Pouring it on? (NFL)

[Frank]

So the Patriots go for a touchdown on 4th and 1 at the 3 on their first possesion of the second half, while up 35-7. Given that Bellichek is an asshole; so what? Is there any good reason an NFL team should not attempt to score as many touchdowns as they can? The Pats could set a scoring record. Why should they not go for it? They've scored a touchdown on every possesion in the game; why should they not attempt to continue that?

[dgrdfd]

Fuck the Patriots. I hope Brady stays in and gets something broken.

[Marley23]

I think there basically two arguments against running up the score:

*What goes around comes around and you won't want a team to play you that way when you're on the losing end.

*Wouldn't you look like an idiot if one of your stars got hurt going for the sixth TD in a game that had already been decided?

The Patriots are doing this to my team tonight, so I admit I'm of two minds. It's jerkish, but is it a big deal? I don't know. I do think it's sort of funny that the Patriots are doing this to "prove" the previous few years aren't tainted by their cheating. How is that supposed to work, exactly? :p

[Spoons]

Hey, the kick into the camera was good. And it was good, too!

:D

[Frank]

*What goes around comes around and you won't want a team to play you that way when you're on the losing end.

*Wouldn't you look like an idiot if one of your stars got hurt going for the sixth TD in a game that had already been decided?
And those arguments make sense, but - again - so what?

If the coach and the team are willing to accept the loss, if and when it happens, that's up to them. Do the Redskins still ache for their 73-0 loss?

As is the chance of injury. The Pats are already down 2 RBs; what more should they do?

[blondebear]

(this is apples and oranges, I know)

Should Roger Federer lighten up on his opponents? How about Tiger Woods?

[Jackmannii]

I don't see the problem with the Patriots trying to salt the game away relatively early in the second half.

In general, I think gripes about "running up the score" are a crock, especially when people have paid to see a game and your second and third-stringers are in.
It's an even bigger crock in college football; when bench-sitters who've slogged through all those practices get a chance to play, they're expected not to try to score?

There may be hurt feelings (wah!) among players and coaches in the pro game when a team gets whomped by a big score. In college, I suspect the damping down of scoring late in games is to spare one's coaching brethren embarassment. It's not done out of consideration for the players.

Example: in an Ohio State game earlier this year, a substitute running back scored a touchdown on the last play of the game, to make the final margin something like 16 points instead of 10. He was berated by his coach (Tressel). This seems jerkish to me - the guy might not ever have a scoring chance like that again.

[drm]

This is a game where the Bills need someone like Bill Romanowski - a player who plays to hurt.

I've played sports and I hate it when people let up but at the same time, it seems silly to keep Brady in there. It's probably a good thing I'm not an athlete because if I were a linebacker or a Defensive End for the bills in this game I'd hit Brady late on every damn play.

At this point does a 15-yard penalty really matter?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

In high school the argument holds water because there is a rotation of players, and if you humiliate someone this year you will eventually be humiliated yourself to the detriment of the kids. In college, not so much- these guys are amateur in name only. Nevertheless, there remains a modicum of sportsmanship.

In the pros, though, all bets are off. You're being paid, so suck up your fragile ego and if you don't want them to run up the score on you, all you have to do is stop them. If you can't do that, well, perhaps it's time for a career change. Even if they call off the dogs and put in the third team, what is accomplished? You now have a pissed-off defense against inferior fill-in talent, and you will get some people hurt for their trouble.

As much as I hate the Patriots, even I have to grudgingly admit that they are playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

[Snooooopy]

If one is inclined to be pissed at the Patriots, it isn't hard to find fault with them whether they go for it on 4th-and-1 deep in opposing territory or kick the field goal.

"They're going for the touchdown? Jerks!"

"They're kicking the almost guaranteed field goal instead of taking the risk of turning it over on downs? Jerks!"

[Gorsnak]

This isn't Oklahoma vs Northeast Louisiana State. These are two professional football teams. Anyways, the Pats have now given the Bills two chances to stop them cold with no points deep in the red zone. It's not Bellichek's job to keep the Patriots from scoring, nor is it Brady's. If people are so desperate to keep New England from scoring, they're going to have to man up and shut down Moss & Co instead of whining about running up the score.

[Typo Negative]

These guys are professionals. Any pro can tell you that a 35-7 lead with almost 2 full quarters to play is not safe. Lots of teams have overcame bigger deficits to win.

How is it gonna look if you let up on a team and they come back to make it very close? Are they (they team you let up on) somehow honor-bound not to win?

IMO, if you don't want them to score.....you better figure out a way to stop them. If you get embarrassed in a game, use it as incentive to kick the snot out them next time.

[drm]

In high school the argument holds water because there is a rotation of players, and if you humiliate someone this year you will eventually be humiliated yourself to the detriment of the kids. In college, not so much- these guys are amateur in name only. Nevertheless, there remains a modicum of sportsmanship.

In the pros, though, all bets are off. You're being paid, so suck up your fragile ego and if you don't want them to run up the score on you, all you have to do is stop them. If you can't do that, well, perhaps it's time for a career change. Even if they call off the dogs and put in the third team, what is accomplished? You now have a pissed-off defense against inferior fill-in talent, and you will get some people hurt for their trouble.

As much as I hate the Patriots, even I have to grudgingly admit that they are playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. I can't really find fault with the Pats for pouring it on. I get mad at hockey teams all the time when they start trapping with a one goal lead with 15 minutes left. I'm all for playing until the buzzer goes.

But there has to be a defensive player out there who has at least thought of laying a massive late hit on the guy? All it takes is one bad hit on Brady and they're done. (although it seems to me that Randy Moss is the MVP at this point...)

[blondebear]

So: the guy who caught that high-flying fumble should have just stepped out of bounds?

[Gorsnak]

So: the guy who caught that high-flying fumble should have just stepped out of bounds?
Why? To give Brady a chance to throw another TD pass? :p

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'm in the "stop 'em" camp. I don't see why professional athletes should stop playing hard just because they have a lead.

[Hung Mung]

So: the guy who caught that high-flying fumble should have just stepped out of bounds?
No way, I'm with you. Play to the horn and, by God, if you score 63 points every game then it's everyone else's fault for not stopping you.

Frankly, I'm loving watching the Pats kill everyone. This is history in the making and I guarantee you that, years and years from now, people will still be talking about the '07 Patriots as one of the greatest ever. For the record, I'm a lifelong Packers fan and I'd love to see a Superbowl rematch. We'd probably get slaughtered, but it'd be an oddly appropriate way for Favre to go out: losing to the team he won his only championship against but whose current incarnation may be one of the greatest in NFL history.

[Raygun99]

If one is inclined to be pissed at the Patriots, it isn't hard to find fault with them whether they go for it on 4th-and-1 deep in opposing territory or kick the field goal.

"They're going for the touchdown? Jerks!"

"They're kicking the almost guaranteed field goal instead of taking the risk of turning it over on downs? Jerks!"

