Lane/Edelman

[Hawktawk]

Its bye week and Ive been thinking about this a long time, really since I rewatched SB 49 without beer goggles. We have a topic up regarding Ricardo Lockette and whether the defenders hit was legal or illegal,football or dirty play.

Watching what Edelman does to Lane after the pick there is no doubt in my mind that it was a deliberate and devastatingly successful attempt to injure. He comes in high and absolutely dives right into the knee joint as Lane plants and braces for contact.. A lot of you guys and gals probably haven't even replayed it but Id like some thoughts from anyone who may have analyzed that play. Obviously it was not illegal but definitely a dirty cheap shot IMO.
Hopefully someone will return the favor.

[SalmonBB]

I have not rewatched it. It would fit Edelman's dickhead personality, though. The dude reminds me of Neil Rackers, another dickhead - albeit more of a dweezle-dick - who needed to be laid out.

BTW, I'm very glad to hear that Lane has returned to practice. We need him back.

GO SEAHAWKS!!!

[Distant Relative]

Its bye week and Ive been thinking about this a long time, really since I rewatched SB 49 without beer goggles. We have a topic up regarding Ricardo Lockette and whether the defenders hit was legal or illegal,football or dirty play.

Watching what Edelman does to Lane after the pick there is no doubt in my mind that it was a deliberate and devastatingly successful attempt to injure. He comes in high and absolutely dives right into the knee joint as Lane plants and braces for contact.. A lot of you guys and gals probably haven't even replayed it but Id like some thoughts from anyone who may have analyzed that play. Obviously it was not illegal but definitely a dirty cheap shot IMO.
Hopefully someone will return the favor.

Sour grapes? Personally I hope no one returns any favors. That's no way to play the game.

[SalmonBB]

Sour grapes? Personally I hope no one returns any favors. That's no way to play the game.

I liked it when Steve Largent returned the favor against Mike Harden.

I don't know, count me as a guy who likes settled scores by the good guys. Do I want Edelman to get injured? No. But I'd like him to get flattened on a play so that he'll shut his yap for a little while. And yeah, if he intentionally injured Lane and is unremorseful for it (only he knows this), then yeah, he probably deserves it coming back his way. I'm not here to judge, but I do know what I'd wouldn't mind seeing.

GO SEAHAWKS!!!

[Distant Relative]

Retaliation in the same game is a little different then what the OP is suggesting....No? BTW I thought Largents hit was legal???

[kalibane]

Largent's hit was legal yes. But it did not take place in the same game. Largent was knocked out of the first game by Harden and when they played the Broncos the second time is when Largent leveled him.

I don't know if Edelman meant to hurt Lane but I remember not wanting Lane to get up and try to run once he intercepted that ball. It wasn't a smart decision in terms of field position. And then when he got hurt it was just injury to insult. Losing him was a huge factor in that game, because they just picked on Simon all day after he went out.

[RiverDog]

Largent's hit was legal yes. But it did not take place in the same game. Largent was knocked out of the first game by Harden and when they played the Broncos the second time is when Largent leveled him.

I don't know if Edelman meant to hurt Lane but I remember not wanting Lane to get up and try to run once he intercepted that ball. It wasn't a smart decision in terms of field position. And then when he got hurt it was just injury to insult. Losing him was a huge factor in that game, because they just picked on Simon all day after he went out.

The rules were much different when Largent hit Hardin...and BTW, I was there, the play happened right in front of me (albeit it from the 300 level) and I recognized immediately the significance of the hit, that it was on Hardin and that it was payback from the first game. But even if the hit occurred today, it would have been legal as he didn't lead with his head and hit Hardin in the shoulder pad area vs. the head shot like Hardin took on Largent.

Edelman turned Simon inside out and all Simon could do was beg for penalties that weren't there. I'm convinced that if we had either Maxwell or Lane out there that we would have won by 10+ points. But that doesn't excuse the fact that we had the game within our grasp but couldn't convert in the red zone.

[kalibane]

Must have been awesome to have been there. That play has always been crystalized in my mind since I saw it on TV. It was the perfect "revenge" hit, can't think of a better one. And yep it was absolutely legal, today or any day, textbook shoulder to shoulder. Watching Largent play was such a treat, he almost did everything "right".

