I've changed my mind (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

OK, I expect to be lambasted for this thread, because I was one of the first to complain here that New England was pouring it on late in games. I even started a thread called, "Disgusted...with the Patriots" that lasted all of a half hour before it was suspended. And of course I still detest Bill Bellichick and I am rooting for the Pats to lose all of their remaining games.

But...I have listened to the arguments from several NFL "experts" (Peter King, Vic Carruci among others) and I have to say they are convincing about this subject. They point out that during the 2004 season, Peyton Manning was still throwing the ball downfield long after games had already been decided. They talk about Bellichick wanting to keep his team focused, and is very much afraid that the intensity which makes them so great could be lost if he lets things go too early. None of the national experts I have listened to or read find anything wrong with this behavior.

And so, since I am only a fan and certainly no expert about football myself, having never played the game on anything remotely close to this level, I have decided to trust those in the know, and I have changed my mind about this. I will no longer criticize the Patriots for running up the score. I realize that when you take a position you're supposed to stick by it, and defend it to the death, but I won't do it anymore. There are lots of reasons (at least for me) to be critical of this NE team, and to root against them, but this won't be one of them anymore.

 

[David Yudkin]

I remember seeing a Belichick press conference or interview last year, and reorters asked him about keeping his starters in for so long and whether he would sit them the last week for most of the game. His retort was something along the lines of "how'd that work out last year for the Colts?"

He took it one step further this year, as someone asked the same question (would his key guys sit once they locked up homefield advantage), to which he asked rhetorically whether they should not practice either because guys got hurt in practice too.

BB clearly is not nearly as worried about players getting hurt than many other people are. He is much more inclined to keep the team's chemistry intact and mainain their competitiveness over anything else. So if the way to keep his team motivated is to score 50 points and win by 40, that's what he is going to do.

We may not all agree with that strategy, but that's what his philosophy is.

 

[jeter23]

I am in no way a fan of the Pats, Brady, Belichick etc, but the argument that does make some sense to me is that the job of the offense is to score. I still do not always agree with going for it on 4th down and some of the other strategies they have used, but I can not fault them for continuing to score.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

It's not so much that they shouldn't run up the score for "sportsmanship" reasons. Fact is, these are all pro athletes, and while Belichick and the players may not be making friends long-tem doing it, it's not their problem if the other team can't stop them.

But if I were a Patriots fan, I'd be concerned that Brady & Co. are still out there winging it around in a 42-10 game for no reason. Unnecessary risk if you ask me. I don't wish injury on any of these guys, but if it were to happen late in a blowout, serves them right.

 

[smcindoe]

I am in no way a fan of the Pats, Brady, Belichick etc, but the argument that does make some sense to me is that the job of the offense is to score. I still do not always agree with going for it on 4th down and some of the other strategies they have used, but I can not fault them for continuing to score.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They have a right to continue playing football, at least for three quarters. If that means the score gets run up, then that's what it means. My only issue is when they start going for it on fourth down in FG range when they're up by 30 -- that's running it up any way you slice it.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

It's not so much that they shouldn't run up the score for "sportsmanship" reasons. Fact is, these are all pro atheletes, and while Belichick and the players may not be making friends long-tem doing it, it's not their problem if the other team can't stop them.

But if I were a Patriots fan, I'd be concerned that Brady & Co. are still out there winging it around in a 42-10 game for no reason. Unnecessary risk if you ask me. I don't wish injury on any of these guys, but if it were to happen late in a blowout, serves them right.

As a Patriots fan, I would call it presumptuous of me to question such coaching decisions.Generally speaking, I stopped questioning this particular coach's decisions about 3 weeks after Bledsoe was benched.

 

[Steeler07]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.

If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

 

[smcindoe]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Cassel steps in, wins and keeps job, goes on to obliterate all Brady's records. Drew Bledsoe unsure whether to laugh or cry.

 

[David Yudkin]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Why, did Brady injure someone?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

BB clearly is not nearly as worried about players getting hurt than many other people are.

This is clearly true. I don't think Brady has had a legitimate backup since Bledsoe left town. Most coaches plan for the contingency of their QB getting injured, but BB's approach strikes me as wiser in today's NFL. Get the best QB you can and if you lose him, accept that your season is over.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

It's not so much that they shouldn't run up the score for "sportsmanship" reasons. Fact is, these are all pro atheletes, and while Belichick and the players may not be making friends long-tem doing it, it's not their problem if the other team can't stop them.

But if I were a Patriots fan, I'd be concerned that Brady & Co. are still out there winging it around in a 42-10 game for no reason. Unnecessary risk if you ask me. I don't wish injury on any of these guys, but if it were to happen late in a blowout, serves them right.

As a Patriots fan, I would call it presumptuous of me to question such coaching decisions.Generally speaking, I stopped questioning this particular coach's decisions about 3 weeks after Bledsoe was benched.

Fair enough, if my team won 3 SBs in 6 years I'd probably feel that way too. But again, it's 42-10, no chance of losing, and someone hits Brady and separates his shoulder (not maliciously, just in the run of play), I can't imagine you as a Pats fan not wondering why he's still even in the game at that point.

 

[Steeler07]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Why, did Brady injure someone?

