kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 30, 2007 13:21:40 GMT -5
Having seen some miraculous comebacks in both professional and collegiate football, I have no problem with "running up the score." In fact, as far as I am concerned, the game isn't over until the clock strikes triple zero. To not continue to execute your game plan--and that includes "dialing it down"--only creates problems for your team, and causes a team to lose both momentum and rhythm. If teams have a problem, they should stop the Patriots, or any other team. If the Patriots were up five or six touchdowns running a no-huddle, quick-snap, two-minute drill offense, I might have a problem. If the Patriots were using a Peyton-Manning offense, I might have a problem. But for a team down five touchdowns to take offense because a team doesn't hand the ball off three straight times with a cloud of dust only tells me they don't have what it takes to get on the field and leave it all out on the field, or take their beatdown like men. If they want to play like little girlyboys, keep whining about how they were disrespected because they and their coaches didn't gameplan how to stop a team. You really think the Dolphins or Redskins were going to come back? Really?
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Oct 30, 2007 13:22:47 GMT -5
Problem with the "running up the score" talk is that most media people and fans don't understand what is more insulting--it's more insulting in a blowout to kick a FG then to run a play and convert a 4th down. It's like bunting with a 15 run lead in top of 9th when you kick a FG in a blowout. Belichick is absolutely correct in his reasoning. I take no issue with Belichick's reasoning or answers--he's 100% right. I love Belichick as a coach and Brady as a player. They get it--when Brady snapped at the OL when they had false start-that is why you win--never let up and DEMAND PERFECTION.
My only issue--and this is what most who are talking about the Pats arrogance--running QB sneaks with Brady up by 38 points in 4th quarter, having Brady out there--this isn't the Super Bowl--where you have an entire offseason--it's the 8th game of year--why risk an injury when the only goals that matter are winning every game and the Championship? It's stupid to keep playing with fate--which will bite you in the rear. A QB sneak is the one time an NFL defender can go upside the QB's head and take shots at him--and not get called for a penalty. So why risk it?
Matt Cassell passing--that is fine by me. I think backups earn the right to play--and not just sit on the football when ahead in games. It's your job to stop someone--and I have no problem with Brady throwing bombs in 3rd quarter up by as many as Pats are--but 4th quarter, QB sneaks, Brady in game throwing-the game is over--and the season is still not even half over--(considering playoffs) so why be that arrogant? As long as that continues--don't be shocked to see Brady or someone else go down--and by any means--possible cheapshot, career threatening cheapshot, etc.. and if that happens as much as I like Belichick and Brady--you get what's coming to you, no matter how foul.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Oct 30, 2007 13:30:13 GMT -5
You really think the Dolphins or Redskins were going to come back? Really? They were always one or two Matt Cassell plays from being in a position to make a game competitive. That's what happens when one team's second team lines up against the other's first. Plays get made, a turnover, an onside kick recovery, a huge momentum swing. Why put yourself in that position if you don't have to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2007 13:46:02 GMT -5
This is the NFL. You're supposed to vanquish your foes. Trample on their graves. All that stuff Conan the Barbarian once said.
For the 'Skins, the media, anyone to complain about "running up the score" in PROFESSIONAL sports is ludicrous. All this talk about "poor sportsmanship" makes me want to puke. What a nation of panty-waists we've become. How about taking pride in what you do and stopping the Patriots every once in a while? I'm a Bills fan and routinely look forward to getting bashed by the Pats twice a year because its a clinic in Professional Football... from building the team to pre-game preparations to game-time execution.
As for 'bridge enjoying the "evil" moniker applied to his team of choice, its now official: Red Sox/New England fans have turned into Yankee fans. The supposed "moral high ground" has been decimated.
Enjoy it. You've become as annoying to the rest of the world as Yankee fans.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2007 13:46:30 GMT -5
Thank you Buff, I relish the opportunity to feast on your offspring and rape your women (again) come November 18th. Ta ta!
