13 Comments
User's avatar
Eazy's avatar

Did Ennis come in for Terrion?

Expand full comment
Jason Harwood's avatar

Regardless if he's wearing the cap or not. I don't like that how he buries his head right into sub-zero like that.

Expand full comment
Mike W's avatar

It is interesting in all their player safety initiatives, this type of block isn’t banned.

Expand full comment
Mike W's avatar

SI reporting Detroit secondary was beat “consistently”. That’s concerning. NYG don’t have an elite WR room, need to get some things figured out there.

Expand full comment
Crixcyon's avatar

At this point, the Lions might have enough depth to overcome some of these injuries. It's a thin line between being too fired up and toning it down a bit.

Expand full comment
Kyle Domer's avatar

Fingers crossed they both escape major injury

Expand full comment
John Weeast's avatar

If you could, whenever the press conference happens, find out why Thomas wasn't wearing the guardian cap which all players of his position are required to wear. Curious if that's fineable.

Expand full comment
Justin Rogers's avatar

It's on the agenda.

Expand full comment
Philip Fracassi's avatar

I was thinking the same thing. I would have assumed all players would be wearing them for these practices?

Expand full comment
John Weeast's avatar

That's the rule. His position group is a mandatory wear.

Expand full comment
Mike W's avatar

Per Jeremy Reisman, per a team source,

There are five or six helmets that test better than the guardian cap and he wears one of them. If you wear a helmet that tests better then you don’t have to wear it. You can wear but you don’t have to

Expand full comment
John Weeast's avatar

That's the opposite of the goal though. The helmets that test better is for personal protection, not the protection against the opposing player's helmet. They should still be wearing it or is the goal not protection for both players and not just self.

Expand full comment
Mike W's avatar

I am in total agreement with you, it’s just what is being reported. But yes, it should be for mutual protection to wear it, not just for the wear-er

Expand full comment