Hits on manning:

Your wrong about the quote it does not ask him about the hit at all. It was just inserted into that paragraph about the hit and never said anything about asking Daniels about the hit.
Manning's Hits Hurt - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102201162_2.html)


Thanks for the clarification, but Daniels was obviously referencing the hits they put on Manning, because it was the Daniels and Carter hit that put Manning in the "standing eight count". And if he was referencing the Colts in general and not Manning, I imagine he would have said "we had them right where we wanted them" and not "we had him right where we wanted him".

then why no flag on manning when that pass hit his lineman?

Thanks for the clarification, but Daniels was obviously referencing the hits they put on Manning, because it was the Daniels and Carter hit that put Manning in the "standing eight count". And if he was referencing the Colts in general and not Manning, I imagine he would have said "we had them right where we wanted them" and not "we had him right where we wanted him".
With his statement just inserted without knowing the question there is no way of knowing. Maybe the question was about containing Manning and then his statement would make sense. I fell the play its self was just one of those plays where everyone is going full speed and just happened. With his angle comming in on the Manning he probably had no idea he pitched the ball out to avoid the sack.

Thanks for the clarification, but Daniels was obviously referencing the hits they put on Manning, because it was the Daniels and Carter hit that put Manning in the "standing eight count". And if he was referencing the Colts in general and not Manning, I imagine he would have said "we had them right where we wanted them" and not "we had him right where we wanted him".

Take it anyway you want I guess...

But I really don't think he was directly referencing the hit. The article may make it seem that way, but context is everything.

If you want to squabble about them or him, since Manning is basically their entire offense, saying him really isn't that out of place.

This is ridiculous. The hit was completely legal. I mean the fact that he got twisted up was unfortunate but I mean what should they do put a red jersey on QB's now ?

This is ridiculous. The hit was completely legal. I mean the fact that he got twisted up was unfortunate but I mean what should they do put a red jersey on QB's now ?

It's funny that everyone think's there was nothing wrong with the hit because it was someone else's quarterback. A lot of people on this forum flipped out last season when Ramsey was clotheslined by Lance Briggs, even though it was technically a legal hit.

With the rules protecting the quarterback these days, you can't do much more than sneeze in a quarterbacks direction if he doesn't have the ball. Manning was folded in half, and had his helmet ripped off. The fact that it was a couple of Redskins that did it doesn't make it legal.

I must say southpaw, grow a pair. Your bitching more then my brother the colts fan.

that being said Hurah for pressuring the QB im sorry that the line let 2 through and they hit manning within 2 secs if you look manning is going down and daniels is in mid tackle already. Now watch as the helmet flies off, a 10 i say. Dont get me wrong i am happy Manning didnt get hurt but he madea fine pretzel

I must say southpaw, grow a pair. Your bitching more then my brother the colts fan.

I couldn't care less that he got folded up since he wasn't seriously hurt. I'm just questioning the double standard that is applied to football rules, when it's a Redskin that breaks them.

I for one would love to see Brunell hit like that....

I for one would love to see Brunell hit like that....
Why im standing firmly that a good piece of redskin fans are morons and im not even includeing southpaw in that