I've never heard anyone ever say that second thing.

[Telemark]

I've never heard anyone ever say that second thing.
Trust me, they'd say it about the Pats. There's really no way for them to please the critics so they're just going to play it out. More power to 'em.

[Kiros]

LINING UP TO PUNT FROM THE BUFFALO 31? WHAT ABOUT THE MATT CASSELL TOUCHDOWN TRAIN?!

(I guess that shows where I stand on this one...)

[Raygun99]

Ah, the "everyone hates us cause we're us" Massachusetts sports attitude. Trust *me*, no one would criticize them for kicking the FG. It's what you do in that situation, especially if you are playing to keep yourself sharp.

[What Exit?]

I'm in the camp of keep playing to score. Keep going for it. I am not a Pat's fan and I turn the game off at the half, but no sense in not going for it. This isn't little league.

Jim

[Telemark]

Trust *me*, no one would criticize them for kicking the FG.
I disagree. I honestly believe that there are critics this season that would find reason to harp on anything the Pats did in that situation. Such is life, I certainly don't think Belicheck cares. The only real answer is to prevent them from scoring.

[Marley23]

And those arguments make sense, but - again - so what?

If the coach and the team are willing to accept the loss, if and when it happens, that's up to them.
Of course it's up to them. But from the standpoint of trying to win future games, it's stupid. I don't think running up the score is immoral, I think it's generally not smart and a little crass. It's way further down the scale.
As is the chance of injury. The Pats are already down 2 RBs; what more should they do?
Running backs? Please. They're easily replaced. Brady and Moss aren't. And losing Brady would cripple the team.

Trust me, they'd say it about the Pats. There's really no way for them to please the critics so they're just going to play it out. More power to 'em.
Belichick tried to pull that canard a few weeks ago. Nobody's buying it. I've never heard anybody criticized for kicking a field goal with a big lead.

(this is apples and oranges, I know)

Should Roger Federer lighten up on his opponents? How about Tiger Woods?
It's not even apples and oranges - in a sport without a time element it just doesn't work as a comparison. In football, whether you win 42-10 or 56-10, you win after 60 minutes. In tennis, you don't win until a set until you get six games (unless you need seven). Even then, tennis players sometimes lay back a little bit once they have a service break. Although that's about conserving energy for their own serve, not really a sportsmanship thing.

[Raygun99]

Well as long as *you* believe it, even when no one ever criticizes it.

[fruitbat]

I honestly think running up the score is a good move psychologically. It puts the next opponent into the mindset of playing to not be embarassed instead of playing to win. It also means that you get to see exciting football past the point the game has been decided, which can only be a good thing from a disinterested viewer.

This team and this season is right at the top of the most stunning things I have ever seen in sports and of course I want it to continue.

[RickJay]

Teams have blown 4-touchdown leads in a half before. It's possible. The Patriots were not yet in a position to stop playing smart football.

So the question is, was it smart football? Look, you're obviously not going to punt at the 3-yard line. So the issue here is not running up the score; it's which makes more sense, running up the score another 3 points or maybe running it up another 7 but maybe giving the other team horrible field position. On the 3-yard line, unless that's a critical 3 points, going for the touchdown is almost always the correct play, since pinning the opposition on their goal line early in a half has a very high probability of paying off. Now, if they'd gone for it from, say, the 16-yeard line, I'd agree it would appear as if they were showing off. At the 3-yard line, though, the calculus is different; your chances of scoring a touchdown are excellent and even if you don't you're handing the opposition what is likely a terrible start to their possession, as opposed to a kickoff.

It seems to me that laying back with half the game yet to play, more or less, is much more unsportsmanlike than continuing to try to ensure you're going to win the game.

[Larry Borgia]

One rationale I've heard, and that makes sense to me: Belichick plays hard even when the Pats have an unbeatable lead because one of these days they're going to be playing a close game and He wants his team to be practiced and in shape for two-minute drills and games where every play counts. The Pats are a great team in a shitty division, but it's no accident that when they play another great team like the Colts they're able to pull out close games.

As far as morality goes, it's the NFL not high school. If some well funded high school team (or even college team) is playing a little school with no real program running up the score is a shitty thing to do. But in the NFL you're getting paid. If you're not good enough to keep from being beaten by fifty points, suck it up. And I say this as a 'Skins fan.

[mhendo]

Teams have blown 4-touchdown leads in a half before. It's possible. Well, technically yes, but if this page (http://www.profootballhof.com/history/stats/comebacks.jsp) is accurate, a lead of 28 points or more has only been overcome twice in (American) professional football history. Not sure about the CFL.

In December 1980 San Francisco came back from a 35-7 score to beat New Orleans 38-35, and in January 1993 Buffalo overcame a 35-3 deficit to beat Houston 41-38. That Buffalo comeback included 28 points in the third quarter alone!

Those stats go back over half a century, so that two 4-touchdown comebacks in 50 years of games.So the question is, was it smart football? Look, you're obviously not going to punt at the 3-yard line. So the issue here is not running up the score; it's which makes more sense, running up the score another 3 points or maybe running it up another 7 but maybe giving the other team horrible field position. On the 3-yard line, unless that's a critical 3 points, going for the touchdown is almost always the correct play, since pinning the opposition on their goal line early in a half has a very high probability of paying off. Now, if they'd gone for it from, say, the 16-yeard line, I'd agree it would appear as if they were showing off. At the 3-yard line, though, the calculus is different; your chances of scoring a touchdown are excellent and even if you don't you're handing the opposition what is likely a terrible start to their possession, as opposed to a kickoff.

It seems to me that laying back with half the game yet to play, more or less, is much more unsportsmanlike than continuing to try to ensure you're going to win the game.I agree with all that.

[DKW]

Most of my beliefs (they're professionals, no free rides, 28-point lead not insurmountable, stupid to punt on opposing 3, Federer needs 6 games no matter what) have already been mentioned, so let me just expand this discussion a bit.

There's a colossal disparity at the high school level. You have squads full of future major leaguers and squads full of inept, clumsy, unathletic kids who aren't even going to pretend they can make it in college. There are going to be mismatches. And since the vast majority of these athletes haven't developed an adult's maturity yet, they need to learn proper sportsmanship. So it's a great idea, indispensible, in fact, to prevent running up the score. Every high school league worth a damn already knows this, however (and they also know full well that some jerkish coach is going to buck the system), so they have plenty of rules in place to keep things from getting too out of control...cutoffs, time reduction, etc.

At the college level, the real problem is that a Division 1-A powerhouse is allowed to put a Divison 2* creampuff on the schedule in the first place. At this point, the only choices are to be completey honest about about this cowardly action and blow the poor opponent out, or show a tiny measure of compassion by holding back once the lead is clearly insurmountable. In either case, the damage sportsmanship-wise has been done.

In all, running up the score can be a problem, but the vast majority of the time it isn't, and at any rate there are lots of things in this sport far more worthy of our ire.

