Ray Lewis was right. The NFL does go out of its way to protect quarterbacks -- OK, Tom Brady – from getting hurt, and it does provide a second line of defense for quarterbacks -- OK, Tom Brady -- with its officials.
Lewis called it "embarrassing," saying Brady is "good enough to make a play," but that's where he and I disagree. Because protecting quarterbacks is not embarrassing. It's downright necessary.
|
|
| Ben Roethlisberger might miss a key game Sunday after suffering his latest concussion. (Getty Images) |
We all know about what happened with the Brady situation earlier this season against Baltimore, but I was at the Nov. 15 Atlanta-Carolina game when defensive end Tyler Brayton was blocked into Matt Ryan just after Ryan unloaded a short pass to Tony Gonzalez.
Brayton lunged forward, hit Ryan low and knocked him backward. He was penalized, and he should have been.
I don't want Tyler Brayton or Ray Lewis or anyone hitting a quarterback who can't defend himself, and I'll tell you why: Because they're the most important players on the field. And while, as Lewis said, they're "good enough to make a play," they're not good enough to make a play and defend themselves. It just can't happen. So someone has to step in, and that someone is the NFL.
I mention this now because Detroit just lost Matthew Stafford for Thursday's game, and St. Louis' Marc Bulger is out an estimated three to six weeks. Meanwhile, Arizona's Kurt Warner and Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger are iffy for Sunday, both with head injuries. Yeah, I know, the Steelers said Roethlisberger probably plays, but the poor guy has four concussions since 2006, and someone somewhere has to stand up for quarterbacks like him ... and Warner ... and Stafford ... and Bulger.
So it's the league office, and I say, "hallelujah." And I am not alone. The NFL's competition committee beat me to it last spring by approving a "point of emphasis" to rules protecting quarterbacks from injuries like the one suffered by Brady in 2008. They want quarterbacks on the field, and for good reason: They make the game better, simple as that.
"You have to understand what it's all about," said one general manager who asked to remain anonymous. "Quarterbacks are the marquee players. They make the game exciting. At least that's what everyone says. But I like to focus on the bigger story, which runs much deeper. You want to protect the quarterback because it makes you better. What is good for the quarterback is good for you. Guys complain about other quarterbacks being protected, but this is also about your quarterback. You lose that guy, and you don't know how devastating it is."
New England does. A year ago the Patriots lost Brady in the season opener, forcing them to turn to Matt Cassel, who hadn't started a game since high school. Cassel did what he wasn't supposed to do, namely win 10 of his 15 starts, and that was terrific. But the Patriots still missed the playoffs for the first time in six years -- and blame it on Bernard Pollard.
It was his hit that sidelined Brady and swung the NFL into action, with the league penalizing players who hit quarterbacks down under. The league's competition committee acted on its own, targeting defenders who are knocked down and drive their heads or shoulders into the quarterback's legs. The move was criticized, with the predictable complaints about outfitting quarterbacks in skirts, but it seems to have made a difference.
Nineteen quarterbacks this season have started every game, while another seven missed no more than two starts because of injuries. A year ago, 16 quarterbacks started the first 10 games, with Kansas City going through four passers its first two games and finishing the season with a third-stringer.
Now the landscape has changed. Until last weekend, the most serious injury this season was a torn shoulder capsule suffered by Chad Pennington, ending his season. Otherwise, we had guys missing one start here or one start there, and I'd like to think the NFL competition committee has something to do with it.
"Is it a good thing?" said Carolina GM Marty Hurney. "Sure. When you're a team that wants to play good defense you want guys to be aggressive and get to the ball, but you also want the rules to do what they're meant to do."
I'll second that. OK, so maybe officials put an invisible shield around Brady in the Baltimore-New England game. I'd rather they err on the side of caution than have Brady or Manning or Drew Brees carried out on a gurney because some defensive end took a late shot at their knees.
Face it, people, the game is more attractive when Brady, Manning and Brees are involved. The most memorable moment this season was the Indianapolis-New England shootout, and there are similar expectations for next Monday's New England-New Orleans showdown. I don't think I need to draw a picture to explain why.
Let me put it another way: When you pay to see a Broadway play, you pay to see Patti Lupone or Jude Law or Matthew Broderick in a leading role. You don't pay to see their understudies. Stars are stars for a reason: Because they're better at their jobs than most everyone else. So if you can do something to increase your chances of seeing them why not do it? The NFL has, and hear, hear.
Now I know what you're thinking: You want to see the best quarterbacks, but you want to see the best linebackers and running backs and wide receivers out there, too. So how come nobody protects, say, Brian Urlacher as they do Tom Brady? I'll tell you why: Because Brian Urlacher can protect himself where Tom Brady cannot. When quarterbacks launch passes they're not only vulnerable; they're sitting ducks. Try standing still while facing down a charge of four 300-pounders, and tell me you don't need protection.
You do, and, yeah, that's what offensive linemen are for. But they can't keep runaway pass rushers from blind-siding unsuspecting quarterbacks or pancaking them after every pass, and I offer Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers as evidence. These guys aren't just quarterbacks; they're piñatas waiting to be blown to pieces.
I like watching Pittsburgh with Roethlisberger, and I like watching Green Bay with Rodgers. So I want to see them play, which means I want to see them protected. Basically, I want to see the NFL do everything within reason to keep these guys in the lineup. So it does, and Ray Lewis says it's "embarrassing?" No, it's not. It's common sense.
The NFL is a better place when we get to watch Brady and Manning play each other. Ray Lewis doesn't want them protected because it's his job to take them out, and I understand. But I'm looking at the bigger picture, and the NFL is a superior product when its top quarterbacks are involved.
It's like our GM said: If Ray Lewis think it's "embarrassing" to protect Tom Brady, tell me how he likes it when someone takes a rip at Joe Flacco's knees, sidelining him for the season. You like your chances with Troy Smith at quarterback? Neither do I. That's why the NFL stepped in, and it should be applauded.
