Check out Urlacher's comments about the Saints hitting Favre
 

We just completed an unprecedented week of NFL news, one that revealed details of a New Orleans Saints bounty program that targeted two NFC North quarterbacks over the past three seasons. But the occasion brought forth disparate views among NFL players, especially among those who play defense and those who play offense.

Specifically, who should be blamed for the beating Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre took in the 2009 NFC Championship Game? The Saints' (apparently incentivized) defenders? Or the Vikings' pass protection?

Consider these statements from two of our players this week. First, here is what Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher said about bounties during an ESPN 1000 radio interview.

"If you don't want your quarterback to get hit, protect him," Urlacher said. "You don't want to get hit? Then don't play offense. They're going to hit you. It's the referee's job to mandate [legality]. If they think it's excessive, throw a penalty on it. That's all there is to it."

On the other hand, Vikings center John Sullivan objected to criticism his offensive line took after that game.

"A lot of the hits on Brett were illegal," Sullivan told KFAN-1130. "So what are you supposed to do to prevent that? That's not our job. That's the official's jobs."

In essence, Urlacher is saying it's up to the offense to protect its quarterback and for officials to punish defenders if they play beyond the rules. Sullivan, on the other hand, suggested it's up to officials to provide enough deterrent to eliminate illegal plays.

We could spend days in a college-style sociological debate on the effectiveness of deterrence as a form of discipline. But what do you think? How much do you blame the Saints for what happened to Favre? And how much should the Vikings themselves be blamed? Or did the officiating crew drop the ball? I'm all ears.

Assigning blame for 2009 debacle - NFC North Blog - ESPN

I wanna blame AP's 5 fumbles for the loss, can I do that? Or how about Favres late 4th quarter interception when he could have ran into fg range... :mrgreen:

Thanks for the support urlacher, we've been saying the same thing in this board for 3 years

Glad to see Urlacher not being one of the fake oh so insulted players talking smack about us.

Still, the title of that article kills me. 2009 debacle? *head desk*

Well, obviously the a defensive player will see the whole thing differently than an offensive player, but there's validity to both of their perspectives, IMO.

I do remember thinking - while watching that game - that the refs were letting some hits go, which would've gotten flagged during the regular season, but it is what it is.

The bottom line is that the O-line is there to primarily protect the QB, and he shouldn't get hit - regardless of the the type of the hit - if they are successfully doing their job.

If the O-line thinks that the opposite side defenders are going above what the rules allow and the refs aren't doing anything about it, they could start bending the rules themselves and see how the defenders like that.

What I'm saying is that they should do something about it during the game, and not whine about it afterwards.

I have to agree with the giant infant on this one.

He is 100% correct

When it comes to Brett Favre, I don't blame the Saints, because I despise Brett Favre and was glad to see him get knocked on his ass over and over again.

I like Kurt Warner though. Even still, the Bobby McCray hit was a thing of pure beauty and it was clean and legal.

agreed...nothing made me happier than destroying favre en route to a SB win. i loathe him.