In the world of sports, physicality is often at the core of competition. In football, the objective is clear: take down the opponent with the ball and protect your own ball carrier by any means necessary. Hockey shares this physical edge, where body checks aren't just allowed-they're strategic, aimed at both separating the puck from the opponent and shaking their confidence.
But what happens when hits cross the line? In hockey, it's almost a given that questionable hits will spark immediate retaliation.
Teammates will drop the gloves or engage in some rough play to send a message, especially if a key player is targeted. Penalties vary, but the code of the ice often dictates a more lenient view on retaliation.
Football, however, plays by different rules. Retaliation is less common, largely because the consequences-a 15-yard personal foul-can be costly.
Yet, when a quarterback takes a questionable hit, you might see the offensive line stepping up, penalties be damned, to protect their leader. It's a brotherhood out there, with linemen seeing themselves as guardians of the quarterback, their "little brother."
Take the Green Bay Packers' history, for instance. Guards like TJ Lang and Josh Sitton were known for their fierce protection of Aaron Rodgers. They weren't shy about getting physical if they felt Rodgers was unfairly targeted, and their actions often made defenses think twice.
Fast forward to the 2025 season, and the Packers' offensive line faced criticism for not retaliating when quarterback Jordan Love took a couple of helmet-to-helmet hits from Chicago's Austin Booker. One hit sidelined Love for the season.
Another questionable play involved Denver's Talanoa Hufanga, who shoved Love's head to the ground after a play. The lack of response from Love's protectors was glaring.
Could head coach Matt LaFleur's strict stance against retaliation be a factor? LaFleur has emphasized discipline, urging players not to let emotions lead to penalties that hurt the team. While this approach is sound, it might have inadvertently cooled the line's fiery instinct to defend their quarterback.
Does this mean LaFleur should change his philosophy? Not entirely.
The Packers don't need players acting recklessly post-whistle. However, there might be room for a nuanced approach-an understanding that standing up for a teammate after a questionable hit could be addressed privately, rather than publicly condemned.
Ultimately, whether it's on LaFleur or the players to ensure no one takes liberties with Jordan Love, something needs to change. Booker faced no repercussions for his hits, and without a response, he struck again in the playoffs.
For the Packers to assert themselves as a formidable force, they need to draw a line in the sand about what physicality they'll tolerate. Their players must be ready to enforce that line, showing the league that their quarterback-and their team-won't be pushed around.