How Bout Dem Patriots??

[moonpie23]

hahahahaha........belicheat loses the game for them....(or at least made it easier for the colts....peyton may well have stabbed them in the heart regardless of the field position)

thanks bill..

man....that was savory...

[JasonEvans]

First of all, I did not see it live, but on Sportscenter it looked like they got a horrible spot of the ball. It looked to me like they had the first down.

But, that is almost irrelevant. Going for it on 4th down at that point is just crazy. It is not like Indy only needed to drive for a FG to win. They needed a TD!! That showed zero confidence in your defense to get the job done. You could have put Manning back on his own 20 or 30 instead of on your 20. Wow... just wow.

--Jason "what a gift for Indy" Evans

[bluebear]

As a pats fan, I'm in pain this am as the loss eliminated any real chance of home field throughout the playoffs and made getting a first round bye even more difficult. My solace, however, is the fact that the pats outplayed indy for 58 minutes and Brady continues to look more and more like 07 Brady...I don't think the Pats will be scared to go to Indy in January if it plays out that way...

[Channing]

First of all, I did not see it live, but on Sportscenter it looked like they got a horrible spot of the ball. It looked to me like they had the first down.

But, that is almost irrelevant. Going for it on 4th down at that point is just crazy. It is not like Indy only needed to drive for a FG to win. They needed a TD!! That showed zero confidence in your defense to get the job done. You could have put Manning back on his own 20 or 30 instead of on your 20. Wow... just wow.

--Jason "what a gift for Indy" Evans

I think the official ruling was that Kevin Faulk did not get his forward progress because he did not have possession throughout the forward progress. Since NE blew their timeouts earlier, they couldnt challenge the play.

[YourLandlord]

First of all, I did not see it live, but on Sportscenter it looked like they got a horrible spot of the ball. It looked to me like they had the first down.

It was a first down.



But, that is almost irrelevant. Going for it on 4th down at that point is just crazy. It is not like Indy only needed to drive for a FG to win. They needed a TD!! That showed zero confidence in your defense to get the job done. You could have put Manning back on his own 20 or 30 instead of on your 20. Wow... just wow.

--Jason "what a gift for Indy" Evans

If you had watched the game, the 2 previous drives the Colts shredded the Patriots gassed defense for touchdowns on 79 yard drives, each of which took under three minutes.

If the Patriots punted, the odds the Colts scored at TD, with all their timeouts and the two minute warning, were very high.

Essentially, it boiled down to this: which of these has the highest probability?
a) The Patriots, who had gained 450 yards to that point, had to gain a yard and a half to win the game. Probability -- 60%? 70%?
b) The Patriots stop the Colts from scoring a TD, given the Colts had just scored 2 TDs at will in almost no time (well, one of them with a gift pass interference call, which should be expected anytime the Colts play at home and are down late against the Pats.) Probability -- 30%? 40%?

The odds the Patriots gained a yard and a half were much higher than the odds they could stop the Colts from scoring.

PLUS, even IF they failed to convert the 4th -- as you said Jason, the Colts still had to score a touchdown, and go 30 yards to do it. This only supports the decision to go for it on 4th down.

[YourLandlord]

I think the official ruling was that Kevin Faulk did not get his forward progress because he did not have possession throughout the forward progress. Since NE blew their timeouts earlier, they couldnt challenge the play.

This was the ruling, but in replays after it appeared he bobbled once, then got firm grasp -- and when he had firm grasp, he was still past the 30.

The ref that called the bobble was actually behind Faulk's (and the defender's) back, so there is no way he could have determined when he stopped bobbling.

Essentially, the game was a blowout for 3+ quarters, and should have been an even larger one (fumbles in the endzone, etc.). EVERYTHING had to go wrong for the Patriots to lose that game -- if one thing didn't happen, they would have won. This is the same as the '07 Super Bowl -- EVERYTHING had to go right for the Giants to score on their final drive, when the Patriots had half a dozen chances to sack the QB and intercept a pass.

