Malcolm Jenkins takes issue with characterization of his comments


Athletes and coaches routinely bristle when the words that come out of their mouths are published in a way that they don’t like, even if the words are published accurately.

On Tuesday morning, PFT posted an item based on words uttered by Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins on Monday regarding zone-read plays. Jenkins said he would hit an opposing quarterback running a play of that type as part of a broader plan to get the opposing team to stop running zone-read plays.

The article pointed out that Jenkins specifically said he wouldn’t hit a quarterback low, but he definitely said that “my way of scaring you out of that run concept is hit your quarterback.”

We presented exactly what he said. Jenkins responded by asking on Twitter, “Did @NBCSports really try to make it seem like I’m out here hunting for zone read QBs? lol I don’t like flags nor fines.”

The answer to his question is no.  PFT/NBC Sports didn’t try to make it seem like Jenkins is hunting for zone-read quarterbacks. Instead, PFT tried to passing along comments from Jenkins that were intriguing, especially in light of the fact that a hit on his team’s quarterback during a play that looked like a zone-read run has sparked a controversy that has lingered longer than anyone thought it would.

Maybe Jenkins didn’t like the presence of the word “target” in the headline. Although “target” is generally a fair characterization of an attempt to hit a specific player, “target” sounds a little too much like the terms that were used in the trumped-up Saints “bounty” scandal — and Jenkins was a member of the Saints from 2009 through 2013.

Either way, Jenkins didn’t say he would be “hunting” zone-read quarterbacks, and PFT didn’t say he would be doing that. But he did say he’d hit zone-read quarterbacks in order to get teams to think twice about using zone-read plays, and that’s what PFT said he said.

12 responses to “Malcolm Jenkins takes issue with characterization of his comments

  1. I’m surprised that teams don’t give players a little card that says, “Think before you speak.”

    Heck, there should be a poster on the wall behind the media while a guy is at the podium. I love when a dude says he didn’t say that and suddenly some audio or video of him yammering away pops up, then it was taken out of context.

    Ah well, he said what he didn’t say and PFT didn’t say what he said they said…who’s to say?

  2. Chip: “WTH Jenkins??”

    Jenkins: “No coach, I was misquoted.”

    Chip: “Says here… uh… ‘Chip has to say that cause he’s the coach.’ WTH Jenkins??”

    Jenkins: “I didn’t write it coach!”

    Kinda figured this was coming after reading the post. Good on ya, Jenkins. I’m pretty sure the “Free Terrell Suggs” crew has your back 100.2%.

    Chip? Not so much.

  3. If he is not “targeting” the zone read qb in a regular season game than he is not doing his job. Let’s not try to sugar coat this. Like Suggs said, if you don’t want your qb hit don’t run the gimmick play.

  4. Congrats Malcolm, now you know why your Coaches and (most) fellow Veteran players give boring interviews with little to no opinion or content.

    “It was a good contest between two professional hardworking teams and everyone should follow the rules.”


  5. But you knew what you were doing when you used the word “target.” You tried to make it sounds like he said something he didn’t, while not actually saying he said something he didn’t say.

  6. The “option” offense will not have a long shelf life in the NFL. QBs that run it get hurt too much for the pay that position demands.

    Say bye-bye to the likes of Kap, RG3 etc….

  7. You did though. The headline read that he ‘will target QBs’ whereas what he said was that if he was in the same situation as Suggs was he ‘would have’ done the same thing.

  8. And he did make a distinction about not hitting the QB in the legs if he was not actually running.

    IMO a QB with or without the ball should not be considered a runner until he, well, takes a step forward. If you don’t know whether or not he has the ball because of a handoff which might be a fake, you should be able to go after him, but not to dive at his legs.

    That’s not the way Blandino interpreted the rule, of course, but that’s the way I think it needs to be in order for there to be any chance of consistency in terms of enforcing the rule.

  9. If Bradford didn’t try to spin away from the hit he would’ve been hit in the mid section, not the legs, so you can’t blame Suggs for a low hit. Watch the replay.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.