* Note I said Division 2, not Division 1-AA. That's because Division I-AA is part of Division I...slightly weaker overall, perhaps, but still Divison 1...and is not a creampuff division. And the team that won the championship for said division twice in a row is ABSOLUTELY no creampuff. All right? :D

[Enginerd]

Well, technically yes, but if this page (http://www.profootballhof.com/history/stats/comebacks.jsp) is accurate, a lead of 28 points or more has only been overcome twice in (American) professional football history. Not sure about the CFL.
Why take the chance on a third? Their opponents aren't going to stop trying to score. Why should the Pats?

I'm a Ravens fan and a former linebacker, and I love defensive football. Still, the Patriots' offense is a thing of beauty. They're the best football team I'm ever had the pleasure of watching, and I hope they never let up they're forced to.

[mhendo]

Why take the chance on a third? Their opponents aren't going to stop trying to score. Why should the Pats?Never said they should.

[jackelope]

These guys are professionals. Any pro can tell you that a 35-7 lead with almost 2 full quarters to play is not safe.Exactly. No game is ever over at halftime; if one team can do it in the first half, the other can do it in the second.
Well, technically yes, but if this page (http://www.profootballhof.com/history/stats/comebacks.jsp) is accurate, a lead of 28 points or more has only been overcome twice in (American) professional football history.I'd interpret that fact differently: The fact that it's happened, if only twice, shows that shows that such a comeback is possible, and the Patriots were right to keep playing hard.

If they'd gone for it on 4th-and-1 with a 50-point lead and 10 seconds left in the game, I'd be disgusted. Doing it on their first possession of the second half just shows that Belichick has confidence in his team (with good reason).

EDIT: mhendo, on re-reading, I see your position more clearly. I think we're on the same page here.

[Cyberhwk]

First off, the play in question was the FIRST PLAY of the second half. I agree that's WAY too early to be putting the baseball hat on.

I think every player should put forth 100% on every play. If you score, you score. With that being said it's the coach's job to think about long term success. Randy Moss is much less likely to tear an ACL when he's sitting on the sidelines and Belichek would be the laughing stock of the NFL if one of his stars went down when they were already up by 40+ points.

Just put some scrub in there and run the ball. Pass to try to keep the drive going, but just run the clock out and go home.

[Dead Badger]

Belichick tried to pull that canard a few weeks ago. Nobody's buying it. I've never heard anybody criticized for kicking a field goal with a big lead.In rugby union, this is more or less exactly what happens. If you're awarded a penalty kick within range of goal you can either kick for goal for a fairly certain 3 points, or kick to touch, allowing you a lineout very close to the try line and thus a slightly reduced chance of getting a bigger 7 point haul.

If a team is leading narrowly, it's expected that they'll go for goal, especially if the 3 points will take them more than two scores ahead of their opponent. Up 35-7 (and rugby union has pretty similar scoring to NFL, so it's pretty comparable), there'd be almost no question that you go for the try. Kick for goal, and the crowd are going to be pissed, and will let you know it. Especially just after half time.

OTOH, there's no real tradition in English sport of deliberately not beating your opponents too badly (maybe because we don't get the opportunity all that much :)). And certainly not against opponents who are nominally of the same standard as you - I could understand a pro team going easy on a college team, were they to play each other for some reason, but the idea that professionals shouldn't try as hard as they can to beat other professionals just strikes me as odd. Particularly, as pointed out, when there's a stadium full of paying spectators and half a match left to play.

[Khadaji]

I'm kinda torn here. On the one hand I saw an interview with Brady a few weeks ago and he said, in essence, when I'm having a bad day no one says, hey, the defense should let him hit a few of those passes. I just come out and say I have to get better next week. And I agreed with him.

On the other hand, I few years ago I remember the Steelers were kicking hell out of their opponent and rather than run it in they took a knee. And I thought that was classy.

[Who_me?]

On the other hand, I few years ago I remember the Steelers were kicking hell out of their opponent and rather than run it in they took a knee. And I thought that was classy.


Taking a knee in the third quarter? I think that would be more embarrassing for the opposing team than the Pat's scoring.

[Khadaji]

Taking a knee in the third quarter? I think that would be more embarrassing for the opposing team than the Pat's scoring.
LOL. You are right, thanks for spotting it. Of course it was the end of the forth quarter. You are a brilliant analyst of posts.

[Mr. Goob]

I was at the playoff game when Buffalo came back to beat Houston in overtime for the win. It was a hell of a game.

That was with Jim Kelly slinging to Andre Reed and Thurman Thomas running. The Bills were a team to fear then. This year (decade?) not so much.

I'm all for running up the score when you can against 29 of the teams in the league, just not like last night. :p

[An Arky]

psst, it was Frank Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Reich)...

[kaylasdad99]

What about singing "Shipoopi" in the end zone after every touchdown? Is that poor sportsmanship?

[storyteller0910]

I think every player should put forth 100% on every play. If you score, you score. With that being said it's the coach's job to think about long term success. Randy Moss is much less likely to tear an ACL when he's sitting on the sidelines and Belichek would be the laughing stock of the NFL if one of his stars went down when they were already up by 40+ points.


OK, and with most teams - where huge blowout wins come only once every six weeks or so - this is a reasonable approach.

But the Patriots have done something this year that is unprecedented. Other than the Colts game, they have blown out their opponents in every single game. If the Patriots took out Brady, Moss, and their better offensive lineman (I still think Dan Koppen, Logan Mankins, and Todd Light are as important to that team as the QB or the WR) in every instance where the game was decided, those men would have played a full four quarters exactly once this year. Most of the time, they'd be out of the game early in the third quarter.

Say they do that. Don't want Brady or Moss hurt in a situation where the game is in hand, right? Fast forward a bunch of weeks, all of which end basically the same way. It's the playoffs, AFC Championship Game, in New England. The Steelers are in town, and they're giving the Patriots a game for once. Willie Parker has 30 carries going into the fourth quarter, and the game is tied, 24-24.

On one side of the field, you have a bunch of guys who've played 60 minutes of football every week for seventeen weeks. On the other, you have a bunch of guys who are usually wearing the baseball cap by this point in the game. Conditioning is a huge factor in playoff football, especially in the cold weather against a tough opponent. In that situation, I'd take the team that's used to playing 60 minutes every time.

Part of what Belichek is doing is ensuring that his players are physically conditioned enough to play full games when it's needed, I think. That's "thinking about long term success."

And honestly, if someone is going to take a run at Tom Brady just to hurt him, then they're going to do it. A player who does that will probably be suspended. If it can be proven that it was coach-ordered, the team might lose a draft pick. I'm nto sure which team is going to do that nowadays, but it's a risk you take because you assume that most people in the NFL are not sociopaths.