[mr. synellinden]

I am going to disagree with all those people who think it was a horrible call. Here's why. On the previous drive, Manning shredded the Pats defense for an easy TD in less than 2 minutes. Now maybe they were playing a little prevent because they were up by 13, but they looked completely gassed. If you punt there on 4th and 2 on your own 28, you are probably giving Manning the ball on his own 30-35 with two minutes left, and four timeouts (including the 2 minute warning), and your defense has had about 5 minutes to rest. What are the odds that Indy takes the ball 70 yards and scores a TD in that time? I'd day it's around 50-50. The odds of making a 4th and 2 are probably around the same. If you make it, the game is over. And if you don't make it, Indy still has to go 30 yards and score a TD. Just seeing how easily they scored that TD shows that it might have been better than 50-50 that Indy scores from their own 35. I think Belichick realized his defense couldn't stop them and decided to gamble on winning it on offense rather than defense, he just lost the gamble. Punting would have been the safe, "media-friendly" call, but I think it was the right play percentages-wise.

Here's another way to look at it.

GO FOR IT:

Make it (.5 chance) -- win 100%

Don't make it (.5 chance) -- win 20%

Total odds of winning 60%

PUNT

Total odds of winning: 50%

60% > 50%. You can argue with the odds/percentages I assumed here, but I am sure that's the way Belichick was thinking of it.

[mkirsh]

Going for in on fourth and 2 was the football equivalent of walking a batter with the bases loaded - they figured the only chance to win was to not let Manning touch the ball again. It was crazy to watch. As a neutral observer I do think they got a bad spot, but where the ball should have been was right on the marker, so would have been 50/50 where the chain actually ended up. The crazy thing is the Pats blew 2 timeouts on that drive, one right after the kickoff which you never see, so they could not even challenge. Although, it's interesting that Belicheck will take the heat for the loss, and not the Pats defense which could not keep Indy out of the endzone in the fourth quarter.

[Duvall]

This is the same as the '07 Super Bowl -- EVERYTHING had to go right for the Giants to score on their final drive, when the Patriots had half a dozen chances to sack the QB and intercept a pass.

How is that different from any other game-winning drive?

[YourLandlord]

How is that different from any other game-winning drive?

If you re-watch the last drive, there were a stunning number of near-sacks, near-interceptions. Plus, that goofy helmet-catch, which I would say differentiates it from all other game-winning drives.

[YourLandlord]

Adding some statistics into the mix,


A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their own 34. Teams historically get the TD 30% of the time in that situation. So the punt gives the Pats about a 0.70 WP.

Statistically, the better decision would be to go for it, and by a good amount. However, these numbers are baselines for the league as a whole. You'd have to expect the Colts had a better than a 30% chance of scoring from their 34, and an accordingly higher chance to score from the Pats' 28. But any adjustment in their likelihood of scoring from either field position increases the advantage of going for it. You can play with the numbers any way you like, but it's pretty hard to come up with a realistic combination of numbers that make punting the better option. At best, you could make it a wash.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html

Is Coach B getting skewered for the call by the national media? Sure. But that's because people are wimps. Plus, they're the same people that vote Derek Jeter 4 Gold Gloves. Buncha mental lightweights.

[Olympic Fan]

Is Coach B getting skewered for the call by the national media? Sure. But that's because people are wimps. Plus, they're the same people that vote Derek Jeter 4 Gold Gloves. Buncha mental lightweights.

I get tired of hearing this mistaken criticism of the Gold Glove Award. Media types did not give Jeter his four Gold Gloves -- the managers are the gold glove voters (since 1965):

http://www.baseball-statistics.com/Awards/Gold-Glove.htm

Not saying that Jeter deserved his gold gloves, but the "mental lightweights" who gave him his four Gold Gloves are the baseball equivilents to Belicheater, NOT the "wimps" in the media.

[Bostondevil]

Thanks guys, I have now forgiven Belichick. Please disregard my latest post in the LTE. I suspect, even with the loss, the Pats aren't afraid of meeting Indy in the playoffs. Now, I'll just have to root for a couple of teams to beat Cincinnati and/or Indy.

I miss Mike Vrabel.

[bluebear]

How is that different from any other game-winning drive?

I take nothing away from the Giants as they won the game and deserved to win the game but their final drive was one of the luckiest drives I've ever seen. Between Samuel dropping an easy interception, to Manning escaping from the grasp, to Tyree making one of the most unbelievable catches in SB history...Almost every other game winning drive goes more smoothly than that one..