RDF, I agree 100% with you on the Brady sneak and the insult of kicking a fieldgoal. See my posts above.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 30, 2007 14:45:04 GMT -5
You really think the Dolphins or Redskins were going to come back? Really? They were always one or two Matt Cassell plays from being in a position to make a game competitive. That's what happens when one team's second team lines up against the other's first. Plays get made, a turnover, an onside kick recovery, a huge momentum swing. Why put yourself in that position if you don't have to? You're right. I agree, that's why the Colts kept Peyton Manning in after they went up 31-7 early in the 4th against Carolina. Oh yeah, that's right, they didn't. I guarantee you that Bill Belichick was not worried about Washington coming back from 38-0 in the 4th quarter. You really think that's why he kept Brady in? And please, spare me this nonsense about the Colts and Rams and whoever doing the same thing. Go back and look at the Colts in 2004, when Manning had his 49 TDs. They had some blowouts, but not a lot. Look at the 11/21/04 game versus the Bears, where Indy was up 41-3 at the beginning of the 4th. They had a 38 point lead, just like the Pats. What did they do on their first drive of the 4th quarter? They rushed 11 straight times. No passes. No sneaks. Nothing fancy. The drive ended at the Bears 18 when they rushed Dominic Rhodes on 4th and 10. So I have no problem going for it on 4th when they're just running out the clock. But I don't think that's what the Pats were doing. It's pretty clear when a team is kicking a FG or going for it on 4th down in order to run out the game versus trying to run up the score even more. Look at the 2004 Thanksgiving game Colts at Lions. Colts up 41-9 in the 4th and same thing - lots of runs and Peyton Manning out. sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20041125008&page=plays
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 30, 2007 15:00:00 GMT -5
It is not the responsibility of the evildoers to stop themselves. If it was, there never would be any evildoers. ;D
I'm with Wilbon on this one. New England can run up the score all they want. But if I'm the Redskins, I might be trying to inflict some pain.
My guess is that if the Patriots are up by 30 points over the Ravens or Steelers in the second half in the next few weeks (very real possibilities both)....Tom Brady's coming out of those games, posthaste.
Or, at the very least, he's not running QB sneaks and giving those defenses an opportunity to pile on.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2007 15:38:38 GMT -5
I think if the Pats are up by 30 on the Ravens, Adalius Thomas comes in a special package as a TE just to lay out the big mouth, murdering Ray Lewis.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 30, 2007 15:53:45 GMT -5
I am so sick and tired of the "running up the score" issue. The coach is sometimes damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. How many points is ever enough? Granted 38 midway through the fourth quarter is probably a safe lead. Still, it is each coach's and each team's responsibility to do their job. On offense that is to move the chains and score. On defense it is to get the ball back for the offense ... unless you are the Bears, in which case it is to try to score on defense. Still, most of the "running up the score" crowd comes from their rooting for the team on the wrong end of the score. In point of fact, the winning coach should be the one most anxious to see his multi-million dollar players in street clothes standing next to him. If a Brady or a Manning or a Moss or a Harrison were to get a major injury late in a decided game, then I think that would pretty much solve the problem, at least for a while. It's almost like the coaches have to learn that for themselves though. I guess there is some sort of invincibility feeling: "that won't happen to me."
Ask Mike Shula. Up 31-3, with about 5 minutes to go in the game, Shula still had his star wide receiver Prothro in the game and threw deep to him in the endzone. He came down awkwardly and hasn't played a game of football since. By the way, that was in Urban Meyer's FIRST season. He has been out for 2 seasons and is hopeful of a recovery next year. I wish him the best of luck. But what should govern pulling the starters should be two market forces at work, both on the leading team. The first is simply to avoid any potential fluke injury. The second is to get as many game reps for the second and third stringers. Practice is nice and everything, but there is nothing like live game action. So I think the burden should fall on the leading coach and he should be trying to get his stars out as soon as possible. If he doesn't, then he gets what he deserves. Eventually one of those guys will be gone for the season or more.