[Liberal]

Not defending what happened or anything, but one reason to go for it when you're ahead by so much is that it is a safe time to do so, and thus give your team great in-game practice for when the actual need may arise. The practice field just doesn't give you the same dynamics that the game field does. And if you have a chance to run your seldom used plays in a real game situation safely, then it makes sense to do so. (Not that that's what Belichek was doing, but still.)

[Marley23]

And honestly, if someone is going to take a run at Tom Brady just to hurt him, then they're going to do it.
I wasn't talking about somebody deliberately teeing off on him, I was talking about stuff that happens as part of the game.

[Cheesesteak]

Is there any good reason an NFL team should not attempt to score as many touchdowns as they can? Why not ask Belichick, since he clearly stopped pouring it on in the 4th quarter. Brought out the backup quarter back and even planned to punt on 4th and 1 from the Bills 31 yard line! Me, I would have kicked the FG there.

That is the sort of thing you do when it's a blow out, you change your strategy to one that emphasizes ending the game quickly and safely, with a win on your side. There are a wide variety of strategies to choose from in Football, scoring touchdowns as quickly as possible is not the only one.

On the one hand I saw an interview with Brady a few weeks ago and he said, in essence, when I'm having a bad day no one says, hey, the defense should let him hit a few of those passes.Guess Brady's never heard of the "prevent" defense, where they willingly give up the short pass to prevent big plays that could jeopardize the win. It forces the opponent to use up a lot of time to get downfield, which is a good strategy late in a blowout, because time is all you need to win.

[Gorsnak]

Nonsense. All a "prevent" defense does is prevent you from winning the game. Anyways, that's not what Brady was talking about. I heard that interview too, and he meant it as in, you never hear anyone say that a defense that is completely blanking an opposing offense should "let up" if the game is safely in hand.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Why not ask Belichick, since he clearly stopped pouring it on in the 4th quarter. Brought out the backup quarter back and even planned to punt on 4th and 1 from the Bills 31 yard line! Me, I would have kicked the FG there.

That is the sort of thing you do when it's a blow out, you change your strategy to one that emphasizes ending the game quickly and safely, with a win on your side. There are a wide variety of strategies to choose from in Football, scoring touchdowns as quickly as possible is not the only one.

Guess Brady's never heard of the "prevent" defense, where they willingly give up the short pass to prevent big plays that could jeopardize the win. It forces the opponent to use up a lot of time to get downfield, which is a good strategy late in a blowout, because time is all you need to win.
Have you ever heard of a defense with a big lead allowing the opponent to score just to be "classy?"

[Marley23]

I heard that interview too, and he meant it as in, you never hear anyone say that a defense that is completely blanking an opposing offense should "let up" if the game is safely in hand.
This is what confuses me about the Pats: they're clearly an excellent team, but they've got this whiny thing going to. "You'd complain if we kicked a field goal." (Nobody would complain.) "Nobody tells the defense to lay off." (Even though defenses typically do lay off, in my experience, and clock management isn't really part of playing defense.) What happened to all that "Patriot Way" bullshit and being the purported class of the league? Are they mad that people criticized them for being caught cheating? It's beyond me.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What's not classy about playing until the whistle? They're not cheap or dirty. They're respectful to their opponents. They're not nearly as cocky as they could be (Brady, in particular, with all his rings, money, magazine covers, TV guest spots and supermodels could have become a giant cock by now but he hasn't). I don't think that treating their opponents as equals and as pros (instead of as overmatched 9 year olds) is any kind of measure of class.

[Stuffy]

I'm kind of surprised at all the "exciting football" comments. While I could care less if they run up to score, I don't find it exciting in the least. I can't be the only person who turned away before halftime to find something interesting to watch.

[Gorsnak]

This is what confuses me about the Pats: they're clearly an excellent team, but they've got this whiny thing going to. "You'd complain if we kicked a field goal." (Nobody would complain.) "Nobody tells the defense to lay off." (Even though defenses typically do lay off, in my experience, and clock management isn't really part of playing defense.) What happened to all that "Patriot Way" bullshit and being the purported class of the league? Are they mad that people criticized them for being caught cheating? It's beyond me.
Brady was responding to the interviewer's question which directly asked him about whether he shouldn't let up on opposing defenses. He wasn't whiny when he responded; he just matter-of-factly pointed out that nobody ever says the defense should let the other team score. And the field goal comment didn't come from the Patriots, but from Patriot fan on an internet forum. Can you point me to somewhere the Patriots have actually been whiny? Impatient with all the questions about running up the score and such, sure, but whiny? I haven't seen it.

[Trunk]

One problem is that the Patriots offense is so good at throwing the ball that they DO use the pass as sort of a clock killing drive.

People need to remember that the best way to kill the clock is not "to run the ball" but rather "to get first downs".

The Pats are astounding at keeping the clock and the chains moving. They had 30 first downs yesterday. it's not the first time all year they've had 30+ first down. Other high scoring teams like the Cowboys, the Seahawks, the Packers had around 20 yesterday.

Even if you don't want them to run it up, you can't expect a team to kneel 3 times and punt. IIRC, the two drives that they went for it on 4th started in the 3rd quarter, and Belichick has always been aggressive about going for it on 4th.

Going for it on 4th deep in the other territory, with a lead, isn't rubbing it in. It's killing the clock if you succeed, and giving the opponent a long field (and consequently taking more of their time) to score.

With a big lead, getting 0 and giving the other team 97 yards (with a chance at converting and running more clock) is probably more effective than getting 3 and kicking off, giving them the ball on at least the 20 and giving them the chance at a quick touch. At least it's not way worse.

[Trunk]

Brady was responding to the interviewer's question which directly asked him about whether he shouldn't let up on opposing defenses. He wasn't whiny when he responded; he just matter-of-factly pointed out that nobody ever says the defense should let the other team score. And the field goal comment didn't come from the Patriots, but from Patriot fan on an internet forum. Can you point me to somewhere the Patriots have actually been whiny? Impatient with all the questions about running up the score and such, sure, but whiny? I haven't seen it.
Brady is a little whiny in game.

He thought he got cheap shotted on a QB slide.

He wouldnt' let the grounding call go in the first half.

He's in the ref's ear a lot over stuff that a lot of other QBs seem to eat.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'm kind of surprised at all the "exciting football" comments. While I could care less if they run up to score, I don't find it exciting in the least. I can't be the only person who turned away before halftime to find something interesting to watch.
To me, it's exciting in the same way as it is to watch Tiger Woods wipe out a field by 15 strokes. It's exciting just to see greatness. I don't think the outcome of a competition needs to be in doubt in order for it to be fun to watch. Watching Brady throw touchdowns to Moss is just aesthetically pleasing on its own merits, regardless of its context within the game.

[Cheesesteak]

Have you ever heard of a defense with a big lead allowing the opponent to score just to be "classy?"No, but that's not the quote I was responding to. Brady suggested that defenses don't "let him hit a few passes. Defenses routinely let quarterbacks hit passes, short passes, in order to better cover long passes, especially late in blowout games. The fact that there's a joke about the prevent defense means that teams use the fucking thing all the time.

