Avenging hits on Buck not team’s top priority

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 19/07/2011 (5225 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Professional football beats on its participants until we physically or mentally break down and the sport leaves us in its wake forever. Quarterbacks, because they are the most important players on the field, are the recipients and focus of much of this violence, and whether it is Matt Dunigan, Khari Jones, or Dave Dickenson, they all pay the toll one way or another, at one time or another.

That being said, there is nothing like a strongly worded and opinionated letter to set off a debate on quarterback abuse. I received an email Sunday that brought into question whether us, the players, are doing enough to support and keep our brethren upright. Below is a sampling of the correspondence I received and my responses to it.

“With the recent malicious and deliberate attacks on our quarterbacks in the Calgary game, here is a topic for your next column: When is someone on your team going to step up and do something about it?”

First of all, let’s be clear. What happened to Joey Elliott in Thursday’s game cannot be described as malicious or deliberate. My understanding is that he blew his knee out after making a tackle after a fumble, and then returned for two more series. Furthermore, we sacked Calgary’s quarterback twice as many times as they sacked ours, but took half as many unnecessary roughness penalties. As for the two late hits on Buck Pierce, I agree that hitting a quarterback is always deliberate, and when it’s really late, it can also be construed as malicious, which brings us to the theme of this letter, “When is someone going to step up and do something about it?”

Nothing gets the blood flowing more than a good old vigilante-justice debate about righting wrongs, but the problem with vigilante justice in nationally televised games is that we can’t hide or mask our identities like vigilantes, and the consequences of our actions are often more punitive than the original offence.

“Do you really think fifteen yards is fair punishment for what was an orchestrated attack plan by the Calgary coaching staff?”

Fifteen yards is the maximum allowable yardage penalty for any single foul in football. If it is deemed deliberate and it appears the intent is to injure, then it is up to the CFL to discern that motive and respond accordingly. As for an orchestrated attack, over the last decade and a half of professional football, I don’t believe I have seen a week go by where my defensive coordinator hasn’t orchestrated a plan for us to hit the opposition’s quarterback as hard and as often as legally possible.

“In your own sport, if someone comes after Ben Roethlisberger in Pittsburgh, do you think his teammates let them get away with it?”

Absolutely they do. I have seen Ben Roethlisberger get knocked this side of Sunday. Offensive players never come to defensive players and tell us that we better go kick the $&#* out of someone, because it’s redundant, as we are already trying and getting paid to do just that.

But I know what you are thinking. You feel teams place special emphasis on trying to take a QB out of the game because they feel they are vulnerable or susceptible to physical play. But unfortunately, this sentiment is not exactly unique nor is attacking and game planning against a perceived weakness.

Every defensive player knows going into a football game, if we can knock an Anthony Calvillo, a Ricky Ray, a Henry Burris, a Buck Pierce, or even a Cory Boyd, a Fred Stamps, or a Kenyon Rambo, out of a football game legally, we stand a much better chance of winning that game. We also know that if it is not within the rules, it will cost us a 15-yard penalty, a possible fine, a possible suspension, and that we could prematurely end someone’s career and livelihood. Those are the split-second decisions we make in every game.

But when it comes to intent, we hit people as hard as we possibly can. If it is done legally, and they have to leave the game, all the better. If defensive coordinators want to send an extra guy all the time, then they risk exposing a void elsewhere. That is professional football.

“There are 5 offensive linemen on your team who didn’t do anything to protect Buck. There are 3 defensive linemen and 4 linebackers — including yourself — who should have sent Calgary a clear message the next time their offense stepped on the field, and who didn’t. What are you doing about it?”

Some may construe it as a flaw, but I definitely subscribe to the “eye for an eye” system of retribution. That being said, we are not playing hockey here. We can’t go out and speed bag someone that ran one of our stars, spend five minutes in a penalty box, and continue on with the game. We don’t have a Dave Semenko whose only job is to protect our Wayne Gretzky. An offensive linemen can’t go out and uppercut a player that hit Buck Pierce late because he will be fined and suspended and lose almost six per cent of his gross annual income in one fight. A defensive player can hit a quarterback late if he has the opportunity, but not only can he be fined or suspended, he can cost his team the game and lose his job.

The most important objective we have when we go on the field of play is to win, and like it or not, we have been shown ad nauseum that being an undisciplined team and retaliating greatly reduces our chances of achieving success.

Doug Brown, a hard-hitting defensive tackle with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and an even harder-hitting columnist, appears Tuesdays in the Winnipeg Free Press.