UNI-Portland State targeting screenshots

[PantherRob82]

Just for reference of anyone who wants some stills and wants to continue arguing one way or the other.

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21957&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21958&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21959&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21960&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21961&stc=1

[Stonewall D]

It looks like he led with his head and launched. Was the player ejected?

[kingranch]

Yep, as well he should have been! This screen shotting plays, and claiming no foul in a high speed game like football is b ull s hit! You call what you see in real time.

[PantherRob82]

Yep, as well he should have been! This screen shotting plays, and claiming no foul in a high speed game like football is b ull s hit! You call what you see in real time.

So in real time he hit him above the shoulders but in stils he didn't?

[PantherRob82]

It looks like he led with his head and launched. Was the player ejected?

Launching and hitting a player with the crown of your helmet OR a hit to the neck/head is the penalty. I don't see either of those, but someone did mention that the rule says something the to effect of "when in doubt it is a penalty".

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Yeah, stop this nonsense of lighting up a receiver. It almost never goes positively anymore. Keep your head up and wrap him up.

The second you put your head down, you open yourself up to injury and give yourself zero defense against targeting.

[PantherRob82]

Yeah, stop this nonsense of lighting up a receiver. It almost never goes positively anymore. Keep your head up and wrap him up.

The second you put your head down, you open yourself up to injury and give yourself zero defense against targeting.

I don't completely disagree, but head down? His body is at a 45 degree angle. It's not like he speared him.

[kingranch]

So in real time he hit him above the shoulders but in stils he didn't?
Your right, after every play they should stop the game and bring out the still shots and decide if it was a penalty or not! It looked like targeting to 99.99% of the people watching it in real time. Did you see it in real time, or were you watching the Hawkeyes game at the time?

[PantherRob82]

Your right, after every play they should stop the game and bring out the still shots and decide if it was a penalty or not! It looked like targeting to 99.99% of the people watching it in real time. Did you see it in real time, or were you watching the Hawkeyes game at the time?

Wow. Can't wait to see the brilliant 20 posts per year we get in 2016. xcoffeex

I thought it looked clean live as well.

Also, if you're going to be a dick, it's you're, not your. ;)

[X-Factor]

For what it's worth (not much) I think #30 got exactly what he deserved. He will be watching from the sideline until after halftime of NDSU/UNI. There is no reason for that kind of a hit. I get what Rob is saying, but look, it is very borderline where he hit the player and in those cases I think the refs should side with safety every time.

[clenz]

The thing is they replayed it and still missed that it was to the shoulders.

NDSU fans claiming he got what he deserved after what NDSU did to Lemaster a few years ago is laughable as well

[PantherRob82]

For what it's worth (not much) I think #30 got exactly what he deserved. He will be watching from the sideline until after halftime of NDSU/UNI. There is no reason for that kind of a hit. I get what Rob is saying, but look, it is very borderline where he hit the player and in those cases I think the refs should side with safety every time.

Yeah, I get that. Like I said, when someone posted the, when in doubt, part of the rule I understood the call better.

[slostang]

He launched himself AND led with the crown of his head. It was called correctly.

[lionsrking2]

That is a textbook example of the targeting rule and could easily be used as training clip for officials. He launched, led with the crown of the helmet, and made helmet-to-helmet contact vs a defenseless player. Not sure how any objective observer could conclude otherwise.

[PantherRob82]

He launched himself AND led with the crown of his head. It was called correctly.

No, he didn't. He hit him with his shoulder. xrolleyesx

- - - Updated - - -


That is a textbook example of the targeting rule and could easily be used as training clip for officials. He launched, led with the crown of the helmet, and made helmet-to-helmet contact vs a defenseless player. Not sure how any objective observer could conclude otherwise.

Where do you see a helmet to helmet contact? He is at his shoulder. As far as objective, I've already conceded it is targeting because of the "when in doubt" part of the rule.

[Nickels]

Targeting calls are for pussies. Let em play.

[PantherRob82]

Targeting calls are for pussies. Let em play.

Stupid Southland refs. :D

[Nickels]

Hey I'm just glad they wont be screwing up any of my team's games for the next 10 months.