That doesn't mean the players stop playing, it means they use different strategy.

Nobody, anywhere, actually expects the leading team's players to quit trying. The entire point is that when you're up by 50 points, it's sportsmanlike to use a more conservative strategy on your offense and defense. Note how it is almost universally the coach, who sets the strategy, that gets called out for running up the score, rather than the players who execute the strategy.

[Enginerd]

Brady is a little whiny in game.

He thought he got cheap shotted on a QB slide.

He wouldnt' let the grounding call go in the first half.

He's in the ref's ear a lot over stuff that a lot of other QBs seem to eat.
Not a single QB in the league lets stuff like that slide. Ever watch Peyton Manning work the refs during a game?

OK, bad example - Manning's got a reputation as a whiner as well. How about Favre?

[Raygun99]

Have you ever heard of a defense with a big lead allowing the opponent to score just to be "classy?"

"Let"? No. But they often sit their big stars on D down since it's just as possible for them to get injured as the offensive stars.

[Marley23]

What's not classy about playing until the whistle?
There was some kidding there, as the Patriot Way stuff was marketing anyhow. ;) As far as I'm concerned, you can play to the whistle at the end of the game without throwing as much and going for the seventh and eighth touchdowns. Trunk does make a good point about the way they use their passing game, however.
And the field goal comment didn't come from the Patriots, but from Patriot fan on an internet forum.
I guess you missed Belichick's comments after the Washington game, which I refered to earlier. In defending going for it on two fourth downs during the last quarter (including one on the 37 yard line), he asked "What do you want us to do? Kick a field goal?" Of course we don't want that. If they kicked a field goal, people wouldn't realize they never needed to cheat and just did it anyway. ;)

Comparing this team to the squad that pulled off the great comeback against Houston is flattering, but if you saw more than 4 seconds of yesterday's game, I think you knew that wasn't in the offing.

[Stuffy]

To me, it's exciting in the same way as it is to watch Tiger Woods wipe out a field by 15 strokes.

You watch golf?! Well that tears it, we'll never understand each other.


It's exciting just to see greatness. I don't think the outcome of a competition needs to be in doubt in order for it to be fun to watch. Watching Brady throw touchdowns to Moss is just aesthetically pleasing on its own merits, regardless of its context within the game.


While I agree a great catch is a wonderful thing, in the NFL context is everything. I just don't see myself several years from now describing any particular play from this game.

[storyteller0910]

You watch golf?! Well that tears it, we'll never understand each other.





While I agree a great catch is a wonderful thing, in the NFL context is everything. I just don't see myself several years from now describing any particular play from this game.

Actually, the single play that was most memorable to me was executed by the losing team - Losman rolling out, then fumbling for no particular reason, then picking up his own fumble, then running away from the rush, then heaving a desparation toss downfield, then seeing his tight end (Gaines) jump about seven feet in the air to make a one-handed catch, then seeing the tight end bull forward and get the improbable first down.

This had nothing to do with the context of the game, obviously, but wasn't it cool to watch on its own merits? I feel like that with most of the Patriots' offensive plays.

[Raygun99]

In fairness to Losman on that play, the ball was knocked out of his hands by a Pat.

[RTFirefly]

Put me in the 'I don't have a problem with this' camp.

Yeah, they're mad about Spygate. They feel they've got something to prove, and by God, they're proving it. If that's what they want to do, I'd say it's up to other teams to stop 'em.

It certainly clarifies the question of whether assorted other teams should consider themselves to be Super Bowl contenders. If the Pats are blowing you away like so much pocket lint, then you're not. And if you later get squeezed out of the playoffs on tiebreak, then so what? The purpose of the playoffs is to pick the NFL champion, and it wasn't going to be you. Such is life.

Whether it's smart or not for the Pats to pursue this course, I don't know. If I were Belichick, my main worry would be what happens if Tom Brady gets hurt, and I'd be putting in my backup QB when I was 30 points ahead. But that's his decision to make, and he probably knows best.

[lieu]

I think there's a lot of other coaches in the league that, had they the team the Pats do, still would not run up the score the way Belichick's been doing. Tony Dungee comes to mind, Landry, Grant, Parcells, Walsh, heck, almost everyone comes to mind. Maybe there's nothing wrong with what he's doing. Yes, I can see how you want your team to stay honed. But c'mon, there's more to it than that. The coach is pissed about Spygate, he's using it to motivate his team, us against the world and they're cocking off. Well, good for them, it's a helluva team, arguable the best ever but when they do start to decline a lot of other teams are going to absolutely tee off on them and lets hope there's no complaining when they're getting their due. My guess is that when that day comes, when continued dominance is no longer assured, Belichick will certainly retire rather than face the unpleasantness.

What Belichick's doing isn't wrong or even hard to understand, but it's hardly admirable. He displays elements of being paranoid and vindictive and has been quick to sever old friendships/ associations. He's seemingly playing outside the brotherhood of NFL coaches but that's his perogative. I'm of a mind though that many, many coaches have won with a lot more class.

[Eutychus]

To sum up ... it's not the Patriot's job to make sure they don't score.

[Eupe Lipnerp]

I think there's a lot of other coaches in the league that, had they the team the Pats do, still would not run up the score the way Belichick's been doing. Tony Dungee comes to mind, ..(snip)...

The 2004 Colts had a 3 game stretch (4 if you include the Titans game on 12/5/04) where they beat their opponents with pretty lopsided scores. They didn't have a perfect season that year, and they weren't up to the level of the 2007 Pats, but, running up the score or not, they were not holding back. If they did have a team as good as the 2007 Pats that year I suspect that they would have won many more of their games with just such lopsided results.

11/14/04 Houston Texans W 49-14
11/21/04 Chicago Bears W 41-10 -Away
11/25/04 Detroit Lions W 41-9 -Away
(12/05/04 Tennessee Titans W 51-24)

[Wee Bairn]

If Tony Dungy wasn't such a Charlie Church, he'd do the exact same thing, and he should shoulder some of the blame for his jabs at Belichick after the video tape incident- I thought Christians were above such things. I've watched many a Colt blowout and can't recall ever seeing Jim Sorgi in before the last two minutes. And why would you want to send your running back up the middle three times in a row three series in a row to get the hell knocked out of him? Dick Jauron had no problem with it, Joe Gibbs had no issue, so I don't see why the fucking media has to come in and defend people who don't want or need defending. Assholes asking the same fucking questions, trying to provoke a rant/tirade, and get pissed off when they don't get it- and they wonder why Moss routinely shuns them?

And the Colts are in no current position to run up the score on anybody...

[Troy McClure SF]

To sum up ... it's not the Patriot's job to make sure they don't score.
I agree. Preventing the other team from scoring is not done by whining about it on Monday morning.