[RiverDog]

Must have been awesome to have been there. That play has always been crystalized in my mind since I saw it on TV. It was the perfect "revenge" hit, can't think of a better one. And yep it was absolutely legal, today or any day, textbook shoulder to shoulder. Watching Largent play was such a treat, he almost did everything "right".

The Kingdome was electric back then, every bit as much as the Clink is nowadays. I was a season ticket holder, and to demonstrate how guarded I was about them, I used to keep the tickets in a safe deposit box then pick them up a day or two before the game. If someone broke into my house, they wouldn't find the tickets. I lived in Moses Lake and one of the taverns would occasionally sponsor a bus to take us to/from the game, offering lots of snacks and adult beverages. They'd park right in front of the dome, within stumbling distance of the gate. The only problem was finding your bus after the game and in the dark while having to breathe in all those diesel fumes from 50+ busses warming up their engines.

If I recall, that game was on Sunday Night Football, in December, and we beat the hell out of Denver that night. I can't be sure, but that might have been the season where we were hotter than hell at the end, finished 10-6, and were a team that no one wanted to face but we missed the playoffs. That just might have been Chuck Knox's best Seahawk team.

[Hawktawk]

LOL the topic that became relevant a week later.

RD that's awesome man! Didn't know you lived in Moses at one time. The 1986 Hawks went 10-6 and were denied a playoff berth by the slimmest of bizarre tiebreakers. Mike Haynes, Raider CB was interviewed after playoff seeding were announced and he was quoted as saying "everyone is glad Seattle didn't make it in. They would have been very difficult to handle."I believe they would have won the Super bowl.

That hit by Largent, that entire season and the story of redemption is just one of those memories we lifers can take to the grave. And its a shot that I believe would be legal today. its just amazing how Largent was able to channel every ounce of explosion from the tips of his toes on up to hit the man that violently. And he recovered the ball too.

Its great to see Lane finally getting back. Its painful to look back and see what might have been. Browner had told his receivers to hurt Seattle's DBs if they got a chance. It was in the media, not some secret meeting. Well Edelman took him to heart and it was a tactically brilliant move. Take out the only guy who has a chance of covering you. Nothing illegal on that play, just dirty. I swear Gronk got taken out for the season a couple years ago getting hit in the knee by a safety and Edelman in particular was all over trashing the dirty play. And Gronk outweighed the guy by 40 pounds. Edelman is thicker than Lane.

After Browners comments everyone yukked it up like it was a joke and it probably was. But I've never seen anyone try to connect the dots. It actually happened....

[burrrton]

I can't be sure, but that might have been the season where we were hotter than hell at the end, finished 10-6, and were a team that no one wanted to face.

I think Largent's hit was in 1988, and if so, we were AFCW champs.

[RiverDog]

I think Largent's hit was in 1988, and if so, we were AFCW champs.

Could be. The team I was thinking of was the 1986 squad. We won our last 5 that season, mostly blowouts. IMO that was our best team prior to 2005.

[burrrton]

Could be. The team I was thinking of was the 1986 squad. We won our last 5 that season, mostly blowouts. IMO that was our best team prior to 2005.

No argument here. We started too slowly that season so needed Schittsburgh (I think) to win on MNF (I think) or maybe even just not lose by too much (I think)- instead they pissed themselves and got crushed, leaving both of us out of the playoffs.

I remember a couple of our players (Wyman was one, maybe?) being interviewed at halftime or something and saying how disappointed they were in Pitt's performance.

[Distant Relative]

My bad. I forgot Largent had been cheap shoted earlier in the season by Harden. I figured he was pissed that refs called off setting penaltys on Blades and Castille when Castille clearly should have only been the one who got called for a personal foul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKHKtkct5Hw

[RiverDog]

No argument here. We started too slowly that season so needed Schittsburgh (I think) to win on MNF (I think) or maybe even just not lose by too much (I think)- instead they pissed themselves and got crushed, leaving both of us out of the playoffs.

I remember a couple of our players (Wyman was one, maybe?) being interviewed at halftime or something and saying how disappointed they were in Pitt's performance.

The game we needed was on Sunday Night Football. It was the last weekend of the regular season, which always ends on a Sunday so no one has a short week heading into the playoffs. Plus I can remember listening to (or trying to listen as we headed over the pass) that game on the way home from Seattle after watching the Hawks crush the Broncos.