Well he plays for a cheating team, which got him where he is now.

 

[Bonginator]

Tom Brady smacks down local sports radio hosts about sitting out after being up big late in the game

http://www.weei.com/pages/268228.php

Click on Dennis and Callahan and the on the Tom Brady link

 

[David Yudkin]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Why, did Brady injure someone?

Well he plays for a cheating team, which got him where he is now.

There's a support group thread for people still crying over the Patriots that Joe started. I recommend it for those with long-standing issues over any and all things that have to do with the Pats.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Don't we already have a Pats whine thread?

 

[Steeler07]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Why, did Brady injure someone?

Well he plays for a cheating team, which got him where he is now.

There's a support group thread for people still crying over the Patriots that Joe started. I recommend it for those with long-standing issues over any and all things that have to do with the Pats.

As as NEer, you have no regard for the rules and integrity of the game, we all know that.I'm sorry if being upset at a major cheating issue doesn't bode well with you, but as a big football fan, I will reserve the right to be pissed, and whoever is not pissed, is a casual football fan who cares more about FF than anything else or a NEer, which I just explained.

 

[omally]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Why, did Brady injure someone?

Well he plays for a cheating team, which got him where he is now.

There's a support group thread for people still crying over the Patriots that Joe started. I recommend it for those with long-standing issues over any and all things that have to do with the Pats.

Oh Right, that thread that has been bombarded by Patriot fans who can say whatever they want in a thread specifically about issues against them, but non-Patriot fans are limited to only saying anything negative about the Pats in the support group thread. That's messed up.

 

[Neofight]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.

If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Why, did Brady injure someone?

It's not just that, but this is not karma to begin with. Nor does one "believe in" karma. This is vindictiveness, pure and simple.From Wiki:

The philosophical explanation of karma can differ slightly per tradition, but the general concept is basically the same in all above traditions. Usually it is believed to be a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. The results or "fruits" of actions are called karma-phala. Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward; karma simply deals with what is. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well.

This is the pared down version, but gets to the point. Could we please stop attributing one's wishing ill on another to karma? Those who feel that karma will bring injury to Tom Brady or anyone else are missing the point.

 

[Bossman]

As as NEer, you have no regard for the rules and integrity of the game, we all know that.

I'm sorry if being upset at a major cheating issue doesn't bode well with you, but as a big football fan, I will reserve the right to be pissed, and whoever is not pissed, is a casual football fan who cares more about FF than anything else or a NEer, which I just explained.

that is where the difference in opinion lies...you feel it was "a major cheating issue" ... when it actually was a minor "infraction of the rules"... if you are as big of a football fan as you claim to be then I would think you would know what little the Patriots could have gained from recording signals from the sidelines.

A "major cheating issue" would be knowingly exceeding the salary cap to gain an unfair advantage over every other team.... like the Steelers did.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

OK, I expect to be lambasted for this thread, because I was one of the first to complain here that New England was pouring it on late in games. I even started a thread called, "Disgusted...with the Patriots" that lasted all of a half hour before it was suspended. And of course I still detest Bill Bellichick and I am rooting for the Pats to lose all of their remaining games.

But...I have listened to the arguments from several NFL "experts" (Peter King, Vic Carruci among others) and I have to say they are convincing about this subject. They point out that during the 2004 season, Peyton Manning was still throwing the ball downfield long after games had already been decided. They talk about Bellichick wanting to keep his team focused, and is very much afraid that the intensity which makes them so great could be lost if he lets things go too early. None of the national experts I have listened to or read find anything wrong with this behavior.

And so, since I am only a fan and certainly no expert about football myself, having never played the game on anything remotely close to this level, I have decided to trust those in the know, and I have changed my mind about this. I will no longer criticize the Patriots for running up the score. I realize that when you take a position you're supposed to stick by it, and defend it to the death, but I won't do it anymore. There are lots of reasons (at least for me) to be critical of this NE team, and to root against them, but this won't be one of them anymore.

I disagree. By that rationale, Brady/Moss should be in the whole game. While I agree that playing your guys in a meaningless week 17 makes sense (keeps the rhythm going), running up the score serves no positive purpose for anyone involved. Nothing good can come out of it, and it's a mistake to do so imo. If they only ran it up against Mangini and the Jets, I'd even understand it. Sometimes adults act like children. No big deal. But running it up just to do it? No, I don't see anything positive in that. Not even for the Patriots.

By the way, no announcer/analyst is going to attack the NFL's clear story of 2007. The minute they criticize them...their Super Bowl interview access goes down the tubes. The NFL doesn't have anything resembling "fair and balanced" analysis. They act very much like state-run media in a Cold War country.

 

[Phurfur]

I am in no way a fan of the Pats, Brady, Belichick etc, but the argument that does make some sense to me is that the job of the offense is to score. I still do not always agree with going for it on 4th down and some of the other strategies they have used, but I can not fault them for continuing to score.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They have a right to continue playing football, at least for three quarters. If that means the score gets run up, then that's what it means. My only issue is when they start going for it on fourth down in FG range when they're up by 30 -- that's running it up any way you slice it.

But the fans paid to see 4 quarters!No it is called playing football that is haw I slice it. It is done at all levels, you have obviously have never played the game.