Although I seem to learn every year in the playoffs that bad officiating isn't a one conference issue.

[lionsrking2]

No, he didn't. He hit him with his shoulder. xrolleyesx

- - - Updated - - -



Where do you see a helmet to helmet contact? He is at his shoulder. As far as objective, I've already conceded it is targeting because of the "when in doubt" part of the rule.

I saw it live and saw several replays from different angles. You can generate still frames to show anything you want to support your belief, but the moving video tells the story. Now, the Southland crew you guys had last night is the worst crew we saw all year - by a long shot - but they got that call right.

[PantherRob82]

I saw it live and saw several replays from different angles. You can generate still frames to show anything you want to support your belief, but the moving video tells the story. Now, the Southland crew you guys had last night is the worst crew we saw all year - by a long shot - but they got that call right. Not to mention instant replay CONFIRMED the call on the field, as they should have.

I saw it live and saw several replays from different angles. Those are the still shots from hitting play and pause repeatedly from the feed. I don't have to make anything support my belief. Those are the hit. Find me a still of his helmet making contact if it's that easy. xrolleyesx

It also didn't "confirm" the call on the field. It just didn't overturn it. When the rule says "if it's close it's a penalty" then how could they overturn it if it looks close?

[clenz]

The weird thing is:
Dexter made contact with his shoulder, and not the crown of his helmet
Dexter made contact with his shoulder on the outside of the WR arm, below the shoulder pad

I'm not sure how you can have targeting given those facts - which can easily be proven.

I understand why it was called live, but the replay upholding it was a farce.

The funny thing is, the only reason it was called is because Dexter didn't wrap him up and drive him to the ground with all of his weight coming down on the WR. That would have been legal, though much more dangerous. Ain't that some ****?

[JayJ79]

The weird thing is:
Dexter made contact with his shoulder, and not the crown of his helmet
Dexter made contact with his shoulder on the outside of the WR arm, below the shoulder pad

I'm not sure how you can have targeting given those facts - which can easily be proven.

I understand why it was called live, but the replay upholding it was a farce.

The funny thing is, the only reason it was called is because Dexter didn't wrap him up and drive him to the ground with all of his weight coming down on the WR. That would have been legal, though much more dangerous. Ain't that some ****?

I think he should have caught him midair and then done a WWE style suplex (or whatever y'all call that sort of thing). Heck, if you're gonna get ejected, might as well have fun with it.


though on looking at the still frame, I think it was a second tackler from the grassy knoll. you can see by the way the PSU player went back and to the left.

[Jacks02]

The UNI guy didn't do himself any favors with his actions after the hit either. Not going to get any benefit of the doubt from the referees when you stand over the top of and straddle the guy you lit up and puff your chest out like an idiot.

[PantherRob82]

The UNI guy didn't do himself any favors with his actions after the hit either. Not going to get any benefit of the doubt from the referees when you stand over the top of and straddle the guy you lit up and puff your chest out like an idiot.

True that!

[lionsrking2]

I saw it live and saw several replays from different angles. Those are the still shots from hitting play and pause repeatedly from the feed. I don't have to make anything support my belief. Those are the hit. Find me a still of his helmet making contact if it's that easy. xrolleyesx

It also didn't "confirm" the call on the field. It just didn't overturn it. When the rule says "if it's close it's a penalty" then how could they overturn it if it looks close?

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21965&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21966&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21967&stc=1

[lionsrking2]

I saw it live and saw several replays from different angles. Those are the still shots from hitting play and pause repeatedly from the feed. I don't have to make anything support my belief. Those are the hit. Find me a still of his helmet making contact if it's that easy. xrolleyesx

It also didn't "confirm" the call on the field. It just didn't overturn it. When the rule says "if it's close it's a penalty" then how could they overturn it if it looks close?

I stand corrected on the "confirmed" call, I had it confused with the call in the Clemson/UNC game. Nonetheless, the call stood on the field, as it should have. It's hard to get a perfect screen cap but the following show pretty clearly that he launched, led with his crown, and made helmet-to-helmet contact vs a defenseless player.

