I disagree. Breaking tackles by using strength, either by using a good stiff arm or just lowering the shoulder is a great run. But, the Saints weren't even attempting to wrap him up. It looked like Tracey Porter was trying to hold him up so they could strip the ball. I guarantee that when the defense got back to the bench they got an earful from the coaching staff.
You can try and downplay it all you want by calling it bad tackling but Beast Mode isn't an easy guy to tackle anyways and he gave that one dude a nasty stiff arm/shove. Get off me, son. Anyways, looks like Seahawks vs Bears next week in Chicago. Seattle already beat them there this season and Cutler was sacked more times than any other QB in football this year. Seattle sacked him 6 times in their meeting. Bring it.
Not so fast, my friend. Still ain't over..... (wow, too bad dude stepped out of bounds prior to catching that 2-point conversion.)
Good tackling would have been Tracey Porter going after his legs or mid-section. A count of hands, how many of you played football? Identifying good tackling from shitty tackling isn't that difficult.
First of all, no one called it good tackling or that it wasn't bad tackling. Second of all, go back and watch the run. Guys went for his legs and still didn't tackle him. #33 basically had a hold of his leg but Marshawn ran through it because he's a beast. Even before that he ran through some leg tackles. Great run.
Yeah, considering they didn't actually tackle him, I would say it was bad tackling. Why does that make it a bad run? You're acting pathetic. Give the guy credit for completing a long, contested TD run in a very meaningful game. It's something we rarely see. And yes, I played HS football, why the hell does that matter?
BTW, to the people who complained about the Hawks having an unfair advantage with a home game, they were the only home team to win a game this weekend.
If you played you understand the nuances of the game better than those who didn't. Like the difference between good tackling and shotty tackling. Technique is very important.
Watch any NFL game and you will see the same tackling efforts made in that play, over and over. Yet somehow you don't see guys busting through and weaving around an entire defense on a single running play very often.
Your "disagreement" implies that I think the Saints did a good job of tackling, which I don't. But pretty much every run has examples of bad tackling, in form and/or execution. Part of the run was poor tackling, part of it was him being too strong for the tackles attempted. And even if Porter went too high, the stiff arm he received was still epic. I'd go so far as to say that it's practically impossible for a running back to break a long run with every defender doing exactly the right thing. Defenders fucking up provides the opportunity, but it takes a great play by the running back (or the offensive line) to turn that opportunity into a run like Lynch turned in. That one wasn't the offensive line.
I disagree. I see great runs all the time with players breaking what could be good tackling techniques. None of which were presented in that run. A great run in my eyes usually involves the ability to be great at making players miss in open field type situations. In the case of Lynch, it looked like at that point in the game once he had busted off the original 10 yards that the Saints defense was focused on keeping him up and attempting to strip the ball from him. Like I said, I guarantee that Gregg Williams chewed some ass of some defensive players once they got back to the sideline. There was no excuse to give up that long run. Porter goes for Lynch's legs and he gets the tackle instead of getting the wicked stiff arm.
I think Barry Sanders was a great example of someone who just plain and simply made guys miss. Short of being amazing themselves, it was hard to catch that fast little bastard. Lynch's run was obviously more of a Jerome Bettis type run though.