[Duvall]

I take nothing away from the Giants as they won the game and deserved to win the game but their final drive was one of the luckiest drives I've ever seen. Between Samuel dropping an easy interception, to Manning escaping from the grasp, to Tyree making one of the most unbelievable catches in SB history...Almost every other game winning drive goes more smoothly than that one..

Sounds like they weren't all that lucky. A really lucky team would have scored easily.

[Bostondevil]

I don't hate the Giants but I will admit, since that day, I take great satisfaction in watching them lose. (I hope Sue doesn't read this thread :o)

Prediction: Eli Manning will never lead another team to the Super Bowl.

[YourLandlord]

Sounds like they weren't all that lucky. A really lucky team would have scored easily.

uhh...or not

[InSpades]

I love hearing Boston fans talk about that Super Bowl... brings a smile to my face to this day.

I definitely agree that it wasn't a bad call to go for it there. I think in general coaches make the "safe" call way too often. Conventional wisdom isn't always right. I don't see it as not having faith in the defense, but instead having a lot of faith in the offense (well, mainly Brady). Obviously it didn't work out but it's reasonably likely that it wouldn't have worked out punting the ball either.

[Mal]

I think Belichick's defenders here are probably right from a numbers perspective. The chances of Manning going 35 yards for the win weren't that much higher than the chances of going 70 at that point. Conversely, you've got an 80% chance of ending it with the first down.

The thing that mattered to me here was the change in mentality that had to have occurred for Belichick to run the odds that way: for him to acknowledge his defense would not be able to stop the Colts offense in a game on the line two minute drive situation, regardless of field position, is a new thing for this rivalry. So, yes, New England may not fear going to Indy for an AFC Championship game, but perhaps they should. As was noted at halftime, the Colts young receivers haven't played like rookies until the first half last night. And Manning had some uncharacteristic bad throws/decisions, while Brady and Moss were about as good as they can be from start to finish. But once the Colts started clicking, they were pretty much unstoppable.

[cato]

So, yes, New England may not fear going to Indy for an AFC Championship game, but perhaps they should.

They absolutely should. If I recall correctly, Indy has only lost one game in the past year or so -- last year's playoff game in San Diego. And they only lost that because San Diego had the ball last (the first overtime possession). Not to mention the fact that San Diego matches up pretty well against Indy. I'm not sure who else has as good a record against Indy in recent years, but it sure isn't the Pats.

I don't think that anybody wants to go through Indy this year in order to get to the Super Bowl.

[Bostondevil]

If the Pats had won last night I would have been very happy (and not very likely to crow about it here). But they lost, so, I'm looking for reasons not to feel depressed about the collapse. Brady and Moss were fine. It's the defense that has me a bit worried. That second to last drive wasn't Manning so much as it was a lack of good D. I agree that the D was gassed which will still be a problem should they meet again in the playoffs. But, that's jumping the gun. No guarantee that either team will make it to a rematch. I know it hasn't happened yet, but the Colts sure did look beatable, last week too. I don't see them running the table but, stranger things have happened.


That's right, InSpades, you just keep looking backwards, the view is better that way. ;)

[InSpades]

That's right, InSpades, you just keep looking backwards, the view is better that way. ;)

Pretty sure the only ones looking back were the Patriot fans. Keep taking solace in "close" losses, maybe that will get you to the playoffs this year (well that and the terribleness that is the AFC East).

edit: For the record, the Patriots have played 3 teams with winning records this season and have 3 losses. The Giants have played 5 teams with winning records this season and have 4 losses.

[BobbyFan]

As much as I can't stand him, I love that Belichick went for it because it was the right call. Although this situation was different, coaches are generally far too conservative on 4th downs, particularly when in the opponent's territory. It always frustrates me to watch decisions like these, in addition to clock management, being handled poorly by coaches. It's 2009 - you'd think that probability and common sense would have infiltrated more into the decision-making of such a high-end entertainment product.

It's hilarious watching the media have a field day with what they are presuming was a horrible call, when in fact they are completely wrong.

