drdiags
New member
Pete said the hit on Wilson was legal and it is how the game is played. He said he went ballistic on the ref because he thought Brooks lead with his helmet. So he wasn't whining about the idea of blowing Wilson up, but rather the leading with the helmet was legal. Since Wilson is thought of as a runner, you used to be able to have helmet to helmet but I think that changed along with the RB lowering his helmet to use as a battering ram. With the Brandon Merriweather hit on Lacy in the GB game being noted as a play that should have gotten a flag, this is the same argument Pete was making.
So yes, he did come out saying he didn't have a problem with the NFL view on when the QB was susceptible to being clobbered when the issue came out last week. Says he supports it. It is the helmet to helmet nature of Brooks' hit that got his ire with the refs. Just to give the story as he relayed it today on his daily radio show. The host (Brock Huard) was trying to get him to say the hit was illegal and Pete said no way in it's intent, just the execution.
EDIT: As far as cut blocking. The league should outlaw it. Will make it harder for teams to form OL units though but too much crap going on in the trash anyway.
EDIT 2: Mistakenly had "was" when I meant "wasn't"
So yes, he did come out saying he didn't have a problem with the NFL view on when the QB was susceptible to being clobbered when the issue came out last week. Says he supports it. It is the helmet to helmet nature of Brooks' hit that got his ire with the refs. Just to give the story as he relayed it today on his daily radio show. The host (Brock Huard) was trying to get him to say the hit was illegal and Pete said no way in it's intent, just the execution.
EDIT: As far as cut blocking. The league should outlaw it. Will make it harder for teams to form OL units though but too much crap going on in the trash anyway.
EDIT 2: Mistakenly had "was" when I meant "wasn't"