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21968&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21969&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21970&stc=1

[BisonFan02]

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21965&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21966&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21967&stc=1

That's not his helmet you silly goose... xlolx

[lionsrking2]

That's not his helmet you silly goose... xlolx

I guess black is white and white is black. :)

[JALMOND]

It is truly amazing how we can have a separate thread and almost 30 replies on a play that did not even come close to deciding the game. Be gracious, UNI fans. You won the game, you deserve the win. Don't cheapen it.

[JayJ79]

It is truly amazing how we can have a separate thread and almost 30 replies on a play that did not even come close to deciding the game. Be gracious, UNI fans. You won the game, you deserve the win. Don't cheapen it.

it isn't the effect of the play/penalty on last night's game. It is the carryover half of the ejection/suspension that could factor into next week's game

[JALMOND]

it isn't the effect of the play/penalty on last night's game. It is the carryover half of the ejection/suspension that could factor into next week's game

If the success of UNI getting a win next week depends on whether or not this one player plays the whole game instead of a half, then UNI already is in trouble. If because of this play, PSU would have somehow woke up and stole this game from UNI, I could see the reasoning for still shots and discussion. But for something that had no bearing on this game (and I'd be really surprised if the repercussions have a bearing in the next game), I don't see all the time spent on it.

[clenz]

It could have a big impact

Dexter is a starting LB, and pretty damn good. We now have to go into the Fargodome starting a RS Freshman who has 7 tackles on the season, including last nights stats

Dexter is 7th on the team in tackles, with double digit TFL, with a sack and a pick

[PantherRob82]

If the success of UNI getting a win next week depends on whether or not this one player plays the whole game instead of a half, then UNI already is in trouble. If because of this play, PSU would have somehow woke up and stole this game from UNI, I could see the reasoning for still shots and discussion. But for something that had no bearing on this game (and I'd be really surprised if the repercussions have a bearing in the next game), I don't see all the time spent on it.

Yet here you are spending time on it. xrolleyesx

For some reason I thought this was a message board for discussion. xlolx

[PantherRob82]

I stand corrected on the "confirmed" call, I had it confused with the call in the Clemson/UNC game. Nonetheless, the call stood on the field, as it should have. It's hard to get a perfect screen cap but the following show pretty clearly that he launched, led with his crown, and made helmet-to-helmet contact vs a defenseless player.

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21968&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21969&stc=1http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21970&stc=1

To me this shows the launch more than anything. From the back you see clear shoulder to shoulder contact. It appears it helmet does make contact, but it's not a blatant helmet to helmet when his entire upper body is making contact.

The flag came from behind, so I'm not sure what he saw. Regardless, I already said the flag was going to be thrown and upheld because of the "anything close" section of the rule.

I just don't think this is what the rule was intended for.

[JALMOND]

Yet here you are spending time on it. xrolleyesx

Somehow I got dragged into it. xlolx Kind of like good chocolate pie, y'know. xnodx

Nice win for you guys. Good luck next week. xthumbsupx

[PantherRob82]

Somehow I got dragged into it. xlolx Kind of like good chocolate pie, y'know. xnodx

Nice win for you guys. Good luck next week. xthumbsupx

I hope this year's success can do big things for your program. Nice to play someone new.

[uni88]

To me this shows the launch more than anything. From the back you see clear shoulder to shoulder contact. It appears it helmet does make contact, but it's not a blatant helmet to helmet when his entire upper body is making contact.

The flag came from behind, so I'm not sure what he saw. Regardless, I already said the flag was going to be thrown and upheld because of the "anything close" section of the rule.

I just don't think this is what the rule was intended for.

Yes to the launch, yes to the "anything close" section and yes to what the rule was intended for. It is targeting based on the current interpretation of the rule and I don't think it gets overturned.

I also understand the reason for the rule and think this was a dangerous play but more so for Dexter. He might not have made contact with his helmet but he did lead with his crown. If he had mistimed the receiver's route/speed he could have hit him with the crown. When that happens, my understanding is that the tacklers' neck and spine compress like an accordion and there is a risk of a serious injury to either. As a youth football coach, if I see a player do anything like that, he's coming to the sideline for a little talk about safety and proper technique.

[lionsrking2]

To me this shows the launch more than anything. From the back you see clear shoulder to shoulder contact. It appears it helmet does make contact, but it's not a blatant helmet to helmet when his entire upper body is making contact.

