Chris Gamble (#20, lower left, top photo) ends Duante Culpepper's seasonDuante Culpepper is the latest victim of the most recent growing trend in the NFL these days -- irresponsible, shoddy play. The increasing display of poor tackling, chop blocking, leg-whipping, spearing, and all-around fundamentally bad play each week floors me. And worst of all, it's getting worse, not better.
As a Packer fan I'm naturally inclined to root against the Vikings at every opportunity. But last Sunday I felt no joy in seeing Duante Culpepper grimacing in pain after being "tackled” by Carolina Panther cornerback Chris Gamble. After being forced out of the pocket, Gamble came in from Culpepper's right, turned his left shoulder, and dove into Culpepper's legs. Duante had just planted his right leg to make a move to avoid the defender in front of him when Gamble made contact; immediately collapsing Culpepper's right knee. The replay looked hideous. Monday the Vikings announced that MRIs revealed a total of three torn logaments (ACL, PCL, and MCL). Knee injuries this extensive usually require at least one full year of rehabilitation. Some are even questioning if he may have to miss next season as well. Certainly a harsh price to pay for simply being tackled.
Looking at that subsequent replays showed that Gamble wasn't tripped up, stumbling, or even knocked into Culpepper's legs. He went low intentionally. Culpepper had no chance to defend himself from that kind of hit. Make no mistake, I'm not saying Gamble intended to injure Culpepper. I am saying he intentionally chose to not go in with his head up in front of the chest, and drive his shoulder through Culpepper's rib cage -- even though that technique would have achieved exactly the same result.
I understand the arguments against the way I've characterized Gamble's so-called "tackle", so don't bother trying to enlighten me. There are no hard and fast rules against doing what he did. In fact, he was most likely taught that technique by coaches. But to me that's part of the problem, and it doesn't make it right.
So you have to wonder; if it's so dangerous to throw your body at a player's legs, why isn't it outlawed? Well, it is. Sort of anyway. The catch is that it's loosely outlawed for `offensive players using the same move to block defensive players. The difference is that for offensive players, it's called "chop blocking", or "cut blocking" and it's outlawed only in some specific circumstances. On defense it's just called "poor tackling" and is perfectly legal.
Shoddy and/or lazy play has been part of the NFL for a long time now, but you see more and more examples of it each and every week. But as much as lazy play bothers me, what bothers me even more is what I believe to be the reason for it -- money and selfishness.
Unfortunately it turns out that throwing your body at a runner's legs just happens to be a somewhat effective way to knock a player down. For the purpose of this conversation, let's call this type of tackle the "lazy" technique. Despite being fairly effective, lazy tackling just happens to carry with it an interesting caveat over the far more reliable old school technique; the tackler is exposed to less contact. The only downside to lazy tackling is that it's not as reliable as the old school method. If a runner sees a lazy tackle coming, a simple still-arm easily defeats it. Unfortunately for ball carriers, being unprepared for a lazy tackle (especially from the side) leaves them exponentially more prone to serious leg/knee injuries. Good for the tackler, but bad for the runner. With little downside for the tackler, why shouldn't a defender take the easy road with a lazy tackle every time?
Maybe we can answer that question better if we have a better understanding of how the NFL works these days.
With no guaranteed contracts and a rigid salary cap in the NFL, the best way for a player to earn as much money as possible during their career, is by securing a long-term contract with a large signing bonus, then play out the duration of the contract at a high enough level to hopefully earn a contract renewal with yet another signing bonus. Unless they're one of the lucky few to be drafted at the top of their rookie class, most start their NFL careers as unproven players with shorter-term, modest contracts. The best of them then aggressively play their way into starting jobs before their contracts are up, giving them a better chance at the coveted long-term, big bonus deal. Unfortunately, getting the big contract causes new considerations again. Aggressive play takes a toll on a player's health, making them more likely to sustain injuries that keep them off the field. Not playing gives a teammate a chance to possibly earn their spot an the field. And becoming a high-salary backup is the quickest way to get cut [fired] in the NFL.
So when all said and done, the optimal NFL career strategy has now become... Play hard, just don't get your ass hurt!
The reality of the situation is that the lazy play we're seeing these days is in fact a byproduct of the NFL system. Players playing just hard enough to keep their roster spots (and their paychecks). If a player can do that by making tackles in a way that doesn't grade him down too much during weekly film review, and lessens the likelihood of injury; then the lazy tackles will continue -- even if it puts their opponents (and fellow NFLPA union members) at greater risk of severe injury.
Can you really blame Chris Gamble though? Consider his world for a moment. He's living a lifestyle afforded that of a young first-round draft pick's salary in a career with probably probably 4-5 years of prime earning potential (slightly more if he's lucky). At 6'-1", 200 lbs, he's a modest-sized defensive back by NFL standards. He's expected to make about 50 or so game tackles during the season, and at least a hundred more if you count practices. That makes for hundreds of of opportunities to for a potential separated shoulder, concussion, broken ribs, blown knee, etc., and all that just from tackling alone. Now put yourself in that world for a second and step onto the field. A play unfolds in front of you, and suddenly you have someone like Duante Culpepper (6'-4", 260 lbs.) running loose through your area of responsibility. You have to make a tackle. But not just any tackle. A tackle on a man 3 inches taller, and 60 lbs heavier. How tempted would you be to avoid the direct violence and instead go low and take his legs out from under him? Why wouldn't you is probably a more appropriate question. After all, with only minor consequences for these kinds of acts, why would you do anything other than throw a lazy tackle at him?
If things continue this way, the quality of play is certain to continue it's slow but steady decline, and more players will continue to pay the price by suffering through severe yet unnecessary injuries.
The only way things will never change is enact new rules legislating the lazy and cheap play, and follow-up by enforcing those rules. But more importantly, the price players pay for for serious violations needs to be more than a modest monetary fine. After all, the fine system in the NFL is silly. $10,000 for this, and $50,000 for that isn't the way to deal with it. If you want to use money as the punishment, then it's not fair to inflict the same level of punishment on a low-priced player, as you do for a high-priced player. They should forget about the fixed-dollar fine scale, and instead fine players entire game checks by suspending them. If a flagrant lazy tackle is worth a game check for a starter, then why shouldn't it be the same for his backup? For less severe violations, perhaps they get X number of warnings. Perhaps a point system would work here. Earn X number of points and it costs you a one game vacation. At least then it is more equitable to all players.
I don't see any reason why a solution like this can't be found to the problem. After all, I can't imagine that the player's union would balk. Think about it, any player rep with a triple-digit IQ would gladly accept an increase in shoulder injuries that require 4 weeks of rehab, in exchange for a reduction in the number of season-ending knee injuries.
Enough for now. I think I've made my point.
Now, just don't get me started on announcers/analysts not making a bigger deal out of the issue.