 

[PranksterJD]

I am in no way a fan of the Pats, Brady, Belichick etc, but the argument that does make some sense to me is that the job of the offense is to score. I still do not always agree with going for it on 4th down and some of the other strategies they have used, but I can not fault them for continuing to score.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They have a right to continue playing football, at least for three quarters. If that means the score gets run up, then that's what it means. My only issue is when they start going for it on fourth down in FG range when they're up by 30 -- that's running it up any way you slice it.

Actually, I've got a slice for you.... First, not a Pats fan or hater. And this is of course just my opinion on the matter...I don't recall every instance, but it seems like Belichick was calling pretty vanilla plays on those fourth downs. Straight run up the middle. Short out route. No play action, no gimmicks. If you're the D, just stop the play. Kicking the FG is almost guaranteeing some points. Calling a play that should be pretty obvious from the offensive formation at least gives the D a solid chance to keep **any** points off the board.

 

[PsychoMan]

I have been on the fence on this issue, but just recently have also decided to back the Pats in regards to "running up the score." In general, I have no problem with asking the offense to score every time they're on the field. The one part of it I do not agree with, however, is going for it so much on 4th down. Why would they do this so much, especially when they are in field goal range? It seems like doing this goes beyond keeping your players heads in the games, and is a blatant attempt to humiliate the other team or simply inflate the players statistics.

Another thing this impacts though, as many of us have become increasingly aware, is the statistics that these guys are piling up. They're on pace to break all sorts of records. I think it becomes "personal" with other records holders and their fans when the Pats starters are left on the field for the sole purpose of compiling statistics with a blatant disregard to the other team and the risks they're placing on their player's health.

 

[LMF]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.

If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Why, did Brady injure someone?

Well he plays for a cheating team, which got him where he is now.

There's a support group thread for people still crying over the Patriots that Joe started. I recommend it for those with long-standing issues over any and all things that have to do with the Pats.

Oh Right, that thread that has been bombarded by Patriot fans who can say whatever they want in a thread specifically about issues against them, but non-Patriot fans are limited to only saying anything negative about the Pats in the support group thread. That's messed up.

Who ever said that THIS thread was a "Pats support group thread"? Just because the OP used the Pats for an example doesn't mean that it couldn't be any team... read the title. He changed his mind IN GENERAL to running up the score, NO MATTER who it is.Here's your thread: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...5896&st=150

 

[timschochet]

OK, I expect to be lambasted for this thread, because I was one of the first to complain here that New England was pouring it on late in games. I even started a thread called, "Disgusted...with the Patriots" that lasted all of a half hour before it was suspended. And of course I still detest Bill Bellichick and I am rooting for the Pats to lose all of their remaining games.

But...I have listened to the arguments from several NFL "experts" (Peter King, Vic Carruci among others) and I have to say they are convincing about this subject. They point out that during the 2004 season, Peyton Manning was still throwing the ball downfield long after games had already been decided. They talk about Bellichick wanting to keep his team focused, and is very much afraid that the intensity which makes them so great could be lost if he lets things go too early. None of the national experts I have listened to or read find anything wrong with this behavior.

And so, since I am only a fan and certainly no expert about football myself, having never played the game on anything remotely close to this level, I have decided to trust those in the know, and I have changed my mind about this. I will no longer criticize the Patriots for running up the score. I realize that when you take a position you're supposed to stick by it, and defend it to the death, but I won't do it anymore. There are lots of reasons (at least for me) to be critical of this NE team, and to root against them, but this won't be one of them anymore.

I disagree. By that rationale, Brady/Moss should be in the whole game. While I agree that playing your guys in a meaningless week 17 makes sense (keeps the rhythm going), running up the score serves no positive purpose for anyone involved. Nothing good can come out of it, and it's a mistake to do so imo. If they only ran it up against Mangini and the Jets, I'd even understand it. Sometimes adults act like children. No big deal. But running it up just to do it? No, I don't see anything positive in that. Not even for the Patriots.

By the way, no announcer/analyst is going to attack the NFL's clear story of 2007. The minute they criticize them...their Super Bowl interview access goes down the tubes. The NFL doesn't have anything resembling "fair and balanced" analysis. They act very much like state-run media in a Cold War country.

I don't agree with your last statement regarding analysts. Just like in politics, there's going to be plenty of analysts out there looking for a way to cause controversy. Although I wrote in the OP that none of the national experts I had read had come down against the Pats on this, that's not quite true, I find. Since I wrote that post, I've read this blog by Mike Florio of Profootballtalk.comOSTED 11:12 p.m. EST, November 18, 2007

PATS GO TOO FAR, AGAIN

With a bye during Week Ten and a close game against the Colts before that, it has been three weeks since we've seen the Ferrari among a flock of Fords that is the New England Patriots.

And it's clear to us that coach Bill Belichick still doesn't know, or care, if he laps the field 50 times.

Twice in the third quarter while sporting huge leads, the Patriots kept the field goal unit on the sidelines for a fourth down deep in the Bills' end. On the second occasion, the Pats were up 42-10 on the Buffalo 10 and New England faced fourth and one.