[bluebear]

Pretty sure the only ones looking back were the Patriot fans. Keep taking solace in "close" losses, maybe that will get you to the playoffs this year (well that and the terribleness that is the AFC East).

edit: For the record, the Patriots have played 3 teams with winning records this season and have 3 losses. The Giants have played 5 teams with winning records this season and have 4 losses.

Do you really think that the Pats are squeaking into the playoffs on the basis the weak AFC East?

Atlanta has a winning record...

[InSpades]

Do you really think that the Pats are squeaking into the playoffs on the basis the weak AFC East?

Atlanta has a winning record...

Well their division plays a huge part in whether or not they make the playoffs, no? And their division isn't really very good. So... yes? I wouldn't say "squeaking" but it's certainly making it a lot easier. If they had to fight San Diego and Pittsburgh for 1 of 2 wild card berths then they would be in trouble. Instead they can win their division because the Jets and Dolphins really aren't very good.

I know that Atlanta has a winning record, that doesn't contradict anything I said. When Atlanta is the best team you've beaten all year, I don't think you can seriously be talking about Super Bowl aspirations yet.

[YourLandlord]

The thing that mattered to me here was the change in mentality that had to have occurred for Belichick to run the odds that way: for him to acknowledge his defense would not be able to stop the Colts offense in a game on the line two minute drive situation, regardless of field position, is a new thing for this rivalry.

Conversely, one could argue Belichick was so confident in his defense, even if they didn't get the first down, he totally thought they could hold them from the 30 yard line. I.E., punting would have been a slap at his defense -- "you guys need 70 yards to get the stop instead of 30."

This is what Pats defensive players were saying after the game.

(I don't believe it, but just saying there's a different way to look at it.)

[moonpie23]

how many losses for the pats since they had to stop the hand signal cheating and brady went down with the knee?

[YourLandlord]

That second to last drive wasn't Manning so much as it was a lack of good D.

And the benefit of a ridiculous pass interference call where BOTH players were going up for the ball (WHICH IS ALLOWED) and the Colts player JUMPED INTO the Patriots player, who was going for the INT.

Not to mention the ref waited until the Colts player DROPPED the ball, and THEN threw the flag. Like, if the Colts player held on, he would have kept the flag in his pocket, because it wasn't really a clear penalty. But once it wasn't a catch, he threw the flag.

Refs get caught up in the emotion of a comeback just as much as the fans and players do. See the ref who called the bobble on Faulk's 4th and 2 catch -- he was BEHIND the players and couldn't see when/if Faulk stopped bobbling the catch, but he came SPRINTING over giving the "bobble" sign. As soon as he spied something that might negate the catch, he freaked out to make that call.

[YourLandlord]

how many losses for the pats since they had to stop the hand signal cheating and brady went down with the knee?

Duke gets all the foul calls!

[Wander]

If the Patriots punted, the odds the Colts scored at TD, with all their timeouts and the two minute warning, were very high.


The Colts did not have all their timeouts left, only one.



a) The Patriots, who had gained 450 yards to that point, had to gain a yard and a half to win the game. Probability -- 60%? 70%?

Too high. Probably analogous to a two point conversion attempt, which I believe works about 45% of the time in the NFL.

It's certainly debatable, but given the little time left in the game (something not taken into account in most, if not all, of these percentages), I have to think that punting is the right call - especially considering that the Patriots could have prevented the Colts from taking advantage of the two-minute warning (or made them burn their last timeout).

[YourLandlord]

Keep taking solace in "close" losses,

When you're on top of the NFL for a full decade, you're bound to have a number of close losses in high-leverage games. It happens to dominant teams. Like Duke losing in the NCAAs a lot. It's cause they are there a lot.

[YourLandlord]

The Colts did not have all their timeouts left, only one.


I meant "all their timeouts" like one would say "all that team's good players" -- i.e., they had some. Plus the 2 min warning.



Too high. Probably analogous to a two point conversion attempt, which I believe works about 45% of the time in the NFL.


From 4th and short (under 2 yds), the Patriots have made 65% of those plays over the last few years. They gave the stat during the game.



It's certainly debatable, but given the little time left in the game (something not taken into account in most, if not all, of these percentages), I have to think that punting is the right call - especially considering that the Patriots could have prevented the Colts from taking advantage of the two-minute warning (or made them burn their last timeout).

