with the children?
Pittsburgh linebacker Ryan Shazier ramming Cincinnati running back Gio Bernard with the crown of his helmet, something that year after year, practice after practice, players have been trained and warned not to do.
Do NFL coaches teach proper tackling in practice after practice? That seems like an exaggeration. If they do, with the NFL limitations to padded practices, it might be verbally expressed but not actually trained. There are fewer opportunities to practice tackling than ever before.
By the way, someone wrote this earlier in the season: "Ricardo Allen... plowed through running back Devonta Freeman and sent him sprawling, in clear violation of the spirit of the practice. Players were supposed to stay up and wrap up, not blow them up. But the coaches, after yelling about protecting your teammates, just smiled. Those messages got sent throughout training camp."
Yep, the writer was Peter King. Allen may not have used the crown of his helmet--who knows--but the messages hardly sync.
Cincinnati running back Jeremy Hill running on the field and trying to fight or somehow challenge four different Steelers while Bernard lay injured.
Some people consider teammate loyalty to be a good thing, even King's disgusting defense of Robert Klemko.
Cincinnati linebacker Vontaze Burfict... trying to drive a knee into the injured shoulder of Roethlisberger.
This line irked me for two reasons. First, replays are pretty clear that Burfict did drive his knee into Roethlisberger's shoulder. Now, you might argue intent, but that brings up my second issue: King's usage of "trying to drive a knee" indicates that King believes it was intentional. So, King's wording indicates that he isn't sure if Burfict connected, but the intent was there. King also failed to add that the hit sent Roethlisberger off the field, which is a weird detail to omit when King's overall point that games like this will cost the NFL viewers.
Steelers linebacker coach Joey Porter in the middle of the field where he shouldn’t have been (assistant coaches are not allowed on the field during the game) jawing with assorted Bengals until Cincinnati’s Adam Jones burst past an official to challenge Porter.
This is an awfully simplistic and one-sided account for an NFL insider. Forget that you can see plenty of Cincinnati assistant coaches on the field... didn't King find Hill completely in the wrong for challenging Steeler players after the hit on Bernard? He disregarded the context for Hill's outburst. But now Porter is the one at fault, even though Jones challenged him?
I'm going to try to break this down logically. I have to assume that Hill's and Jones's actions are equal, since they both challenged others to fight. Although, you probably should give an uptick in awfulness to Jones, who threatened a coach--someone without a helmet and protective gear. Now, Shazier's illegal hit (using a technique which he has been repeatedly told not to use) on Bernard did not excuse Hill's actions. But whatever Porter said, and his geographical positioning, did excuse Jones's outburst. Thus, Porter was worst of the bunch.
Demean yourselves. Shame your former coaches and your parents.
That seems a bit dramatic.
Parents who grew up loving the game are agonizing about whether they’ll let their children play football.
As does this. Is agonizing the right word? Besides, I doubt this is a winning argument to the current players. I have a suspicion that they care more about their own pride, ambition, and earnings than they do about the league's long-term future.
A movie, “Concussion,” is out, and Will Smith plays a doctor warning America about the long-term, inescapable dangers of the sport. Have you seen it? You should. I’ve seen it twice, and I’d go again.
Listen up, children--King watched a movie! And it starred a famous actor! Forget the actual research and studies, ignore Chris Borland's rationale and personal example, set aside the common sense that repeated blows to the head are probably bad for you, and Go. See. This. Movie!
King's conflation of the movie's entertainment and educational value is just... so him. The cherry on top is how he makes it about himself. How does it matter that he'd willingly watch it a third time?
You know what I was thinking when I watched the disgusting hit of Burfict on Brown? I have no idea what the short-term impact of that hit will be, but I know there’s a good chance the effects will be seen on Brown’s brain when he’s 50 or 60 or 70. Or 40.
Did King really watch the movie or did he just read the title?
I am writing to issue this plea: Take care of yourselves. Take care of your game.
Forget the children, won't someone think of Peter King?
Nelson could have hit Daniels in the head or knees, but in a split second, he took care to hit Daniels in the upper torso.
King does the NFL no service by using this anecdote to validate a myth. Players can aim for certain areas, but they cannot mentally process the situation and contort themselves to react appropriately within a nanosecond. It's dangerous thinking to believe they can.
I also encourage you to watch the play. Nelson drops his head and fails to wrap up Owens, which is poor fundamental tackling. Also, Owens staying upright was the only reason there was not helmet-to-helmet contact. So, yea for Nelson because Owens didn't have time to protect himself? Finally, it was a big hit, and the back of Owens's head almost hit the ground first. That easily could have caused a concussion. Otherwise it's really good example by King.
More games like this, and Congress will get involved. And I would be happy if Washington does, because games like that one show you’re not capable of looking out for the common good.
Wow. Even for King, this level of attributing blame is stupefying. Where are Blandino, Vincent, and Goodell? King is the uncle who advises his brother to call the cops on his nephews.
What if this game caused more interest in the NFL, and what if big hits meant big ratings? That would mean that the NFL benefits from this carnage, so I guess it would make sense--if the players cannot police themselves--to bypass the league and head straight to Congress. In fact, perhaps Goodell's arbitrary and capricious discipline are part of the problem.
This King guy, he gets it.
I hope you were glad to see the NFL on Monday night suspend Burfict for the first three games of next season. The hit on Brown was part of it. If you didn’t see the bigger reason, you missed Burfict’s incredibly brutal hit on Baltimore rookie Maxx Williams.
The league gave Burfict a $50,000 penalty for this incredibly brutal hit on Williams, which was the basis for the three game suspension. Apparently in King's world the NFLPA should have petitioned the league for a stronger penalty, or the players should have gotten together and told Burfict to stay away. Or told him to cut it out. Just, just, the players should have done something! I hope you all are happy that ol' Roger had to turn this car around and now King is not getting a quarter pounder with cheese and fries and a shake like papa promised.
You know, if the league had been more forceful with it's penalty at the time, maybe Burfict would have thought better of his hit on Brown. It kind of seems like the league has enabled such behavior and reacts out of proportion when public pressure mounts, and might be part of the problem.
If you have a chance Friday night, watch a re-airing of the lost tapes of Super Bowl I.
That's right, watch as players competed in a simpler time when there were fewer player safety rules, concussions were ignored, and players could clothesline each other. What was King's point again?