The groan of disapproval from the crowd at Ralph Wilson Stadium was barely audible over the comments of NBC's Al Michaels and John Madden, who seemed to see no problem with the maneuver.

We did, and we do. The Patriots are abusing their power, in our view, and they'd better hope that Earl Hickey is wrong about that whole karma thing.

We don't know whether it's karma or fate or just an innate sense of justice and fairness, but we've had a feeling for a couple of weeks now that something will happen to keep the Pats from getting to the Super Bowl or, when they do, someone like Brett Favre will find a way to chop down the beanstalk.

#####

I don't agree with the above analysis. But I was incorrect to state that nobody is taking this angle. And I think you are incorrect to suggest that people are "scared" to take this angle.

 

[gianmarco]

I am in no way a fan of the Pats, Brady, Belichick etc, but the argument that does make some sense to me is that the job of the offense is to score. I still do not always agree with going for it on 4th down and some of the other strategies they have used, but I can not fault them for continuing to score.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They have a right to continue playing football, at least for three quarters. If that means the score gets run up, then that's what it means. My only issue is when they start going for it on fourth down in FG range when they're up by 30 -- that's running it up any way you slice it.

I'm sorry, but kicking a FG there is actually considered running it up and in much poorer taste. This has been repeated time and time again and many times by actual NFL coaches. Another option is to just take a knee, which is just as bad. People keep saying that the Pats are "running up the score" just to run it up. Umm, no they aren't. They are playing football and executing their offense.

You can really look at this two ways:

1. You can keep your starters out on the field even when the game is decided. The downside to this is being viewed negatively by some of the public and media (as has happened) and risk of injury. The pros are that your starters keep that chemistry, get a full game's work in, and keep the intensity that will be needed later down the road when games count the most and may not be blowouts.

2. You can bench your starters the moment the game has been decided. The pros are that you avoid possible injury and keep your starters "rested". The downside is that they don't get that full 60 minutes in that may come back to haunt them endurance-wise and risk losing the edge and intensity that may be needed later. As mentioned above, some believe this is what did the Colts in a couple of years ago.

There isn't a more "right" answer to either approach. Some believe in #1 and some believe in #2. Dungy in 2005 obviously believed in #2. Belichick of this year obviously believes in #1. Different coaches at different times have used both approaches. But to criticize one while failing to see the potential benefits or ignoring the downside of "your" approach is missing the point. I don't have to agree with #1 or believe that's the best way, but I at least understand it and realize it has its merits.

 

[timschochet]

Here are three examples I always think of when the issue of resting your players late in the game comes up:

1. In 1996, Denver won home field very early, and Shanahan rested his players for the last three weeks of the season. In the first playoff game, they lost to Jacksonville, and looked sluggish doing so.

2. Three years ago, the Eagles clinched early and rested their players the last few games. This had no detrimental effect; they went on to the SB that year.

3. Two years ago, Indy clinched early and rested their players. In the first playoff game, they lost to Pittsburgh and looked sluggish.

So that's 2 out of 3 when resting your players was a mistake. I realize it'd a short sample, and of course, if someone gets injured, you'll be criticized forever. there's no right or wrong here, but overall I think I lean towards keeping your team fresh.

(I have to note though, that at least in 2005 Bellichick did rest his veterans in the last game when there was nothing on the line. If I am not mistaken, didn't Doug Flutie start that game? I think that was the game with the strange FG kick. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this...)

 

[maxwell1295]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Cassel steps in, wins and keeps job, goes on to obliterate all Brady's records. Drew Bledsoe unsure whether to laugh or cry.

 

[krsone21]

I am in no way a fan of the Pats, Brady, Belichick etc, but the argument that does make some sense to me is that the job of the offense is to score. I still do not always agree with going for it on 4th down and some of the other strategies they have used, but I can not fault them for continuing to score.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They have a right to continue playing football, at least for three quarters. If that means the score gets run up, then that's what it means. My only issue is when they start going for it on fourth down in FG range when they're up by 30 -- that's running it up any way you slice it.

But the fans paid to see 4 quarters!No it is called playing football that is haw I slice it. It is done at all levels, you have obviously have never played the game.

I have played football on a few levels and that being said if my team were up by more than 30 points and my coach went for it on fourth down instead of kicking a FG I would have to question his sportsmanship. I would have been embarased if my coach had did this against a team that is already down, why keep on kicking them over and over, just kick the FG.

 

[jurb26]

It never fails. I don't think there is a single Pats thread that can escape the inevitable

 

[PatsFanCT]

I am in no way a fan of the Pats, Brady, Belichick etc, but the argument that does make some sense to me is that the job of the offense is to score. I still do not always agree with going for it on 4th down and some of the other strategies they have used, but I can not fault them for continuing to score.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They have a right to continue playing football, at least for three quarters. If that means the score gets run up, then that's what it means. My only issue is when they start going for it on fourth down in FG range when they're up by 30 -- that's running it up any way you slice it.

So which is it? They went for it on 4th and 1 in the third quarter. They punted on 4th and 1 in the 4th quarter, and ran the ball all but two times. Brady didn't take a snap. Everybody is so damned wound up about the Patriots "running up the score" that they can't see the forest through the trees. They score their points early and often and go for the knockout punch whenever they see the left hand drop. They have had the backups in at the end of nearly every game. Hell, I bet some of their backups have more fantasy points scores this season than some teams starters.