The time that was left was the same time it took the colts to score 2 touchdowns on the last two drives, without using timeouts or the 2 min warning.

The play call was correct. The plays leading up to that call were stupid -- wasting 2 timeouts and not running on 3rd down. I don't think they realized they were going to go for it until it was 4th down though -- if they were sold they were going for it on 4th down, they definitely would have run on 3rd.

It was sloppy coaching, but that one specific call was the correct one. Perhaps to make up for the sloppy coaching earlier.

[Wander]

From 4th and short (under 2 yds), the Patriots have made 65% of those plays over the last few years. They gave the stat during the game.


And how many of those were 4th and inches? Probably a whole bunch of them, if not the majority. That's why using two point conversion attempts makes more sense - it's always, essentially, a 4th and 2. I admit it's not perfect but it's a much better point of comparison than the "how many times have the Patriots converted 4th and short recently." That stat is worse than meaningless - there's no question at all it gives a significantly higher percentage then the one we're looking for.




The time that was left was the same time it took the colts to score 2 touchdowns on the last two drives, without using timeouts or the 2 min warning.

Well, just because a coin comes up heads twice in a row... you know.

I'm not saying he definitely made the wrong call - I think it's debatable. My personal preference - if I was a Pats fan - would have been to (like you said) run the ball on 3rd down to burn off the 2 minute warning, then punt.

[Bostondevil]

Pretty sure the only ones looking back were the Patriot fans. Keep taking solace in "close" losses, maybe that will get you to the playoffs this year (well that and the terribleness that is the AFC East).

edit: For the record, the Patriots have played 3 teams with winning records this season and have 3 losses. The Giants have played 5 teams with winning records this season and have 4 losses.

And yet, the Pats will make the playoffs.

[Bostondevil]

And yeah, Atlanta has a winning record and was a playoff team last year.

[InSpades]

And yet, the Pats will make the playoffs.


And yeah, Atlanta has a winning record and was a playoff team last year.

The Patriots have a 1-game better record than the Giants do, 9 games into the season, having played a much easier schedule. Yes the Patriots will make the playoffs, like I said, because their division is bad. If you want to gloat about that then go for it. If you put any half-decent team in that division they would also make the playoffs.

I'm fully aware that Atlanta has a winning record. They are 1 of the 3 teams the Patriots played that can say that (Denver and Indianapolis are the other 2).

[Bostondevil]

And the benefit of a ridiculous pass interference call where BOTH players were going up for the ball (WHICH IS ALLOWED) and the Colts player JUMPED INTO the Patriots player, who was going for the INT.

Not to mention the ref waited until the Colts player DROPPED the ball, and THEN threw the flag. Like, if the Colts player held on, he would have kept the flag in his pocket, because it wasn't really a clear penalty. But once it wasn't a catch, he threw the flag.

Refs get caught up in the emotion of a comeback just as much as the fans and players do. See the ref who called the bobble on Faulk's 4th and 2 catch -- he was BEHIND the players and couldn't see when/if Faulk stopped bobbling the catch, but he came SPRINTING over giving the "bobble" sign. As soon as he spied something that might negate the catch, he freaked out to make that call.

Yeah, there were some homer calls but you've got to expect that. The Pats would have gotten those calls in Foxborough. Have the Colts ever managed to beat the Pats twice in the same season (in the Brady/Manning Era)?

[YourLandlord]

The Patriots have a 1-game better record than the Giants do, 9 games into the season, having played a much easier schedule.

If the Giants were to play the Patriots right now, and you had to bet a year's paycheck on the game, who would you pick?

Case closed.

[Bostondevil]

Why thank you Landlord, I was just about to make a similar point.

Hey the Giants were undefeated through the first 5 games of the season! They won 5 in a row! Now they only have one more loss than the Pats! Since they won't play each other this year, barring (another) miracle, we'll have to look at common opponents to settle that particular issue, won't we?

I'll give you that Peyton is the better Manning. And I don't actually hate the guy. Peyton, I mean. It's the NFL, it's not like it really matters in the end. It's not Duke-Carolina.

[YourLandlord]

Belichick's coaching was bad in the 4th quarter, in terms of wasting timeouts and general playcalling. Probably cost them the game.