After having said that, I don't think much of tying the hands of the backups. Those guys bust their tails in practice and work out to stay in shape for just about the whole year. I think they deserve to get out there and run the offense or defense the way they are taught. I don't think there is anything wrong with the offense passing the ball if they are a passing team. I don't think backup linebackers should have to play a straight base defense because they have a big lead. I think it is reasonable to let them do what they are taught to do. I know others disagree with me on this last point, but that is my opinion.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 31, 2007 9:44:27 GMT -5
I think if the Pats are up by 30 on the Ravens, Adalius Thomas comes in a special package as a TE just to lay out the big mouth, murdering Ray Lewis. Just remember: Ray Lewis isn't guilty of murder........yet. "Oh, snap! I didn't see nuthin'!"(one of my favorite TV Funhouse moments of all time)
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 31, 2007 11:11:53 GMT -5
The saddest part was that I wasn't even trying to quote anything. Although on review, it is awfully close. It appears my brain only speaks in disjointed pop-culture references.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Oct 31, 2007 11:30:00 GMT -5
what do people think about the early line on Pats (-5.5) - Colts? It is amazing that one AFC team is getting so much respect on the road against another AFC team (and defending SB champs), but I have become a true believer in the Pats. Seeing how Belichick has been on a relentless mission to get Brady every single season QB record imaginable, and break team records in points, etc., along with 19-0, against bottom-dwellers no less, I have a hard time believing that he won't pull out every stop against the Colts this weekend and I just don't think the Colts D is up to the task.
I would be inclined to take the Pats to cover.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Oct 31, 2007 11:54:06 GMT -5
Talk of running up the score is ignorant--it's football you get 16 games (regular season) out of 365 days of lifting, practicing, and waiting--everyone should get the opportunity to play--now I think we've talked about why the Pats are being arrogant and taking chances-but the topic of running up the score is for wimps and sportsmanship for the "kids" is beyond assnine. Yeah-Youth sports is the place to worry about--you know where parents yell at kids, start fights with other parents, think their kid will be the next millionaire, etc....yeah--it's the NFL's fault. The Pats will get routed some time in future--what goes around comes around and every team gets to do the stompin' and get stomped. The Colts only opportunity to win is to execute their stretch draw runs where they hold the other team's defense and never get called for it--if that happens--they'll move the ball. Defensively Freeney will do his unnecessary spin moves ala Robin Williams character in "Best of Times" Jack Dundee the entire game and never pressure Brady, so their secondary will have to play well, and Harrison will need to be healthy--he's been banged up. This is game Belichick and Pats have had circled all year--and made the additions to their team specifically to address the Colts firepower.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,992
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Oct 31, 2007 13:22:57 GMT -5
rdf is correct, indy's running game is the key. manning won't be able to draw the pats LB's with playaction if they don't establish the run the first half. personally, i am rooting for the pats just so i don't have to see as many playoff games in domes. all domes need to be destroyed, starting with the one in syracuse, preferably with a certain 4 eyed rat still inside.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 31, 2007 13:29:54 GMT -5
Buff...this goes out to you:
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 31, 2007 13:30:00 GMT -5
I'm biased, so I'm not sure how objective I can be, but for the past several weeks I was looking forward to betting a good amount on the Pats getting a field goal or so, which I fully expected playing at Indy. Now the line comes out at Pats minus five and even risese a smidge. Right now I am leaning to laying off the game. I am actually making a decent amount thusfar this season and I am not anxious to give any of it back. Either way I am looking forward to a fun afternoon of football, as opposed to that boring dreadful game they had at 1pm last week (Giants-Miami from London).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2007 14:31:18 GMT -5
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Oct 31, 2007 14:47:45 GMT -5
