Does the NFL go too far in protecting precious revenue-generating face-of-the-league quarterbacks from taking hard hits? Adrian Peterson thinks the answer is yes.
Peterson was asked during a Fox Sports Q&A to give his opinion on the debate over QB-protecting rules and how they may potentially be sissifying the game. Adrian cited this weekend’s controversial play where San Francisco’s Ahmad Brooks was flagged for a hard but by all accounts legal hit on New Orleans’ Drew Brees.
“You think about Drew Brees and the hit he took. I love Drew Brees. He’s one of my favorite guys to watch, but that hit he took wasn’t a penalty. So they kind of baby the quarterbacks, but the running back we’re like every other player. We get hit and that’s what it is,” Adrian said.
Peterson has become legendary for the reckless abandon with which he attempts to inflict punishment on would-be tacklers, so it’s no surprise that he would be against penalties that attempt to remove the physicality and violence from the game.
Unfortunately for those who appreciate football more as testosterone-fueled gladiatorial combat than a wussified demonstration of the aerodynamic properties of spheroids, the NFL is reportedly considering instituting even more rules designed to help protect quarterbacks.
There’s a line here somewhere about putting on a skirt. Seriously NFL, just let them play. All these dang penalties. The games are drawn out enough as it is, stop driving us nuts with the flags.
Yeah I know, people like the passing and the scoring. It’s all about drawing in the casual fan. And of course we’re concerned about protecting players from head injuries. That’s why Roger Goodell is considering going to an 18-game schedule. Huh?