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?

[Spoons]

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

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Marley23

*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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by blondebear

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by blondebear

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]

Originally Posted by 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!"

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

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Raygun99

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]

Originally Posted by Raygun99

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]

Originally Posted by Frank

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.

Originally Posted by Telemark

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.

Originally Posted by blondebear

(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]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Teams have blown 4-touchdown leads in a half before. It's possible.

Well, technically yes, but if this page 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.

Originally Posted by RickJay

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?

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Well, technically yes, but if this page 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]

Originally Posted by Enginerd

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]

Originally Posted by spooje

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.

Originally Posted by mhendo

Well, technically yes, but if this page 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]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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?]

Originally Posted by Khadaji

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]

Originally Posted by Who_me?

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.

[An Arky]

psst, it was Frank Reich...

[kaylasdad99]

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

[storyteller0910]

Originally Posted by Cyberhwk

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]

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

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]

Originally Posted by Frank

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.

Originally Posted by Khadaji

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]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

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]

Originally Posted by Gorsnak

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.