We started out OK that season, but we had a 3 or 4 game losing streak in the middle of the year, then were hotter than a firecracker at the end.

[Hawktawk]

Relying on memory is a scary proposition for me but If I recall it was KC that beat Pittsburgh in 86 to knock out the Hawks and they did it with almost all or all their scoring coming on special teams and turnovers. Frank Gantz was HC then? Ill go look it up and see how close I am. I recall it was bizarre. It goes to show it doesn't often work out when someone else controls your fate.

[Hawktawk]

Ok here was what we long time long suffering fans either watched or listened to on that fateful Sunday in December 1986. The Chiefs rushed for 38 yards and passed for 133. Pittsburgh rushed for over 140 yards and had 515 yds. of offense winning the TOP by over 10 minutes. Alas KC scored TD's on a fumble recovery in the end zone, a 97 yard KO return, and a 78 yard return of a blocked FG. Their FG was the only points generated by the offense. I was wrong about Gantz. he was the Defensive and ST coach and was named head coach the following year.

Either way I remember very vividly watching that train wreck and thinking.....
God is against us......

[burrrton]

Shows how good my memory was of that game.

[RiverDog]

Ok here was what we long time long suffering fans either watched or listened to on that fateful Sunday in December 1986. The Chiefs rushed for 38 yards and passed for 133. Pittsburgh rushed for over 140 yards and had 515 yds. of offense winning the TOP by over 10 minutes. Alas KC scored TD's on a fumble recovery in the end zone, a 97 yard KO return, and a 78 yard return of a blocked FG. Their FG was the only points generated by the offense. I was wrong about Gantz. he was the Defensive and ST coach and was named head coach the following year.

Either way I remember very vividly watching that train wreck and thinking.....
God is against us......

Thanks, Hawktalk. I didn't recall all those details, probably because I was on the road during the late game and half the time we were trying to find a radio station that was broadcasting the game. Incidents like that is one of the things that drove me to satellite radio. Never again will I get caught in that position!

[burrrton]

Incidents like that is one of the things that drove me to satellite radio. Never again will I get caught in that position!

Same here- XM has become like Tivo for me. I'm not *entirely* convinced either is worth what I pay, but I can't live without either of them anymore, so I guess they've got me.

[HumanCockroach]

Greatest play that didn't count in NFL history IMO.

[kalibane]

Same here- XM has become like Tivo for me. I'm not *entirely* convinced either is worth what I pay, but I can't live without either of them anymore, so I guess they've got me.

Truth. I feel the same way about Cable although it's getting to the point where it's realistic to cut the cord now. I've been researching it and I think I'm going to do it maybe after the Holidays when I'll have time to get all the stuff I'll need.

[RiverDog]

You know, as long as we're on the subject, I get a MUCH better TV signal on my over-the-air antenna for free than I could ever get with the satellite or cable feeds. My understanding is that cable and satellite compress their signals in order to fit 1000 channels into their medium whereas OTA is uncompressed. You don't see much difference on a 32" or less screen, but can really notice the difference on a large screen, particularly on my overhead projector. Plus there's times where the local network affiliate gets into a contract dispute with a satellite provider, and it almost always happens during football season, so having OTA is a nice backup plan.

[kalibane]

I would definitely believe that for Cable. I know they definitely throttle their internet service. Overall I'm just disgusted every time I pay my DirecTV bill. Not because I'm cheap, just on principle.

So far with the research I've done I think we estimated we could essentially get everything we have now (to a degree) for about $70-80 a month. The caveat being you're going to incur a certain amount of upfront costs for equipment which gets higher the more TV's you want to use.

The one hurdle is sports. I have actually found a way that in theory will get you all the sports you want but it's not super user friendly, it's standard definition and you can't DVR anything.

[RiverDog]

I would definitely believe that for Cable. I know they definitely throttle their internet service. Overall I'm just disgusted every time I pay my DirecTV bill. Not because I'm cheap, just on principle.

So far with the research I've done I think we estimated we could essentially get everything we have now (to a degree) for about $70-80 a month. The caveat being you're going to incur a certain amount of upfront costs for equipment which gets higher the more TV's you want to use.

The one hurdle is sports. I have actually found a way that in theory will get you all the sports you want but it's not super user friendly, it's standard definition and you can't DVR anything.

