Curran: 10K hit on Woodhead dirty, violent?


Curran: 10K hit on Woodhead dirty, violent?

By Tom E. Curran Patriots Insider Follow @tomecurran
The hit that left Danny Woodhead looking like Tommy Hearns circa 1985 (if you're not sure what I'm referring to, click the link -- you'll thank me) earned Bucs safety Devin Holland a 10,000 fine. Sounds about right to me. Violent as the hit was, scary as the immediate after-effects on Woodhead appeared to be, the Patriots running back was reaching to make a tackle on a punt returner when Holland leveled him. Holland didn't deserve the 20,000 wallet-hit that more often gets doled out by the NFL for what it perceives as gratuitous hits to the head. Holland was doing his job picking off a would-be tackler. That Woodhead's little head wound up in the firing line is simple geometry (physics?). Had Holland passed up that hit, gone for a glancing attempt at a block and watched Woodhead make the tackle, the rookie free agent from McNeese State may have been losing the chance at drawing an NFL salary this year, so the 10,000 investment was worth it. Holland was docked 5,000 for a hit in the Bucs preseason opener as well, so he's got a hot streak going. Woodhead maintained after the game that he was "fine." He sat at his locker speaking with family on his cell phone. I've seen concussed players in locker rooms after games. That is not what they do. Still, the fact Woodhead had his brain and skull jumbled so radically that he lost his equilibrium after the hit gave pause. Further,a concussion suffered by Woodhead in the regular-season finale against Miami last January and the understanding we now have that players suffering concussions are susceptible to getting them more easily on subsequent hits draws more concern It will be interesting to see if the Patriots go ahead and put Woodhead on the field Saturday night against Detroit. He returned to practice this week. The Holland hit - and the one by Bucs linebacker Mason Foster earlier in the game that drew a 20,000 fine - are the kind that draw extra scrutiny these days. They are spectacular collisions that are quickly dissected in Zapruder-like fashion to determine whether a defender made contact with a defenseless player's helmet. I didn't think either hit was wrong. Woodhead wasn't defenseless; he was trying to make a tackle. For Holland to make a block that didn't contact Woodhead above the chest, he would either have to roll at Woodhead's knees or magically shrink himself to a height of 4-foot-3. And in the chaos of a punt return, blockers are running full speed looking to hit anything in a different color shirt. There was no "intent to injure." Holland didn't line Woodhead up. As for Foster's hit on Ochocinco, I'm with Ocho: just football. If you can't break up the pass, you have to ensure the receiver is separated from the ball. Again, these defenders don't have a protractor handy to figure the angle that will avoid head contact. The unfortunate by-product of the NFL's vigilance on helmet-to-helmet hits is that observers -- fans and the media -- spend inordinate time trying to determine where hits ultimately land and forget the irony that A) the defenders are paid to deliver hits that ultimately cost them money and B) offensive players sign up for these risks when they enter the league.

Tom E. Curran can be reached at Follow Tom on Twitter at http:twitter.comtomecurran

Tom Brady congratulates Jordan Spieth on British Open win with Facebook video


Tom Brady congratulates Jordan Spieth on British Open win with Facebook video

Jordan Spieth's wayward drive on the 13th hole was nothing more than a speed bump on his way to the British Open title on Sunday.

On Facebook, Tom Brady congratulated his fellow Under Armour endorser in a post shared with another world famous UA pitchman, the Golden State Warriors' Stephen Curry.

Brady quoted Curry and posted a short video of Spieth climbing the hill well off the fairway on the 13th hole at Royal Birkdale, where Spieth recovered from a wild tee shot and rallied over the final holes to win the Open Championship. A smiling Robert Redford from "Jeremiah Johnson" nodding in appreciation finishes off the clip.

Drive on #13? As Steph says, make that old. Congrats Jordan Spieth 🏆🏆🏆

Posted by Tom Brady on Sunday, July 23, 2017


Bean: The 2007 Patriots don't get nearly enough love

Bean: The 2007 Patriots don't get nearly enough love

Phil Perry has been running a series on the 2007 Patriots vs. the 2017 Patriots. He breaks everything down position-by-position and compares what should go down as two of the best teams in franchise history. It’s really good stuff. 

Also, a lot of people are idiots. 

    For some reason -- and it’s either because they’re rightfully excited for the upcoming team or because they’re still shell-shocked by 18-1 -- the 2007 Patriots have been shown a remarkable lack of love when it’s come to the reader votes. It’s insane. 

    2007 PATRIOTS vs. 2017 PATRIOTS:

    And before you start with the “This is Boston and it only counts if you win” nonsense, remember that the 2017 team hasn’t done a thing yet, so by saying the 2017 Pats are better than the 2007 Pats, you’re saying the then-greatest offense of all time is worse than a current work in progress.

    As if anyone should need the reminder, the 2007 Patriots rank as the No. 2 scoring team ever, and at the time they were No. 1. Their 36.8 points a game was dwarfed only by the 2013 Broncos, who averaged 37.9. Then again, the Patriots have four of the top 12 scoring teams ever, so there’s no reason to rule out what should be a loaded 2017 group registering high on that list as well. 

    But back to the ’07 team for a second. At the time of this writing, a poll of over 3,300 readers had 67 percent finding the 2017 receivers and tight ends being better than the group from 2007. If ever there were a poll that should be split 50-50, it’s that. In fact, I would take the 2007 group over the 2017, but that’s only because I saw Randy Moss play in every game and am not sure I will see Rob Gronkowski do the same. 

    Think about the options after the top guys in both groups. Donte’ Stallworth was a get in free agency -- a 27-year-old first-round pick with all the talent in the world and a few damn good seasons in New Orleans under his belt -- and the guy didn’t even have 50 catches for that 2007 team. No, it wasn’t because he wasn’t any good; it was because Tom Brady, Randy Moss and Wes Welker were so busy putting up a combined 31 touchdowns together that there was barely time for anyone else. 

    Laurence Maroney was the ’07 team’s lead back, but given how much the team threw and the fact that he missed three games, his 835-yard season with an average of 4.5 yards a pop was a lot better than has been remembered. 

    The only thing you can give the 2017 team over the 2007 one is that they figure to be well-rounded. The Patriots’ defense should be better than that ’07 group, even though the 2007 Pats gave up the fourth-fewest points in the league. Damn, the 2007 Patriots were so good.  

    Yes, that ’07 team lost, but it was still the best team in the league by a mile that season. Bad Super Bowl game plan, bad execution, obviously. But overall? There wasn’t a team close to as good as them that season. 

    The expectation is that something similar could play out this season. The Pats are so much better than everyone else that you’d be nuts to rule out 19-0 talk. Yet that hasn’t happened yet, and for now, the most explosive offense the Pats have ever seen — and very well may ever see — will be that 2007 one. They aren’t held in the same regard as the five championships, and for good reason, but to slight that offense — or really that team at all — is foolish.