[tnetennba]

I'm proud to be a Vikings fan, because they never run up the score. Why, at time the offense is so gentlemanly they don't score at all. That's class.

[Wee Bairn]

Also, if I'm a fan paying three figures to see a game, I want to get my three and a half hours worth- I sure as hell don't want to see second string QB handing off to third string RB the entire second half.

[Bearflag70]

What if the Pats were up 52-7 against the Bills midway through the 4th and decided to disregard any risk to the starters and just keep on throwing in a few 2 minute drills with a few onside kicks, racking up another quick 21 to finish the game? Is that ok, or is there a line to be drawn somewhere?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What if the Pats were up 52-7 against the Bills midway through the 4th and decided to disregard any risk to the starters and just keep on throwing in a few 2 minute drills with a few onside kicks, racking up another quick 21 to finish the game? Is that ok, or is there a line to be drawn somewhere?
Personally, I would love it. That's just how I play the Madden. If I've got the ball and one second left in the game and a 60 point lead, I'm still throwing the Hail Mary.

[ZebraShaSha]

If Tony Dungy wasn't such a Charlie Church, he'd do the exact same thing, and he should shoulder some of the blame for his jabs at Belichick after the video tape incident- I thought Christians were above such things. I've watched many a Colt blowout and can't recall ever seeing Jim Sorgi in before the last two minutes. And why would you want to send your running back up the middle three times in a row three series in a row to get the hell knocked out of him? Dick Jauron had no problem with it, Joe Gibbs had no issue, so I don't see why the fucking media has to come in and defend people who don't want or need defending. Assholes asking the same fucking questions, trying to provoke a rant/tirade, and get pissed off when they don't get it- and they wonder why Moss routinely shuns them?

And the Colts are in no current position to run up the score on anybody...

When the Pats decided to chill out, put in the 2nd string QB and keep handing it off to Evans, Evans was running it up 14 yards no problem. These weren't fancy plays, he was running right up the middle. If the Bills can't stop that then the only thing left is for the Pats to kneel on every play. And that's for pussies.

[RickJay]

Maybe they could have just punted on first down. And ask the ref to spot the Bills an extra 30, just to give them a chance.

Geez, you'd think it was the first time one NFL team ever kicked the shit out of another one.

[HubZilla]

* Note I said Division 2, not Division 1-AA. That's because Division I-AA is part of Division I...slightly weaker overall, perhaps, but still Divison 1...and is not a creampuff division. And the team that won the championship for said division twice in a row is ABSOLUTELY no creampuff. All right? :D

... Looks at DKW's location...

That's right, people Charleston Southern and Northern Colorado are indeed Division I!

Go 'Bows... I mean Go Warriors! :D

(I'm shooting the UH-Boise game this weekend).

[Bearflag70]

spot the Bills an extra 30

yards or points?

[robby]

You know, for all this talk about running up the score, don't forget that the Pats got knocked out the playoffs last year after blowing a 21-3 lead over the Colts. So the Pats don't have to look at ancient history to realize that big leads don't mean a whole lot in the NFL.

Disclaimer: I am a big Patriots fan, and this season has been a thing of beauty. Also, I think the whole spygate issue has been overblown. I think every team does it, but the league decided to crack down and make an example out of the Patriots during the first game of the season. It’s not like they were even trying to hide anything. They didn’t make excuses, and they took the substantial penalties imposed by the league without complaint.

[Marley23]

You know, for all this talk about running up the score, don't forget that the Pats got knocked out the playoffs last year after blowing a 21-3 lead over the Colts.
I should be flattered here - first you guys compared this year's Bills to the team that made the Super Bowl four years in a row, now you're comparing them to last year's champion Colts. If they'd had their starting running back Sunday and hadn't changed QBs three times in the last month, they'd be comparable to the '72 Dolphins. :D
Also, I think the whole spygate issue has been overblown.
What a surprise!
I think every team does it, but the league decided to crack down and make an example out of the Patriots during the first game of the season.
Alas, to be persecuted so unjustly - and all for the mere triviality of flagrantly breaking the rules. When will it all end?
It’s not like they were even trying to hide anything.
Which, of course, makes it not cheating.
They didn’t make excuses, and they took the substantial penalties imposed by the league without complaint.
Whaddaya want, a medal? I agree that their championships aren't "tainted," and I agree similar things go on. I think it conferred little advantage. But the Pats get warned about this repeatedly and kept doing it, so please, spare me the complaints about being singled out.

[Gangster Octopus]

Considering Tom Brady is leading my team to the Fantasy promise land, I say they aren't running up the score enough!

[DKW]

HubZilla - Ummmm...I was actually referring to Michigan's season opener against Appalachian State. Y'know, that rather highly publicized game where we all heard over and over and over how insanely crazy it was that the #5 TEAM IN THE NATION (I could throw in a beef about the silliness of preseason rankings, but that's more of a hijack than I'm willing to attempt) lost to a tiny measly lowly Division I-AA team?

Yeah. Kinda silly in retrospect, huh? (Starta new Pit thread if you want to keep discussing this.)

And I personally don't give a rip where UH finishes this season...they're not national championship material and anyone can see it. Just glad our true believers have something to cheer about for a change.

[Sitnam]

Personally, I would love it. That's just how I play the Madden. If I've got the ball and one second left in the game and a 60 point lead, I'm still throwing the Hail Mary.
Yeah, I'm happy benching my starters when I'm 30 ahead until the crushed team starts stacking the box and blitzing their corners every down, then it's: "Alright fuckers, I didn't know it was going to be like that", and the beat down commences.

[kidchameleon]

Considering Tom Brady is leading my team to the Fantasy promise land, I say they aren't running up the score enough!

Heh, a friend has Brady, Moss and T.O. And he's in second place! Sheesh.

[Ellis Dee]

Belichick tried to pull that canard a few weeks ago. Nobody's buying it. I've never heard anybody criticized for kicking a field goal with a big lead.I call bullshit on this. I've seen a bunch of blowouts that didn't involve the Patriots, and when it gets to garbage time, the winning team NEVER kicks a field goal. Never ever ever. That's probably why you've never heard criticism of it, because it's just not done.

If the Pats did it, they would be castigated.

[mhendo]

I call bullshit on this. I've seen a bunch of blowouts that didn't involve the Patriots, and when it gets to garbage time, the winning team NEVER kicks a field goal. Never ever ever. That's probably why you've never heard criticism of it, because it's just not done.Exactly what is your definition of "garbage time"? That is, what combination of points difference and time remaining do you consider the benchmark for making a field goal "just not done"?

Do you think a points difference of more than 3 touchdowns (22+ points) and ten minutes left in the 4th quarter to be a reasonable mark?

