Mr.T-Bell

[DivineLegion]

I was just reading an article on the banning on the Horse collar tackle and realized this isent only going to help WRs...its gonna help RBs with Blazing speed like Portis and Bell...guys who can clear the front 7 before most of them realize what happened.

Heres to a big year for our boy #26...Tatum Bell a.k.a. Flash

[Play2win]

I was just reading an article on the banning on the Horse collar tackle and realized this isent only going to help WRs...its gonna help RBs with Blazing speed like Portis and Bell...guys who can clear the front 7 before most of them realize what happened.

Heres to a big year for our boy #26...Tatum Bell a.k.a. Flash
Especially one cut and go guys!! They get the angle, THEY'RE GONE!!

Now they don't need the angle to totally elude the defender, just enough so the only way a defender can tackle you is from behind. This could be huge for us!!

[Pendejo]

I think guys will take the 15 or whatever the penalty is for the "horse collar"...if it stops the back from taking it to the house. Guys will pass the hat to help ease the fine if it helps the team win.

[watermock]

I didn't really like it to be banned, but it really has made alot of injuries. If you look at the stats, more than head to head.

They need to relaxe the no bump rule to ten yards.

[GoHAM]

I'm against banning the horsecollar tackle. However, how many times is this tactic actually employed during a game, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one horsecollar per game (as long as your not watching little d). I think this new rule is a knee jerk reaction to Roy Williams injuring TO and the other two players. I will be surprised if this is called even five times per week if that. It will have virtually no real effect on the game.

[Jason in LA]

I don't see the big deal over this rule. One NFL guy said the tackle only happens a dozen or so times a year. The problem is there is a high injury rate when this tackle is used. So I see a need to ban it.

I don't think it will affect the defenders at all. My father use to say "if you can pour salt on a bird's tail, you can catch it". In football terms, that would be "if you are close enough to perform the horse collar tackle, you are close enough to grab the running someplace else". I don't see defenders missing tackles because they can't use the horse collar.

[DarkHorse30]

The biggest change in the last few years is the rule/change/enforcement of the 10 yard zone on DBs. Funny that Denver finally gets a shutdown corner and THEN they change that rule. Regardless, you still need good corners so good corners are still needed/necessary to stop a passing attack.

But consider that Denver has barely been able to take advantage of the new DB rule change because we have too few possession-type receivers that can force a quick 10-yard throw that can't be defended like it used to. Last year, double-teaming Rod Smith was the answer.....which is precisely why Denver lacked a potent redzone offense. Not enough quick targets. Now, with Watts in his second year and the addition of a possession magnet like Rice, and Putzier into his second year....and Lelie looking to be more of an over-the-middle guy....and Bell in his second year where he could be much more a factor in the passing game. (a quick note: Rice's number in passing camp is 19...that would be 18, AND 1....I like it), Denver's opportunities for a quick slant to a good WR should be golden. This opportunity simply wasn't available last year.

That said, the NFL attempted to shut down Denver's O-line by some new rules a few years back....anybody notice a huge drop off in production? Me neither. Let the rulechangers make their new rules....I didn't see very many horsecollar tackles in Denver the last few years.....the most noticeable being one of our safeties taking Priest Holmes down and out a few years back...big deal.

[watermock]

Wow DarkHorse.

You put me to sleep by the third sentence.

You get the homer badge for the week.