But the 4th and 2 play was the correct call. Intelligent people agree.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/11/16/going-for-it/

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/bill-belichick-is-great/

[Bostondevil]

I have never said I'd be a good football coach. I would have punted. But I'm awfully glad to discover I don't have to be mad at Belichick because he didn't. Can I say "That's poker"?

If it weren't for 2004 (and 2007), I'd still be wondering WHY every time somebody said Grady Little though.

[Duvall]

But the 4th and 2 play was the correct call. Intelligent people agree.

And Steven Levitt, I guess.

[Duvall]

I have never said I'd be a good football coach. I would have punted. But I'm awfully glad to discover I don't have to be mad at Belichick because he didn't.

Nah, you should be mad at Tom Brady for throwing the ball exactly two yards on a 4th and 2 play.

[YourLandlord]

Nah, you should be mad at Tom Brady for throwing the ball exactly two yards on a 4th and 2 play.

Actually, he threw it 3-4 yards, where his receiver caught it for the first down. If you have seen a replay, you would know this.

For some unknown reason, however, the ref didn't give the receiver forward progress even though he had the first down even after he finished bobbling the ball.

[InSpades]

If the Giants were to play the Patriots right now, and you had to bet a year's paycheck on the game, who would you pick?

Case closed.

The difference here is that I don't think the Giants will make the playoffs and you think the Patriots are going to the Super Bowl. I'm sure the Patriots would be favored right now if they played on a neutral field but by how many? There's still 7 weeks left in the season and a lot of football to be played. Maybe the Patriots will actually beat a team on it's way to the playoffs... or gasp... maybe they'll win a road game? I'm pretty sure they won't actually beat a team on it's way to the playoffs because they only have to play 1. If they beat the Saints in New Orleans then I'll respect their chances for another Super Bowl run.

[cato]

Since we're talking about two of the best teams in the NFL, the Giants should not be part of the conversation.

[BobbyFan]

Belichick's coaching was bad in the 4th quarter, in terms of wasting timeouts and general playcalling. Probably cost them the game.

But the 4th and 2 play was the correct call. Intelligent people agree.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/11/16/going-for-it/

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/bill-belichick-is-great/

This is what I suspected at the time. The likelihood of essentially ending the game by converting on a 4th and 2 has a greater impact than the extra 35 yards of field position you push Manning back by.

[Duke4Ever32]

The difference here is that I don't think the Giants will make the playoffs and you think the Patriots are going to the Super Bowl. I'm sure the Patriots would be favored right now if they played on a neutral field but by how many? There's still 7 weeks left in the season and a lot of football to be played. Maybe the Patriots will actually beat a team on it's way to the playoffs... or gasp... maybe they'll win a road game? I'm pretty sure they won't actually beat a team on it's way to the playoffs because they only have to play 1. If they beat the Saints in New Orleans then I'll respect their chances for another Super Bowl run.

It's laughable to suggest that the Patriots are somehow overrated or something similar given that they just dominated an undefeated team, in that team's home stadium, no less, for all but the last 2 minutes of a game.

[BobbyFan]

Here is a link to the Advanced NFL stats blog -

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html

[InSpades]

Since we're talking about two of the best teams in the NFL, the Giants should not be part of the conversation.

I'm pretty sure this wasn't a discussion about the Saints and the Colts.

[Bostondevil]

The difference here is that I don't think the Giants will make the playoffs and you think the Patriots are going to the Super Bowl. I'm sure the Patriots would be favored right now if they played on a neutral field but by how many? There's still 7 weeks left in the season and a lot of football to be played. Maybe the Patriots will actually beat a team on it's way to the playoffs... or gasp... maybe they'll win a road game? I'm pretty sure they won't actually beat a team on it's way to the playoffs because they only have to play 1. If they beat the Saints in New Orleans then I'll respect their chances for another Super Bowl run.

I don't think the Pats are going to the Super Bowl. I think they have a chance to go to the Super Bowl. I am fairly confident they will make the playoffs. And they aren't making the playoffs just because they play in the AFC East. The only really tough division this year is the AFC North. Well, maybe the NFC West, but that's only because somebody has to win it. You know, looking at the Pats road schedule, it's brutal. Gotta be the worst in the NFL this year, @ Denver, @ Indy, @ New Orleans. Who else has to do that?

