The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

ESPN just announced, he was suspended by Roger Goodell, without pay, for his horse-collar tackle on McNabb yesterday. He plans to appeal tomorrow

JSPB22 wrote:ESPN just announced, he was suspended by Roger Goodell, without pay, for his horse-collar tackle on McNabb yesterday. He plans to appeal tomorrow

He should be suspended for TWO games.

He does this at least once a game. I am surprised they didnt name the penalty the Williams Whip. He does it all the time and thank god they suspended him... a so called one of the best FS in the game, please!

I was hoping 2 games...damn. He'll be refeshed.

The timing of the appeal process will be important here. If no decision is made this week but is later upheld, Toasty #31 may play in Week 16 but will serve his suspension in Week 17.
If that happens, someone else in the Dallas secondary will simply have to step in and allow a deep touchdown or two in Roy's place.

Of course, we all know that if the 'Skins are able to beat the Cowboys in two weeks it will be a direct result of Mr. Smiley's poor wittle hurt thumby....

I'd rather have Williams playing - he's more of a liability in pass coverage - if he's out they may well put someone in his place that will maybe be not so strong in run support but is better against the pass.

Really is not going to affect things too much - it will still come down to the same thing. Whoever wants it more, will do enough to win. These NFC East games are more and more a test of character and willpower.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:ESPN just announced, he was suspended by Roger Goodell, without pay, for his horse-collar tackle on McNabb yesterday. He plans to appeal tomorrow

He should be suspended for TWO games.

No! We want him back there on Dec. 30th. He's always good for a couple of burns.

He has the right to appeal - if I were the Cowboys, I'd appeal this week, then drop the appeal and have him serve the suspension against the Redskins.

Honestly, how dumb do you have to be to keep getting caught on a foul that was specifically created for you. Sheesh.

How the heck does this guy keep getting voted to the Pro-Bowl?

He's a safety who can't play the pass. What's the worth in that?

A one game suspension is garbage. The reason the tackle is illegal is because of the injury Roy Williams caused to a former player using the tackle. Williams has been "flagged" for personal fouls for this exact tackle numerous times, and yet there is no deterrence.

Suggestion, Roger Goodell: Make the next one a season suspension, and the one following a lifetime suspension before someone else gets seriously injured by this type of tackle.

One game. In the words of R. Lee Ermey, "You've got to be (euphemism for kidding) me, Maggot!

PulpExposure wrote:He's a safety who can't play the pass. What's the worth in that?

About 14 points in 3 minutes and 46 seconds.

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:He's a safety who can't play the pass. What's the worth in that?

About 14 points in 3 minutes and 46 seconds.

And about three posts in one second.

Couldnt of happened to a nicer guy

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:He's a safety who can't play the pass. What's the worth in that?

About 14 points in 3 minutes and 46 seconds.

*applauds*

PulpExposure wrote:Honestly, how dumb do you have to be to keep getting caught on a foul that was specifically created for you.

Have you played football? It's not easy to unlearn instinct, especially when it was completley legal (and effective) for the first ten or so years of his football life.

The horse-collar rule is, and always will be, stupid. Is it dangerous? Yeah, it's dangerous. That's football. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before the NFL is using "two-hand touch" rules.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Honestly, how dumb do you have to be to keep getting caught on a foul that was specifically created for you.

Have you played football? It's not easy to unlearn instinct, especially when it was completley legal (and effective) for the first ten or so years of his football life.

The horse-collar rule is, and always will be, stupid. Is it dangerous? Yeah, it's dangerous. That's football. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before the NFL is using "two-hand touch" rules.

If there's such a strong instinct to perform this sort of tackle, why aren't other players being fined and suspended for this? The rule was all but named the "Roy Williams Rule" for a very good reason.

The only precedent I can think of right now is Dick "Night Train" Lane's "Night Train Necktie", which was also a violent type of head first tackle. After an injury or two, the league banned tackling above the level of the shoulderpads. As far as I know, "Night Train" was never further disciplined, fined, or suspended for this tackle once the league outlawed it; there was no mysterious "instinct" that drove him to disregard the league's mandate.

I can also add that Dick Lane was one of the best ballhawking and physical corners of all time, and that Roy "Toast" Williams couldn't carry "Night Train's" jock on his very best day, but that's another story.....

"Night Train" Lane was not a Dallas Cowboy or really interested in anything but being the best at what he does.

Williams is not interested in anything but himself! IF he had any talent for playing the game he would also know that you need to adjust - the rule is there and on the particular play with McNabb, he had an opportunity to tackle him in any way he chose BUT he went with the illegal tackle - IMO he did that because he thought that was the best way to hurt McNabb - he has had his chances - they need to really cut into his playing time.

Steve Spurrier, (it feels strange to write that) I understand that this is a physical game but there are a number of rules in place to protect some players from others who have no regard for playing "within the rules" - if you cannot do that you (I am referring to NFL players now) aught to go play flag football with your sissy friends - this is a man's game with rules to protect the men that play it with total abandon BUT within the rules.

absinthe1023 wrote:The rule was all but named the "Roy Williams Rule" for a very good reason.