The flag came from behind, so I'm not sure what he saw. Regardless, I already said the flag was going to be thrown and upheld because of the "anything close" section of the rule.

I just don't think this is what the rule was intended for.

There is some shoulder-to-shoulder contact, but that doesn't wave off the fact that he crouched and launched (according to rules, a key indicator of targeting) and led with the crown of his helmet, striking the side of the defenseless player's helmet, near the earhole. Had he kept his feet on the ground and braced himself, with helmet contact being side to side or butt-to-butt, it probably gets overturned. It also didn't help that the UNI player stood over the receiver after the hit.

With all that said, I hate the targeting rule and wish they would get rid of it altogether. Spearing and obvious head-hunting has always been a personal foul and should continue, but it's impossible to ask someone to make a split second decision to alter they way they tackle to avoid a penalty. And the automatic ejection is too severe in my view. It's open to too much interpretation and can change the outcome of a game, or season. It's more about lawsuit protection than actual player protection IMO. If they really wanted to protect players, they would do away with tackling altogether. We all know that will never happen.

[clenz]

The ejection sucks. Make it like the UCF, 2 and out.

The suspension for the following week is atrociously over punishing.

[Jackal]

To me this shows the launch more than anything. From the back you see clear shoulder to shoulder contact. It appears it helmet does make contact, but it's not a blatant helmet to helmet when his entire upper body is making contact.

The flag came from behind, so I'm not sure what he saw. Regardless, I already said the flag was going to be thrown and upheld because of the "anything close" section of the rule.

I just don't think this is what the rule was intended for.
It appears you have changed your stance . Good for you, it was the correct call.

[BisonFan02]

The ejection sucks. Make it like the UCF, 2 and out.

The suspension for the following week is atrociously over punishing.

He should have just sold some pot.

[clenz]

He should have just sold some pot.

Well, at UNI we kick players that get caught doing that off the team


Hell, even guys who the cops clear of all charges get booted too...

[Panther-State]

Well, at UNI we kick players that get caught doing that off the team


Hell, even guys who the cops clear of all charges get booted too...

Valuing integrity really sucks. Man we're dumb ;)

[JayJ79]

Well, at UNI we kick players that get caught doing that off the team


Hell, even guys who the cops clear of all charges get booted too...

even when they have a 988.6 passing efficiency rating

[clenz]

even when they have a 988.6 passing efficiency rating
Ain't that some ****.

One of the better WR in program history - and in the FCS at that point. Has to have the NCAA record for passing efficiency. Cops 100% clear him within 48 hours and he is still booted from the team because of how closely he was associated with Johnny, and put himself in that situation.

Oh...and that was right before the playoffs started too.

[FUBeAR]

Yes to the launch, yes to the "anything close" section and yes to what the rule was intended for. It is targeting based on the current interpretation of the rule and I don't think it gets overturned.

I also understand the reason for the rule and think this was a dangerous play but more so for Dexter. He might not have made contact with his helmet but he did lead with his crown. If he had mistimed the receiver's route/speed he could have hit him with the crown. When that happens, my understanding is that the tacklers' neck and spine compress like an accordion and there is a risk of a serious injury to either. As a youth football coach, if I see a player do anything like that, he's coming to the sideline for a little talk about safety and proper technique.

Hate the rule for the reason I think that it was originally intended and hate the 'suspension' part of it, but LOVE it for the reason you cited (and I bolded) above. This ducking of the head 'thing,' that seems to be growing despite the implementation of the targeting rule, is just so dangerous for the 'ducker.' I've never seen one of the so sad catastrophic injuries occur when the player didn't have his head down to some degree. As a coach for many years from Youth thru College, I always do and have done exactly what you said - even with kids from other teams (who don't always take it well)...If I see a kid ducking his head anytime, I'm going to do my best to speak with him about it and try to get him to use proper 'heads-up' technique. If the rule and even the suspension aspect keep 1 kid, at any level, from being paralyzed, then as much as I hate it, it's worth it and should be called and enforced as it is written....Didn't see this play live and I have no pups in this bout, but from the 2 sets of stills, looks to be, no doubt, a targeting violation, IMHO.