Here's a few games, just from the past two years, where teams have kicked field goals in such situations. The stats are listed in the following way:

Date
Winning Team
Losing Team
Score (Points Difference) [before the final field goal]
Time remaining [when final field goal taken]

9/9/2007
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
31-7 (24)
7:12

9/17/2006
Chicago
Detroit
31-7 (24)
10:03

11/26/2006
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
24-0 (24)
4:15

11/23/2006
Dallas
Tampa Bay
35-10 (25)
10:00

10/1/2006
Chicago
Seattle
34-6 (28)
7:43

10/8/2006
Jacksonville
New York Jets
38-0 (38)
2:42

Would you place any of those games in the "just not done" category?

[Ellis Dee]

Do you think a points difference of more than 3 touchdowns (22+ points) and ten minutes left in the 4th quarter to be a reasonable mark?More than three touchdowns is 25 points, not 22. (Says the guy who saw the Miracle at Midnight (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4DD1E3BF93AA25752C1A9669C8B63) in person, screaming his lungs out until the final play in overtime, and who also watched with disgust as the 49ers overcame a 24 point deficit against the Giants in the 2002 Wildcard round.) And 10 minutes left is a ton of time. So filtering those out of your list, we're left with:

10/1/2006
Chicago
Seattle
34-6 (28)
7:43

10/8/2006
Jacksonville
New York Jets
38-0 (38)
2:42

I remember that Jags game. They were total douchebags, and the announcers even commented to that effect when they lined up to kick the final field goal. Total bush league move. The Jags wanted to make a statement (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=28925&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2006&week=REG5) with that game, but that doesn't excuse that last kick.

I did not see the Seahawks-Bears game, so I cannot comment on the circumstances, though it looks like there was still quite a bit of time left. Maybe Omni can offer further insight.

[mhendo]

More than three touchdowns is 25 points, not 22. (Says the guy who saw the Miracle at Midnight (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4DD1E3BF93AA25752C1A9669C8B63) in person, screaming his lungs out until the final play in overtime, and who also watched with disgust as the 49ers overcame a 24 point deficit against the Giants in the 2002 Wildcard round.)Well, it's called the "Miracle at Midnight" for a reason—because stuff like that almost never happens.

Also, your reference to those two miracle games, after asserting that "more than three touchdowns is 25 points," seems to imply that those miracle games are evidence that a team can score 24 points with three touchdowns. But in neither of those games did the winning team manage three two-point conversions.

In the Jets-Dolphins (http://www.footballdb.com/boxscore/2000102301), not a single two-point attempt was successful. The Jets tried it once, but missed. And while the 49ers went for three two-point attempts, they were only successful with 2 of them.

While overcoming a 24-point deficit with three touchdowns is theoretically possible, it's so unlikely that i think it's stretching your argument to breaking point to say simply that "more than three touchdowns is 25 points." According to this page (http://sportsline.com/nfl/history/team/team_pat), a team has only scored more than 2 two-point conversions in a single game three times in the whole history of the NFL. Also, of the examples i gave in my previous post, the lowest differential was 24 points, so even three touchdowns, each with a two-point conversion, would have done no better than tie the game.

So you can dismiss those 24-point differences if you like, but in any realistic universe, the trailing team would have needed to score 4 times to win with ten minutes or less to go. And in the Ravens-Steelers game the time remaining was a little over 4 minutes. I'd call that "garbage time." Also, i don't know why you dismiss the 25-point difference, because even if the trailing team succeeded with three eight-point touchdowns in a row (extreeeeeeeeemely unlikely), they'd still be trailing.
And 10 minutes left is a ton of time.It's a ton of time if you need two scores. Hell, it might be a fair bit of time if you need three. But a "ton of time" for four scores? That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?So filtering those out of your list, we're left with:

10/1/2006
Chicago
Seattle
34-6 (28)
7:43

10/8/2006
Jacksonville
New York Jets
38-0 (38)
2:42

I remember that Jags game. They were total douchebags, and the announcers even commented to that effect when they lined up to kick the final field goal. Total bush league move. The Jags wanted to make a statement (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=28925&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2006&week=REG5) with that game, but that doesn't excuse that last kick.

I did not see the Seahawks-Bears game, so I cannot comment on the circumstances, though it looks like there was still quite a bit of time left. Maybe Omni can offer further insight.But the question is not whether is was a "bush league" move, or what Omni has to say about the Bears game.

I was responding to a post in which you said that:when it gets to garbage time, the winning team NEVER kicks a field goal. Never ever ever. That's probably why you've never heard criticism of it, because it's just not done.Well, i've found at least two candidates (and, i think, probably more) just within the last two years. And going back another season gives even more, like the September 18, 2005 game in which the Cincinatti Bengals kicked a field goal against the Minnesota Vikings with 5:41 to go and a 34-0 lead. Or the December 11 game that same year when, with 5:15 left, the Seahawks kicked a 52-yard (!!!) field goal while holding a 38-3 lead.

You seemed to be arguing that not kicking a field goal in "garbage time" is just one of those unwritten rules of the league, one that is so sacrosanct that it's never ever ever broken. It seems to me that it's not quite as unusual as all that.

[Cheesesteak]

I've seen a bunch of blowouts that didn't involve the Patriots, and when it gets to garbage time, the winning team NEVER kicks a field goal. I don't get it. You're on the 22 yard line, it's 4th and 5 (the Jets-Jags situation), what do you do but kick a FG?

Go for it? Talk about running up the score... now you're trying to score another touchdown and REALLY stick it to them.

Punt? From the 22?

Take a knee?

I don't see how these other options are less insulting to the opponent than a FG. You take your 3 points, and give them the ball back. Anybody complaining about a FG running up the score is just not operating in the same reality as me. For a team that's rolling over the opponent, a short to medium length FG is an admission that you stopped them, and they'll give you the ball back, not an opportunity to embarrass you.

You deny someone that FG, you leave "conservative strategy" behind and start entering DtC's territory where you're asking the players to stop playing. Even if they're second and third stringers, your players are putting their bodies on the line, hitting and getting hit, risking injury to move that ball, and you insult THEM by laying down during a scoring opportunity?

[Ellis Dee]

I was responding to a post in which you said that:Well, i've found at least two candidates (and, i think, probably more)Conceded.I don't get it. You're on the 22 yard line, it's 4th and 5 (the Jets-Jags situation), what do you do but kick a FG?You go for it. That gives the defense a chance to stop you for 0 points. If I were as motivated as mhendo, I'm sure I could come up with plenty of examples of teams doing this.

What would be really interesting is if somebody were motivated enough to enumerate all examples of both kicking the FG and going for a 1st during garbage time in the past two years or so and see which is more common.

[mhendo]

Conceded.You go for it. That gives the defense a chance to stop you for 0 points. If I were as motivated as mhendo, I'm sure I could come up with plenty of examples of teams doing this.

What would be really interesting is if somebody were motivated enough to enumerate all examples of both kicking the FG and going for a 1st during garbage time in the past two years or so and see which is more common.Well, i didn't do an exact count while i was looking around last night, but based on the blowout games i examined while looking for field goal attempts, i'd say it's likely that teams "go for it" more often than they kick a field goal.