They were always one or two Matt Cassell plays from being in a position to make a game competitive. That's what happens when one team's second team lines up against the other's first. Plays get made, a turnover, an onside kick recovery, a huge momentum swing. Why put yourself in that position if you don't have to? You're right. I agree, that's why the Colts kept Peyton Manning in after they went up 31-7 early in the 4th against Carolina. Oh yeah, that's right, they didn't. I guarantee you that Bill Belichick was not worried about Washington coming back from 38-0 in the 4th quarter. You really think that's why he kept Brady in? And please, spare me this nonsense about the Colts and Rams and whoever doing the same thing. Go back and look at the Colts in 2004, when Manning had his 49 TDs. They had some blowouts, but not a lot. Look at the 11/21/04 game versus the Bears, where Indy was up 41-3 at the beginning of the 4th. They had a 38 point lead, just like the Pats. What did they do on their first drive of the 4th quarter? They rushed 11 straight times. No passes. No sneaks. Nothing fancy. The drive ended at the Bears 18 when they rushed Dominic Rhodes on 4th and 10. So I have no problem going for it on 4th when they're just running out the clock. But I don't think that's what the Pats were doing. It's pretty clear when a team is kicking a FG or going for it on 4th down in order to run out the game versus trying to run up the score even more. Look at the 2004 Thanksgiving game Colts at Lions. Colts up 41-9 in the 4th and same thing - lots of runs and Peyton Manning out. sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20041125008&page=playsReasonable minds can disagree, and just as you cannot wrap your head around the possibility of a thought you might not have, I can accept that Belichek might have had that type of thought. Because that is the type of coach Belichek has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be. The kind of coach that will bench and replace players on the field if he feels they are slacking in their competitive execution. You can yap all you like about whether the Colts pulled Peyton Manning or not, but that really misses the point. I have no problem with Tony Dungy's philosophy that if his team can blowout another team then he is okay with his team taking the fourth quarter off. I am also okay with Belichek demanding his team execute for 60 minutes. Personally, I prefer an approach that doesn't necessitate "flipping switches" on or off, and I agree with Belichek that taking a quarter off creates the type of mentality I don't want on my team.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 31, 2007 15:47:47 GMT -5
You're right. I agree, that's why the Colts kept Peyton Manning in after they went up 31-7 early in the 4th against Carolina. Oh yeah, that's right, they didn't. I guarantee you that Bill Belichick was not worried about Washington coming back from 38-0 in the 4th quarter. You really think that's why he kept Brady in? And please, spare me this nonsense about the Colts and Rams and whoever doing the same thing. Go back and look at the Colts in 2004, when Manning had his 49 TDs. They had some blowouts, but not a lot. Look at the 11/21/04 game versus the Bears, where Indy was up 41-3 at the beginning of the 4th. They had a 38 point lead, just like the Pats. What did they do on their first drive of the 4th quarter? They rushed 11 straight times. No passes. No sneaks. Nothing fancy. The drive ended at the Bears 18 when they rushed Dominic Rhodes on 4th and 10. So I have no problem going for it on 4th when they're just running out the clock. But I don't think that's what the Pats were doing. It's pretty clear when a team is kicking a FG or going for it on 4th down in order to run out the game versus trying to run up the score even more. Look at the 2004 Thanksgiving game Colts at Lions. Colts up 41-9 in the 4th and same thing - lots of runs and Peyton Manning out. sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20041125008&page=playsReasonable minds can disagree, and just as you cannot wrap your head around the possibility of a thought you might not have, I can accept that Belichek might have had that type of thought. Because that is the type of coach Belichek has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be. The kind of coach that will bench and replace players on the field if he feels they are slacking in their competitive execution. You can yap all you like about whether the Colts pulled Peyton Manning or not, but that really misses the point. I have no problem with Tony Dungy's philosophy that if his team can blowout another team then he is okay with his team taking the fourth quarter off. I am also okay with Belichek demanding his team execute for 60 minutes. Personally, I prefer an approach that doesn't necessitate "flipping switches" on or off, and I agree with Belichek that taking a quarter off creates the type of mentality I don't want on my team. I pretty much agree with your sentiment there, so I think the "best" solution is to sub for your starters when the game is in hand, but then to have your reserves act as if the score is zero-zero. Let the reserves get in and execute the offense and defense. Let them get real live game experience. The next time some of these guys come into the game, it just might be a tight playoff game. Who knows???
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,914
|
Post by DanMcQ on Nov 1, 2007 11:51:42 GMT -5
|
|