[Missingnumber7]

To me this shows the launch more than anything. From the back you see clear shoulder to shoulder contact. It appears it helmet does make contact, but it's not a blatant helmet to helmet when his entire upper body is making contact.

The flag came from behind, so I'm not sure what he saw. Regardless, I already said the flag was going to be thrown and upheld because of the "anything close" section of the rule.

I just don't think this is what the rule was intended for.

I cant tell you exactly the officials thought process on this particular call, but I can tell you that the NCAA is teaching officials that any contact with the helmet or up around the shoulders they want the flag to be thrown, especially in instances where there is replay. They have placed a higher emphasis on lowering the 'strike zone'.

When I saw this live I wasn't surprised the flag came out. After watching the replays I wasn't sure which way it would go. Nothing seems to really make a huge argument either way for me, and that means play stands. It sucks in this instance, but that is the rule.

As far as what the intent of the rule, this is exactly what the rule was intended for. They want players to hit where the numbers would be if the player is standing on the ground. Which is about a foot lower than when he hits, they are also trying to stop players from launching high. I also think that this rule has been very successful. I think we have seen the total number of flags for this cut in half. And weekly on our NCAA training videos there is always a this is the right no call, this is what we want to see clip or two. That wasn't the case last year.

[Nova09]

It could have a big impact

Dexter is a starting LB, and pretty damn good. We now have to go into the Fargodome starting a RS Freshman who has 7 tackles on the season, including last nights stats

Dexter is 7th on the team in tackles, with double digit TFL, with a sack and a pick

A STARTING LB IS 7th on TEAM IN TACKLES????


Sounds like you're describing a garbage player to me xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx

[UNIFanSince1983]

Dexter has a tendency to just hit people hard and not wrap them up. I don't know how many times this season I have seen him miss a tackle because he didn't wrap up. There was at least one in the Portland State game. Like many people have said it may not have been targeting if he wrapped up, but that would not be the way that he tackles. It was a dumb play and hopefully it doesn't cost us a chance against NDSU.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yes to the launch, yes to the "anything close" section and yes to what the rule was intended for. It is targeting based on the current interpretation of the rule and I don't think it gets overturned.

I also understand the reason for the rule and think this was a dangerous play but more so for Dexter. He might not have made contact with his helmet but he did lead with his crown. If he had mistimed the receiver's route/speed he could have hit him with the crown. When that happens, my understanding is that the tacklers' neck and spine compress like an accordion and there is a risk of a serious injury to either. As a youth football coach, if I see a player do anything like that, he's coming to the sideline for a little talk about safety and proper technique.

Finally, a reasonable, and accurate, response. xbowx

[Yote 53]

Still shot #2 shows the UNI players left shoulder making contact with the receivers right shoulder. The defender led with his shoulder and made first contact with his shoulder. Didn't read through this thread but, based on the pics I am looking at, it appears to be a clean hit. I hope the defender didn't get flagged.

[Yote 53]

I cant tell you exactly the officials thought process on this particular call, but I can tell you that the NCAA is teaching officials that any contact with the helmet or up around the shoulders they want the flag to be thrown, especially in instances where there is replay. They have placed a higher emphasis on lowering the 'strike zone'.

When I saw this live I wasn't surprised the flag came out. After watching the replays I wasn't sure which way it would go. Nothing seems to really make a huge argument either way for me, and that means play stands. It sucks in this instance, but that is the rule.

As far as what the intent of the rule, this is exactly what the rule was intended for. They want players to hit where the numbers would be if the player is standing on the ground. Which is about a foot lower than when he hits, they are also trying to stop players from launching high. I also think that this rule has been very successful. I think we have seen the total number of flags for this cut in half. And weekly on our NCAA training videos there is always a this is the right no call, this is what we want to see clip or two. That wasn't the case last year.

Translation, the NCAA wants the defenders to take players out by the knees. Got it. Then when we see knees exploding all over the place we'll revert to two hand touch. Or I guess defenses are just supposed to let recievers run wild all over the field without tackling them. Probably, the NCAA sure does love them "style points". Seems all of college football is based on style points these days.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

Actually, I think what is wanted is a tackle, a fundamentally sound tackle, not launching yourself.