 

[bostonfred]

Here are three examples I always think of when the issue of resting your players late in the game comes up:1. In 1996, Denver won home field very early, and Shanahan rested his players for the last three weeks of the season. In the first playoff game, they lost to Jacksonville, and looked sluggish doing so. 2. Three years ago, the Eagles clinched early and rested their players the last few games. This had no detrimental effect; they went on to the SB that year.3. Two years ago, Indy clinched early and rested their players. In the first playoff game, they lost to Pittsburgh and looked sluggish.So that's 2 out of 3 when resting your players was a mistake. I realize it'd a short sample, and of course, if someone gets injured, you'll be criticized forever. there's no right or wrong here, but overall I think I lean towards keeping your team fresh.(I have to note though, that at least in 2005 Bellichick did rest his veterans in the last game when there was nothing on the line. If I am not mistaken, didn't Doug Flutie start that game? I think that was the game with the strange FG kick. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this...)

The Eagles went on to face the Patriots. They played well, and had a chance to win the game, but McNabb was throwing up in the fourth quarter, and was unable to run a two minute offense. After years of making the NFCCG and losing, and with their best team in years, the Eagles lost. One can only wonder what would have happened if they had played every game for the full four quarters.

 

[Tau837]

They point out that during the 2004 season, Peyton Manning was still throwing the ball downfield long after games had already been decided.

They are off base.In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 47 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 21 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points.In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 93 passes with his team ahead by 15 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 40 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points.Before someone asks, I used 22 and 15 as cutoffs because that is where ESPN splits their stats.So Brady has thrown more than twice as often as Manning did in situations in which his team had a big lead. There is no comparison.And remember how people criticized Manning that season for throwing near the goal line, because he supposedly wanted the single season TD record? Check out this comparison: In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 37 passes from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 37 passes from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer.Is Brady just pushing for the record? If so, why is he not being criticized like Manning was around here in 2004? Because it was the Pats fans doing the criticizing?

 

[timschochet]

They point out that during the 2004 season, Peyton Manning was still throwing the ball downfield long after games had already been decided.

They are off base.In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 47 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 21 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points.In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 93 passes with his team ahead by 15 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 40 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points.Before someone asks, I used 22 and 15 as cutoffs because that is where ESPN splits their stats.So Brady has thrown more than twice as often as Manning did in situations in which his team had a big lead. There is no comparison.And remember how people criticized Manning that season for throwing near the goal line, because he supposedly wanted the single season TD record? Check out this comparison: In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 37 passes from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 37 passes from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer.Is Brady just pushing for the record? If so, why is he not being criticized like Manning was around here in 2004? Because it was the Pats fans doing the criticizing?

I'm not sure your numbers are that applicable, because Brady has more games this year when the Pats have been ahead by 22 than Peyton did in 04, I'm guessing. It is true that both Peter King and Vic Carruci referred to this issue in their defense of New England. I honestly don't remember a great deal of criticism about Manning back then, but in truth I wasn't paying attention.Are you suggesting that what New England does in the 4th quarter is without precedence?

 

[PsychoMan]

They point out that during the 2004 season, Peyton Manning was still throwing the ball downfield long after games had already been decided.

They are off base.In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 47 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 21 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points.

In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 93 passes with his team ahead by 15 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 40 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points.

Before someone asks, I used 22 and 15 as cutoffs because that is where ESPN splits their stats.

So Brady has thrown more than twice as often as Manning did in situations in which his team had a big lead. There is no comparison.

And remember how people criticized Manning that season for throwing near the goal line, because he supposedly wanted the single season TD record? Check out this comparison: In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 37 passes from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 37 passes from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer.

Is Brady just pushing for the record? If so, why is he not being criticized like Manning was around here in 2004? Because it was the Pats fans doing the criticizing?

I'm not sure your numbers are that applicable, because Brady has more games this year when the Pats have been ahead by 22 than Peyton did in 04, I'm guessing. It is true that both Peter King and Vic Carruci referred to this issue in their defense of New England. I honestly don't remember a great deal of criticism about Manning back then, but in truth I wasn't paying attention.Are you suggesting that what New England does in the 4th quarter is without precedence?

Sure he does because he's been running up the score.

 

[Tau837]

Here are three examples I always think of when the issue of resting your players late in the game comes up:1. In 1996, Denver won home field very early, and Shanahan rested his players for the last three weeks of the season. In the first playoff game, they lost to Jacksonville, and looked sluggish doing so. 2. Three years ago, the Eagles clinched early and rested their players the last few games. This had no detrimental effect; they went on to the SB that year.3. Two years ago, Indy clinched early and rested their players. In the first playoff game, they lost to Pittsburgh and looked sluggish.So that's 2 out of 3 when resting your players was a mistake. I realize it'd a short sample, and of course, if someone gets injured, you'll be criticized forever. there's no right or wrong here, but overall I think I lean towards keeping your team fresh.(I have to note though, that at least in 2005 Bellichick did rest his veterans in the last game when there was nothing on the line. If I am not mistaken, didn't Doug Flutie start that game? I think that was the game with the strange FG kick. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this...)