Williams does not perform the horse collar to be malicious, he does it because it's the way he's learned to take down runners from behind. As opposed to:

absinthe1023 wrote:Dick "Night Train" Lane's "Night Train Necktie", which was also a violent type of head first tackle. After an injury or two, the league banned tackling above the level of the shoulderpads.

That's a head on tackle, and going for the head in that situation is usually done to be malicious. Unlike the horse collar, there are more effective ways of grounding a runner than going for the helmet.

absinthe1023 wrote:"Toast" Williams couldn't carry "Night Train's" jock on his very best day, but that's another story.....

I'm not vouching for Williams as a player, just pointing out that it's going to difficult for him to avoid the horse-collar tackle. I think he's overrated by the media, and underrated by most on this board. He is what he is - a very good run-support safety who is limited in pass defense. But he's still useful, and there's not a team in the league who couldn't use a player with his skill set.

SkinsJock wrote:IMO he did that because he thought that was the best way to hurt McNabb

That's absurd, and completley unfounded.

SkinsJock wrote:there are a number of rules in place to protect some players from others who have no regard for playing "within the rules" - if you cannot do that you (I am referring to NFL players now) aught to go play flag football with your sissy friends - this is a man's game with rules to protect the men that play it with total abandon BUT within the rules.

Yeah, and as recently as two years ago, that play was within the rules. Football players aren't robots, you can't just change the parameters of the game and expect that players will instantly change the way they play. Williams made a habit out of tackling players like this, and it's going to be tough for him to shake that habit.

Ha ha.

He should just be moved to outside linebacker. He cant hang with the faster receivers. He does have the physical tools to play linebacker though.

By the time Williams "gets it" he will not really be effective anywhere on the field IMO - good players can adjust to everything - this guy basically is choosing not to.

If you saw the replay on that particular play (which was showed ad infinitum) Williams could easily have wrapped his arms around McNabb and in dropping his arms down his legs, he could have brought him to the ground in a good hard tackle - he chose not to and IMO he does that because he knows there is a better chance of hurting the player he is tackling than with a good hard tackle.

He is not doing this tackle as frequently as he used to - why is that? - because he chooses to not get penalized for an illegal tackle - BUT in my opinion, there are times when the opportunity is there to hurt another player and he takes it.

There are a lot of players and coaches who say that Williams is not a dirty player If that is the case he should not continue doing this - therefore he is a dirty player and before he gets out of football I hope he gets what he is trying to do to other players - that would be even better than some fines and a suspension.

The Lord works in many ways

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Honestly, how dumb do you have to be to keep getting caught on a foul that was specifically created for you.

Have you played football? It's not easy to unlearn instinct, especially when it was completley legal (and effective) for the first ten or so years of his football life.

Yet somehow, some way, NFL players relearn techniques they were taught in college and highschool every year.

QBs learn new footwork, new throwing mechanics. Linemen learn new blocking stances, new footwork.

If the player is willing to learn, they'll learn. If not...then they get fined and suspended.

PulpExposure wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Honestly, how dumb do you have to be to keep getting caught on a foul that was specifically created for you.

Have you played football? It's not easy to unlearn instinct, especially when it was completley legal (and effective) for the first ten or so years of his football life.

Yet somehow, some way, NFL players relearn techniques they were taught in college and highschool every year.

QBs learn new footwork, new throwing mechanics. Linemen learn new blocking stances, new footwork.

If the player is willing to learn, they'll learn. If not...then they get fined and suspended.

He's also been given a looooong learning curve for that particular behavior, it's not as if they changed the rule yesterday.

I'm not sticking up for Roy or challenging a rule for player safety, but why is it that there is no horse collar on a QB if he is still behind the line of scrimmage. I saw this in a game earlier this year. Drew Brees got flushed out of the pocket and turned up field and got snagged. I can't remember who they where playing. After a short discussion, the ref picked up the flag and said no horse collar the QB was still behind the line of scrimmage.

LOSTHOG wrote:I'm not sticking up for Roy or challenging a rule for player safety, but why is it that there is no horse collar on a QB if he is still behind the line of scrimmage. I saw this in a game earlier this year. Drew Brees got flushed out of the pocket and turned up field and got snagged. I can't remember who they where playing. After a short discussion, the ref picked up the flag and said no horse collar the QB was still behind the line of scrimmage.

He also has to be inside the tackle box. It's kind of like the rule for intentional grounding. If you can't HC the QB there, then it is a serious hindrance to defensive players attempting to make a sack. If the player is engaged with an O-lineman, he is often just trying to get ahold of the QB in any way he can. Once the QB scrambles, though, he becomes a runner, and the same rules apply, other than the feet-first slide.

This is 100% speculation but I would wager it has to do with the fact that if you are making contact in the backfield, there is a decent chance you're still engaged with or just shed a blocker, being encumbered in that way I would assume the league doesn't want to flag guys whose only option is to grab the back of the jersey. In the open field, that's obviously not an issue.

Edit: Yeah, what JSPB22 said.