To me, when you launch yourself, it gives the impression that your intent is to hurt the player while breaking up a play. The receiver is already preoccupied with the defender on him and is exposed to the hit coming from the opposite side. Make a text book tackle, break up the play, maybe you knock the wind out of the receiver, then you'll be playing the rest of the game. There was a similar play in the Elon at UNH game in October (no replay) that was called the same way.

[Yote 53]

So the defender is just supposed to catch the receiver, absorbing the entire blow from the receiver in the process? I am seriously trying to figure out what defenders are supposed to do, and if you haven't noticed so is everyone else that plays defense from the NFL on down. I guess the defender can propel himself forward to tackle the receiver, just not too hard, don't want to make too loud of a noise.

I love it when we have to decide whether a defender led with his shoulder or his head, you know, because his head is attached to his shoulders it's kind of along for the ride. Point is, in photo number two the initial point of impact was shoulder on shoulder, that is clear. If the defender was leading with the crown of his helmet that would be the first point of impact. So the response is to lower the aiming point. Defenders are just going to take the guess work out of all this and just start going low and breaking some knees. I wouldn't want to be a receiver when that starts happening.

[clenz]

So the defender is just supposed to catch the receiver, absorbing the entire blow from the receiver in the process? I am seriously trying to figure out what defenders are supposed to do, and if you haven't noticed so is everyone else that plays defense from the NFL on down. I guess the defender can propel himself forward to tackle the receiver, just not too hard, don't want to make too loud of a noise.

I love it when we have to decide whether a defender led with his shoulder or his head, you know, because his head is attached to his shoulders it's kind of along for the ride. Point is, in photo number two the initial point of impact was shoulder on shoulder, that is clear. If the defender was leading with the crown of his helmet that would be the first point of impact. So the response is to lower the aiming point. Defenders are just going to take the guess work out of all this and just start going low and breaking some knees. I wouldn't want to be a receiver when that starts happening.
As I said, it's pretty crazy that had he caught him and driven him into the ground, landing on him with all his weight, it wouldn't have been considered a penalty.

[Missingnumber7]

Translation, the NCAA wants the defenders to take players out by the knees. Got it. Then when we see knees exploding all over the place we'll revert to two hand touch. Or I guess defenses are just supposed to let recievers run wild all over the field without tackling them. Probably, the NCAA sure does love them "style points". Seems all of college football is based on style points these days.

The NCAA wants the strike zone lower. They wants hits to take place between the bottom of the numbers and the waist. Coaches that teach tackling teach that as the strike point.

But nice jump to the opposite extreme.

[JALMOND]

Actually, I think what is wanted is a tackle, a fundamentally sound tackle, not launching yourself.

To me, when you launch yourself, it gives the impression that your intent is to hurt the player while breaking up a play. The receiver is already preoccupied with the defender on him and is exposed to the hit coming from the opposite side. Make a text book tackle, break up the play, maybe you knock the wind out of the receiver, then you'll be playing the rest of the game. There was a similar play in the Elon at UNH game in October (no replay) that was called the same way.

Tackles are boring. Hits are more exciting. The more exciting the hit, the better chance at making SportsCenter.

[Sycamore62]

1. I hate defemsive backs who's only tackling skill is jumping at someone like a dolphin trying to impress it's trainers.

2. Those stills don't mean ****. If I were better at photoshop I could have Barney targeting a receiver while holding a bag of "Marshaun Coprich limited edition weed" in 1 hand and Bo Pelini's cat in the other.

[unigriff]

1. I hate defemsive backs who's only tackling skill is jumping at someone like a dolphin trying to impress it's trainers.

2. Those stills don't mean ****. If I were better at photoshop I could have Barney targeting a receiver while holding a bag of "Marshaun Coprich limited edition weed" in 1 hand and Bo Pelini's cat in the other.


That's funny right there.

[JayJ79]

Barney always plays dirty

[Sycamore62]

Barney always plays dirty

all that head trauma is the reason he talks like that.

and why i cant spell defensive

[Missingnumber7]

Barney always plays dirty

You'd lead with your head too if your arms were that short.