Obviously, i didn't do a play-by-play examination of every game, but there were far more blowout games where the winning team scored only touchdowns in the last quarter. While i found enough field goals to call into question your claim that it never happens, i do agree with you that kicking a field goal in garbage time seems considerably less common than going for the touchdown.

Of course, to confirm that properly, one would have to go back to the play-by-play stats, because it's possible that, in instances where teams scored touchdowns, they got first-downs all the time and scored touchdowns without ever facing a fourth-down decision.

And even i'm not that motivated at the moment. Maybe tonight, when i've got some spare time.

[Marley23]

I call bullshit on this. I've seen a bunch of blowouts that didn't involve the Patriots, and when it gets to garbage time, the winning team NEVER kicks a field goal. Never ever ever. That's probably why you've never heard criticism of it, because it's just not done.
You know what - you're right. Kicking the FG is seen as tacking on points, and going for it on fourth down (provided you don't run a trick play or something) is seen as the sporting thing to do because it gives the other team a chance to get a stop.

I do also remember the Colts throwing more often than necessary a few years back just to give Manning a shot at the TD pass record.

[Gangster Octopus]

Well, there was this Cowboys-Packers game (http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/arc/13097/gbdc1118.html), where the Cowboys opted to let their kicker kick a 7th, record tying, field goal with 24 seconds left. The final score 21-6.

[divemaster]

IMO, kicking a field goal while up 30 points or so is more "running up the score" than going for it on 4th down. Running a play gives the opponent a chance to stop you and receive the ball on downs. A chip shot FG is pretty much a gimme.

If you go up by 30 in the 3rd quarter, what are you supposed to do for the rest of the game? Take a knee for 4 downs every time you get the ball for the rest of the game???

Screw that. Play the game. Sure, you don;t have to bring out the flea-flickers and double reverses, but straightforward runs and passes? Hell, that's just football!

(No, I am not a Pats fan. I don't follow the AFC at all).

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

psst, it was Frank Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Reich)...

And Kenneth Davis, Thurman Thomas was out. Andre Reed was definitely playing, though. I was at that game, whined about the score, and was taken home at halftime by one of my uncles. He still hasn't let me forget it.

[Ellis Dee]

And Kenneth Davis, Thurman Thomas was out. Andre Reed was definitely playing, though. I was at that game, whined about the score, and was taken home at halftime by one of my uncles. He still hasn't let me forget it.I was a full grown man whining about the score before halftime at the Miracle at Midnight. Luckily, I had brought a die-hard Jets fan with me. (I'm a Giants fan.) He convinced me to use our Madden (at the time it was Dynamix, actually) scoring rules; play it out until there's a 25+ point lead. The Jets biggest deficit that night was 23. I am eternally grateful to him for making me stay; that was one of the greatest experiences of my life.

Plus it emptied out around the time I started whining, so we were able to move down from the top of the nosebleed section to the bottom of the mezzanine on the side of the field the Jets were attacking for the entire fourth quarter. Greatest free seat upgrade ever.

[jimmmy]

I think the Patriots feel they have to do this because of the cheating scandal. They are chasing history and not just a final score. Any Superbowl they win (and have won) will allow some A-hole on TV or a MB to say "yeah but they were cheaters/its tainted" Which is to some extent is really unarguable.

So how are they going to say this was a special/dynastic type team? They are going to say we beat everyone by 40 points.

I think there were other teams that might have done something similar to this - perhaps the 80's 49ers, the 80's Redskins or early 00 Rams - they all could have run up the score at times like the Pats are now - but they didn't. Why? Because for them it was "just" about winning a Championship and they needed to make sure their key players stayed healthy for the stretch run. The Patriots aren't just about that this year - they are justifying their entire recent history.

[tnetennba]

From the Detroit Free Press, following a rout of the Lions by the Vikings in which the Vikings used a fake field goal to pick up a first down while leading by 32 points, and later had a halfback throw a pass that was dropped in the end-zone.

Asked if he though the Vikings were rubbing it in, HC Rod Marinelli said: “No, I thought that was good calls by them, nice calls. We have to defend that. We should be geared-up to defend those, if we’re on our keys and on our rules, and we weren’t. That’s on me.”

Nice to see there are still *cough* men coaching in the NFL.

[Hung Mung]

The biggest deficit ever overcome was 32 points. The Bills came back to beat the then-Oilers.

I think Greg Easterbrook, who used to write for NFL.com, had it right: Once you've reached that threshold of 32 points in the lead, it's time to take your foot off the gas. The football gods will frown upon you and smite your runningbacks with turftoe.

[Ellis Dee]

I think there were other teams that might have done something similar to this - perhaps the 80's 49ers, the 80's Redskins or early 00 Rams - they all could have run up the score at times like the Pats are now - but they didn't.I don't know about the 80's Redskins, but the 80's 49ers and early 00 Rams absolutely ran up the score, much like the Patriots are doing this year.

[zamboniracer]

The biggest deficit ever overcome was 32 points. The Bills came back to beat the then-Oilers.

I think Greg Easterbrook, who used to write for NFL.com, had it right: Once you've reached that threshold of 32 points in the lead, it's time to take your foot off the gas. The football gods will frown upon you and smite your runningbacks with turftoe.


Easterbrook writes the same sort of stuff for espn.com now, in case you're interested. I highly recommend him.

[storyteller0910]

Easterbrook writes the same sort of stuff for espn.com now, in case you're interested. I highly recommend him.

Why, God?

[aptronym]

Are they mad that people criticized them for being caught cheating?
I think that's exactly it. The Patriots want to make sure there is no doubt in anyone's mind that their cheating was not the sole reason they've been winning. Imagine if the Patriots had lost in Week 2 - there would have been no end to the criticism. Even until they played the Colts, there was still grumbling about how the Patriots couldn't beat good teams (I forgot why the Cowboys didn't count, but I assure you it was out there). I can understand - although I don't agree with - the decision to give the big "fuck you" to the rest of the league.

At this point in the season, however, a second reason emerges: history. A team with such great chances to finish unbeaten and smash certain records should go for it.

[zamboniracer]

Why, God?


Easterbrook's column is smart, funny, covers a wide range of topics (not all of them related to football) and always features a cheer-babe photo or three. What's not to like? His political opinions are generally conservative, but not maliciously so.

[storyteller0910]

Easterbrook's column is smart, funny, covers a wide range of topics (not all of them related to football) and always features a cheer-babe photo or three. What's not to like? His political opinions are generally conservative, but not maliciously so.

Oh, I don't care about his political opinions and while I find his treatment of the cheerleaders creepy and unsettling (we get it, Gregg, you think they're hot but you're really interested in their minds but you're really not, we get it), that's not the problem, either. The problem is I disagree strongly with both of your first two adjectives. He may be smart, but his column is not - it's intellectually dishonest and lazy - and he may be funny, but his column is not. IMO, and all that.