The Eagles went on to face the Patriots. They played well, and had a chance to win the game, but McNabb was throwing up in the fourth quarter, and was unable to run a two minute offense. After years of making the NFCCG and losing, and with their best team in years, the Eagles lost. One can only wonder what would have happened if they had played every game for the full four quarters.

Yes, one can only wonder that... if one is looking for a reason to support the Pats' current approach.

 

[timschochet]

Here are three examples I always think of when the issue of resting your players late in the game comes up:1. In 1996, Denver won home field very early, and Shanahan rested his players for the last three weeks of the season. In the first playoff game, they lost to Jacksonville, and looked sluggish doing so. 2. Three years ago, the Eagles clinched early and rested their players the last few games. This had no detrimental effect; they went on to the SB that year.3. Two years ago, Indy clinched early and rested their players. In the first playoff game, they lost to Pittsburgh and looked sluggish.So that's 2 out of 3 when resting your players was a mistake. I realize it'd a short sample, and of course, if someone gets injured, you'll be criticized forever. there's no right or wrong here, but overall I think I lean towards keeping your team fresh.(I have to note though, that at least in 2005 Bellichick did rest his veterans in the last game when there was nothing on the line. If I am not mistaken, didn't Doug Flutie start that game? I think that was the game with the strange FG kick. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this...)

The Eagles went on to face the Patriots. They played well, and had a chance to win the game, but McNabb was throwing up in the fourth quarter, and was unable to run a two minute offense. After years of making the NFCCG and losing, and with their best team in years, the Eagles lost. One can only wonder what would have happened if they had played every game for the full four quarters.

That doesn't make any sense. The Eagles had two playoff games before the SB. By the time they got to the SB, any sluggishness was long forgotten. If I recall correctly, McNabb had the stomach flu, didn't he? What did that have to do with resting during weeks 16-17?No, I stand by my original thought: unlike the Broncos and Colts, the Eagles were not adversly affected by the rest. 1 out of 3.

 

[Tau837]

They point out that during the 2004 season, Peyton Manning was still throwing the ball downfield long after games had already been decided.

They are off base.In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 47 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 21 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points.In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 93 passes with his team ahead by 15 or more points. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 40 passes with his team ahead by 22 or more points.Before someone asks, I used 22 and 15 as cutoffs because that is where ESPN splits their stats.So Brady has thrown more than twice as often as Manning did in situations in which his team had a big lead. There is no comparison.And remember how people criticized Manning that season for throwing near the goal line, because he supposedly wanted the single season TD record? Check out this comparison: In 10 games this season, Brady has attempted 37 passes from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer. In 15 games in 2004 (ignoring his 2 attempt game 16), Manning attempted 37 passes from the opponent's 10 yard line and closer.Is Brady just pushing for the record? If so, why is he not being criticized like Manning was around here in 2004? Because it was the Pats fans doing the criticizing?

I'm not sure your numbers are that applicable, because Brady has more games this year when the Pats have been ahead by 22 than Peyton did in 04, I'm guessing. It is true that both Peter King and Vic Carruci referred to this issue in their defense of New England. I honestly don't remember a great deal of criticism about Manning back then, but in truth I wasn't paying attention.Are you suggesting that what New England does in the 4th quarter is without precedence?

First of all, my numbers are applicable to what you posted. Manning did not throw a lot of passes once the game was decided, at least not relative to Brady. So the Manning situation is not applicable as a justification for what the Pats are doing. If Peter King et al are citing Manning in that way, they are wrong. Now, if you want to say it is apples and oranges, because the Pats are more often in that situation, that may have merit. But it doesn't mean the Manning situation is a justifiable comparison.Is the current situation without precedence? I can't cite any comparable situation. Can anyone else?And, yes, Manning was being criticized heavily on this forum throughout 2004. For throwing too much because he wanted the record, and particularly for throwing too often near the goal line. But, while the Pats have been criticized heavily around here for running up the score, there has been very little criticism of Brady for pushing for a personal record. In this case, it's about winning and maintaining chemistry. Like I said, I suspect the main difference is that the Pats fans are on different sides of the two arguments.

 

[Del Griffith]

Could Belichick please try to keep Maroney "focused" then?

 

[bostonfred]

Here are three examples I always think of when the issue of resting your players late in the game comes up:1. In 1996, Denver won home field very early, and Shanahan rested his players for the last three weeks of the season. In the first playoff game, they lost to Jacksonville, and looked sluggish doing so. 2. Three years ago, the Eagles clinched early and rested their players the last few games. This had no detrimental effect; they went on to the SB that year.3. Two years ago, Indy clinched early and rested their players. In the first playoff game, they lost to Pittsburgh and looked sluggish.So that's 2 out of 3 when resting your players was a mistake. I realize it'd a short sample, and of course, if someone gets injured, you'll be criticized forever. there's no right or wrong here, but overall I think I lean towards keeping your team fresh.(I have to note though, that at least in 2005 Bellichick did rest his veterans in the last game when there was nothing on the line. If I am not mistaken, didn't Doug Flutie start that game? I think that was the game with the strange FG kick. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this...)