The Giants? Have no chance. Even if they make the playoffs (which looks extremely difficult right now, not because of their schedule but because of how they are playing) they aren't winning three in a row on the road in January this year.

So, I'm looking forward to the rest of the season. Are you? If I were a Giants fan, I might just get out my DVD of Super Bowl, which one was it XXLII?

I'd love another shot at the Colts but I won't be too depressed if somebody else takes them out first.

[Duvall]

You know, looking at the Pats road schedule, it's brutal. Gotta be the worst in the NFL this year, @ Denver, @ Indy, @ New Orleans.

One of these things is not like the others...

[YourLandlord]

One of these things is not like the others...

It's clear you're just being a jack@ss, but I'll keep playing.

@Indy, @New Orleans -- the 2 undefeated teams in the NFL.

Minn, 8-1. Cin, 7-2. Then the Broncos at 6-3, the 5th best record in the NFL. A team that was undefeated when the Pats played @Den.

Who was the clown upthread who kept talking about the "easy" Pats schedule?

[hc5duke]

I am going to disagree with all those people who think it was a horrible call. Here's why. On the previous drive, Manning shredded the Pats defense for an easy TD in less than 2 minutes. Now maybe they were playing a little prevent because they were up by 13, but they looked completely gassed. If you punt there on 4th and 2 on your own 28, you are probably giving Manning the ball on his own 30-35 with two minutes left, and four timeouts (including the 2 minute warning), and your defense has had about 5 minutes to rest. What are the odds that Indy takes the ball 70 yards and scores a TD in that time? I'd day it's around 50-50. The odds of making a 4th and 2 are probably around the same. If you make it, the game is over. And if you don't make it, Indy still has to go 30 yards and score a TD. Just seeing how easily they scored that TD shows that it might have been better than 50-50 that Indy scores from their own 35. I think Belichick realized his defense couldn't stop them and decided to gamble on winning it on offense rather than defense, he just lost the gamble. Punting would have been the safe, "media-friendly" call, but I think it was the right play percentages-wise.

Here's another way to look at it.

GO FOR IT:

Make it (.5 chance) -- win 100%

Don't make it (.5 chance) -- win 20%

Total odds of winning 60%

PUNT

Total odds of winning: 50%

60% > 50%. You can argue with the odds/percentages I assumed here, but I am sure that's the way Belichick was thinking of it.

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-fourth-down-decision/


Statistically, the better decision would be to go for it, and by a good amount [78% vs 70%]

[cato]

I'm pretty sure this wasn't a discussion about the Saints and the Colts.

You wouldn't consider the Pats one of the best teams in the NFL? I'd say the top 5 are Colts, NO, Cin, Pats and Steelers. Who would you put in that group instead of the Pats?

[InSpades]

Gotta be the worst in the NFL this year, @ Denver, @ Indy, @ New Orleans. Who else has to do that?


Congrats, you just listed the only 3 playoff teams the Patriots will face this year (in the regular season). Maybe Atlanta.

[Duvall]

Then the Broncos at 6-3, the 5th best record in the NFL. A team that was undefeated when the Pats played @Den.


Also a team that shares with Tampa Bay and St. Louis the indignity of losing to the Washington football club. Denver isn't good.

[YourLandlord]

Congrats, you just listed the only 3 playoff teams the Patriots will face this year (in the regular season). Maybe Atlanta.

Dude, you're defeating your own point. You're agreeing the Patriots will play arguably the THREE VERY BEST TEAMS in the NFL, plus another playoff team, and that makes it an easy schedule? Hardly.

[Bostondevil]

One of these things is not like the others...

Regardless of the record, @ Denver is always tough. It's the altitude. That's their ace in the hole. The Pats have the snow, but you can't always count on it. Yeah, the Pats have already played one in the snow, but it was Tennessee. You think Indy could have handled a snow game in New England in October? I said it somewhere else, but I'll say it again. Brady has done what he's done playing in friggin' New England!! What's Manning's record in the snow?