How about streaming games over the internet? Is that a viable option? I've thought of that myself once I retire and we start traveling more in our motor home.

[kalibane]

That's basically what I'm talking about. There is an android based device that in theory you can get every game you want to see in any sport over your TV. But again, not terribly user friendly and standard definition. I do love my sports in HD. lol I need to figure out exactly which channels I'll be able to get through HD streaming services

[RiverDog]

That's basically what I'm talking about. There is an android based device that in theory you can get every game you want to see in any sport over your TV. But again, not terribly user friendly and standard definition. I do love my sports in HD. lol I need to figure out exactly which channels I'll be able to get through HD streaming services

Yea, I watched the Fins-Jets on my tablet and I wasn't too impressed. They still have a lot of bugs to work out. For some reason, my smart TV can't find my wireless router. I'm keeping an eye on internet streaming as equipping my motor home with a TV and satellite dish would be quite cumbersome and expensive. I'm only about 1-2 years away from hitting the rocking chair and spending more time in the motor home so internet streaming might be the way to go.

[burrrton]

Truth. I feel the same way about Cable although it's getting to the point where it's realistic to cut the cord now.

Agree (although my wife doesn't, so it's pointless to fight), with the one exception you guys mention: sports.

I'm only about 1-2 years away from hitting the rocking chair and spending more time in the motor home so internet streaming might be the way to go.

What kind of motie you got, RD? We bought a very inexpensive one a couple years ago to kinda dip our toes into the RV'ing world, and are now at the point where we're going to sell it and either go the hotel/motel route or upgrade.

We've all enjoyed it, but between the cost of the motorhome, storage, and gas (to say nothing of the time when tires, etc, go bad), it ain't a cheap way to travel.

[RiverDog]

What kind of motie you got, RD? We bought a very inexpensive one a couple years ago to kinda dip our toes into the RV'ing world, and are now at the point where we're going to sell it and either go the hotel/motel route or upgrade.

We've all enjoyed it, but between the cost of the motorhome, storage, and gas (to say nothing of the time when tires, etc, go bad), it ain't a cheap way to travel.

We bought a 2003 Minnie Winnie (22') that had 28,000 miles on it for $20,000 two years ago. I've made some improvements, one of which is satellite radio. . My wife has MS, doesn't like flying or sitting in a car seat for 6-8 hours, which is one of the reasons why I go to all these football games without her, and we have two dogs that 'have' to travel with us. It was more her idea than mine.

I have ample space at home to store it and have run 30 amp service to the parking spot so it could serve as a spare bedroom if needed.

[burrrton]

We bought a 2003 Minnie Winnie (22') that had 28,000 miles on it for $20,000 two years ago. I've made some improvements, one of which is satellite radio. . My wife has MS, doesn't like flying or sitting in a car seat for 6-8 hours, which is one of the reasons why I go to all these football games without her, and we have two dogs that 'have' to travel with us. It was more her idea than mine.

I have ample space at home to store it and have run 30 amp service to the parking spot so it could serve as a spare bedroom if needed.

Great deal, and a great setup and situation. We (well, my wife) has been eyeballing lots, and one of my dealkillers is any covenant that precludes storing a motorhome*.

*Surprisingly, my other dealkiller, the lack of a 3-car garage, is more of an issue than I thought- it seems some sellers/agents think a deep bay counts, so I've had to let a few Windermere agents know if there aren't 3 doors, it ain't a 3-car garage (I don't care how many vehicles could theoretically fit).

[RiverDog]

Great deal, and a great setup and situation. We (well, my wife) has been eyeballing lots, and one of my dealkillers is any covenant that precludes storing a motorhome*.

*Surprisingly, my other dealkiller, the lack of a 3-car garage, is more of an issue than I thought- it seems some sellers/agents think a deep bay counts, so I've had to let a few Windermere agents know if there aren't 3 doors, it ain't a 3-car garage (I don't care how many vehicles could theoretically fit).

Yea, storing a motor home would suck. You'd find out in a hurry that there's hundreds of little things that you either need out of it or want to put in it then would be making special trips to do so. If you're going to want to park it indoors, you're going to need a garage with a 12' high door and most attached garages don't go that high. I see a lot of people constructing detached buildings primarily for their motor homes. My neighbor across the riding trail from me is building one now.