The Eagles went on to face the Patriots. They played well, and had a chance to win the game, but McNabb was throwing up in the fourth quarter, and was unable to run a two minute offense. After years of making the NFCCG and losing, and with their best team in years, the Eagles lost. One can only wonder what would have happened if they had played every game for the full four quarters.

Yes, one can only wonder that... if one is looking for a reason to support the Pats' current approach.

I was critical of the Reid-led, Owens-canning Eagles immediately after that Superbowl. I said then and I still believe that they were wrong to bench/suspend Owens. I said then and I still believe that I think they were wrong to rest their players going into the playoffs. And lots and lots of people rememebr this.

 

[bostonfred]

And, yes, Manning was being criticized heavily on this forum throughout 2004. For throwing too much because he wanted the record, and particularly for throwing too often near the goal line. But, while the Pats have been criticized heavily around here for running up the score, there has been very little criticism of Brady for pushing for a personal record. In this case, it's about winning and maintaining chemistry. Like I said, I suspect the main difference is that the Pats fans are on different sides of the two arguments.

Brady already has 38 passing TDs through ten games. That means he averages 3.8 TDs/game. If he passes for "just" 2 TDs per game the rest of the way, he'll have 50, breaking the record. He's on pace for 61 TDs, which would shatter the record. Saying that he's throwing late in the game, especially after watching guys like Echel, Morris and Evans score fourth quarter TDs, looks especially silly when he's on pace to break the record by approximately 25%. He'd have to have thrown for an extra TD per game the entire season just to keep up the pace for 61 TDs. Are you honestly saying that he's thrown for ane extra TD, not just once, but ten times so far this year? Can you give me specific examples?

 

[omally]

Patriots are 15-0, Brady goes down for the post-season in the first quarter of their week 17 game.

If this doesn't happen, I will stop believing in Karma.

Why, did Brady injure someone?

Well he plays for a cheating team, which got him where he is now.

There's a support group thread for people still crying over the Patriots that Joe started. I recommend it for those with long-standing issues over any and all things that have to do with the Pats.

Oh Right, that thread that has been bombarded by Patriot fans who can say whatever they want in a thread specifically about issues against them, but non-Patriot fans are limited to only saying anything negative about the Pats in the support group thread. That's messed up.

Who ever said that THIS thread was a "Pats support group thread"? Just because the OP used the Pats for an example doesn't mean that it couldn't be any team... read the title. He changed his mind IN GENERAL to running up the score, NO MATTER who it is.Here's your thread: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...5896&st=150

I wasn't responding to the OP was I? Man this place has gone downhill this season.

 

[DropKick]

OK, I expect to be lambasted for this thread, because I was one of the first to complain here that New England was pouring it on late in games. I even started a thread called, "Disgusted...with the Patriots" that lasted all of a half hour before it was suspended. And of course I still detest Bill Bellichick and I am rooting for the Pats to lose all of their remaining games.But...I have listened to the arguments from several NFL "experts" (Peter King, Vic Carruci among others) and I have to say they are convincing about this subject. They point out that during the 2004 season, Peyton Manning was still throwing the ball downfield long after games had already been decided. They talk about Bellichick wanting to keep his team focused, and is very much afraid that the intensity which makes them so great could be lost if he lets things go too early. None of the national experts I have listened to or read find anything wrong with this behavior.And so, since I am only a fan and certainly no expert about football myself, having never played the game on anything remotely close to this level, I have decided to trust those in the know, and I have changed my mind about this. I will no longer criticize the Patriots for running up the score. I realize that when you take a position you're supposed to stick by it, and defend it to the death, but I won't do it anymore. There are lots of reasons (at least for me) to be critical of this NE team, and to root against them, but this won't be one of them anymore.

First of all, "passing" does not equate to running up the score. The Patriots have long used the short passing game as a substitute for the run. When you consider their injuries at the RB position, its easily justified.Second, did you realize how well they controlled the clock and the tempo of the game in the second half? The Bills had the ball once in the 3rd quarter; for less than 3 minutes. Simply put, they methodically moved the ball down field; effectively killing the clock and - that offense is so hot right now - they scored each time. It's almost perfect football. What would people prefer? That they fall down three times and punt?Injuries? They are reality in the NFL but what is a way to minimize the chance of injury? Controlling the ball, the clock and the tempo help. For the times the offense is on the field, the defense rests.

 

[DropKick]

I am in no way a fan of the Pats, Brady, Belichick etc, but the argument that does make some sense to me is that the job of the offense is to score. I still do not always agree with going for it on 4th down and some of the other strategies they have used, but I can not fault them for continuing to score.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. They have a right to continue playing football, at least for three quarters. If that means the score gets run up, then that's what it means. My only issue is when they start going for it on fourth down in FG range when they're up by 30 -- that's running it up any way you slice it.

I'll slice it with a different perspective... Let's say it is 4th and 1 on the 25.Too close to punt, right?The FG should be automatic and puts points on the board.You could choose to try to pick up the first down. This does give the defense a chance for a stop. And (if successful) it gives the offense a chance to continue to take time off the clock. You might take an additional 3-4 minutes off from that position on the field. I would much rather have my offense controlling the ball then the other team flinging the ball down field.ETA: Also suppose you can hold the ball the last 3 minutes; force the other team to burn timeouts and you kneel down at the 3 to end the game. So are you a villain for going for it on 4th down or are you playing smart football?

 

[Tau837]

And, yes, Manning was being criticized heavily on this forum throughout 2004. For throwing too much because he wanted the record, and particularly for throwing too often near the goal line. But, while the Pats have been criticized heavily around here for running up the score, there has been very little criticism of Brady for pushing for a personal record. In this case, it's about winning and maintaining chemistry. Like I said, I suspect the main difference is that the Pats fans are on different sides of the two arguments.

Brady already has 38 passing TDs through ten games. That means he averages 3.8 TDs/game. If he passes for "just" 2 TDs per game the rest of the way, he'll have 50, breaking the record. He's on pace for 61 TDs, which would shatter the record. Saying that he's throwing late in the game, especially after watching guys like Echel, Morris and Evans score fourth quarter TDs, looks especially silly when he's on pace to break the record by approximately 25%. He'd have to have thrown for an extra TD per game the entire season just to keep up the pace for 61 TDs. Are you honestly saying that he's thrown for ane extra TD, not just once, but ten times so far this year? Can you give me specific examples?

First off, this point has nothing to do with "late in the game". Not sure where you got that.Do you not recall heavy criticism on this forum of Manning for throwing too much in pursuit of the record?Are you saying that the criticism of Manning was valid because he was "only" on pace to come close to or narrowly get the record, whereas Brady is exempt because he is on pace to surpass the record by a larger margin?

 

[Footballg]

So are you a villain for going for it on 4th down or are you playing smart football?

Obviously the latter, and this should be an easy question for any football fan. I think what some of the posters here might have to consider is that Belichick and Brady know more about winning football games than they do. I honestly don't even understand why people are continuing to beat this dead horse. While a parade of 'classy' posters will come on here and hope for and speculate about all kinds of ill will and injury for Brady and the team, I can tell you what is actually going to happen in the future, and that is that they will continue to work on improving their game, and continue to score a lot of points doing so.You'll just have to get used to it.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I vote for an exclusive Pats Forum, 24/7 round the clock, nothing but Patriots talk.

 

[bostonfred]

And, yes, Manning was being criticized heavily on this forum throughout 2004. For throwing too much because he wanted the record, and particularly for throwing too often near the goal line. But, while the Pats have been criticized heavily around here for running up the score, there has been very little criticism of Brady for pushing for a personal record. In this case, it's about winning and maintaining chemistry. Like I said, I suspect the main difference is that the Pats fans are on different sides of the two arguments.

Brady already has 38 passing TDs through ten games. That means he averages 3.8 TDs/game. If he passes for "just" 2 TDs per game the rest of the way, he'll have 50, breaking the record. He's on pace for 61 TDs, which would shatter the record. Saying that he's throwing late in the game, especially after watching guys like Echel, Morris and Evans score fourth quarter TDs, looks especially silly when he's on pace to break the record by approximately 25%. He'd have to have thrown for an extra TD per game the entire season just to keep up the pace for 61 TDs. Are you honestly saying that he's thrown for ane extra TD, not just once, but ten times so far this year? Can you give me specific examples?

First off, this point has nothing to do with "late in the game". Not sure where you got that.Do you not recall heavy criticism on this forum of Manning for throwing too much in pursuit of the record?Are you saying that the criticism of Manning was valid because he was "only" on pace to come close to or narrowly get the record, whereas Brady is exempt because he is on pace to surpass the record by a larger margin?

I'm saying that Brady's numbers so far crush Manning's numbers through the same point in the season, so the argument that he's "throwing too muh because he wanted the record" or "throwing too often near the goal line" or "pushing for a personal record" takes a hit. If he was fighting to stay on pace for 49 TDs, the argument would have a lot more merit than now, when he's on pace for 61. Throwing for one more TD late in the game really doesn't seem to have too much to do with a pursuit of the record. On the other hand, Manning was fighting to stay on target for 49. Audibling to a pass on the goal line is more criticizable when you need the TD for the record. Are you arguing otherwise?

 

[Footballg]

I vote for an exclusive Pats Forum, 24/7 round the clock, nothing but Patriots talk.

What's this forum?EDIT: And as for running up the score, you'd be looking at 80/game if that was their goal. Why would Brady sit out the 4th quarter and why would they let Eckel run in TD's if Brady was counting TD's? The Pats haters really don't seem to want to put any thought into their hate, just as long as they can keep on hating.

 

[VTjkru]

Ive started to change my mind about the issue...but slightly. I dont find anything fundamentally wrong with what the Patriots are doing but I am uneasy about it. I understand the players are professionals and are getting paid to play but in the end it's still a game...a sport. And many of the actions are unsportsmanlike to a lot of fans and dont sit easy with them.

It's like a fisherman using dynamite in a lake to catch fish or a batter bunting during a pitcher's no-hitter/perfect game or anything else that's similar. All are ways to get the job done but just dont seem right. Going for it on 4and1 situations when everything is practically wrapped up just doesnt seem very sporting. Not that I would condone it but Im suprised a defense hasnt laid some lumber on some of the NE players. I guess it's a different era of football where doing your job is more important than playing a sport.