[InSpades]

Dude, you're defeating your own point. You're agreeing the Patriots will play arguably the THREE VERY BEST TEAMS in the NFL, plus another playoff team, and that makes it an easy schedule? Hardly.

There's 32 NFL teams. 12 of them will make the playoffs. You play 16 games. On average an NFL team will play 6 playoff teams during the regular season. The Patriots will play likely 3, maybe 4. Hello math. This makes the Patriots schedule easy. I would gladly sign my team up to play the Saints and Colts twice each if they got to play the Rams, Raiders, Lions and Bucs the other 12 games. 3 hard games does not make a schedule hard.

[Duke4Ever32]

Congrats, you just listed the only 3 playoff teams the Patriots will face this year (in the regular season). Maybe Atlanta.

Interesting comment coming from someone whose team's wins have come against the following teams: Washington, Dallas, Tampa, KC, and Oakland. Wow. Some real powerhouse wins there. What is there, ONE playoff team in that group?

[Bostondevil]

Not if they are the team in their division that wins their division. Do that math. That takes out two possible playoff bound team matchups.

[InSpades]

Interesting comment coming from someone whose team's wins have come against the following teams: Washington, Dallas, Tampa, KC, and Oakland. Wow. Some real powerhouse wins there. What is there, ONE playoff team in that group?

The Giants have beaten 4 bad teams and 1 good team. The Giants have lost to 4 good teams. The Patriots have beaten 4 bad teams and 2 good teams (I'm giving them the Ravens because I think they are better than 4-4 would indicate). The Patriots have lost to 2 good teams and 1 bad team. Which of these is significantly better than the other?

[Bostondevil]

Denver could certainly still make the playoffs. Wait, is it possible that a bad team could make the playoffs?

The NFL this year is roughly 6 teams that have a chance. A couple that could sneak in. 2-3 mediocres and a whole lot of suckitude. I'll contend that EVERY good team has a weak schedule.

By the way, you know that one game in the snow? You know what I was doing that day? Running in a road race. Yeah, I'm bragging. I ran through one puddle and couldn't feel my feet for about a half mile.

[Duke4Ever32]

The Giants have beaten 4 bad teams and 1 good team. The Giants have lost to 4 good teams. The Patriots have beaten 4 bad teams and 2 good teams (I'm giving them the Ravens because I think they are better than 4-4 would indicate). The Patriots have lost to 2 good teams and 1 bad team. Which of these is significantly better than the other?

I'd say beating one more good team is preferable to losing to one less bad team, by your own math. And again, I'm no Pats fan (I cheer for Pittsburgh, who had their own debacle yesterday), but they just dominated one of the best teams in the NFL, if not the best, in that team's stadium for a majority of the game. You always want the "W", but if you've gotta lose, that's the way to do it.

And, I'm not sure I'd classify Philly as a good team. They lost to the Raiders, after all.

[YourLandlord]

any of the previous blather

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/news/story?id=4027503

granted it's based on last year's results...but the AFC East teams are all in the top 7. it's not an "easy" division. you lose.

[Duvall]

granted it's based on last year's results

Well, that's pretty much useless. Anything else?

[Duvall]

Actually, he threw it 3-4 yards, where his receiver caught it for the first down. If you have seen a replay, you would know this.

Check the video - 3:30 to 3:40 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnfuDwzTnmg). It looks like Faulk ran a four-yard route before coming back to catch the ball at the 30, before being driven down at the 29. It's not clear from this angle where exactly Faulk established possession, but it wasn't at the 31.

[InSpades]

Well, that's pretty much useless. Anything else?

Seriously. If the best you can come up with is strength of schedule based on last year's records then... I don't know what to say. Somehow what I've said is "blather"?

As for having less opportunity to play playoff teams because you are the playoff team from your division... good divisions get 2 teams into the playoffs, not 1 (sometimes 3). The Giants will end up playing 10 of their games against teams as good or better (based on record right now) than the Falcons. If they do make the playoffs they will certainly have earned it.

[Deslok]

Check the video - 3:30 to 3:40 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnfuDwzTnmg). It looks like Faulk ran a four-yard route before coming back to catch the ball at the 30, before being driven down at the 29. It's not clear from this angle where exactly Faulk established possession, but it wasn't at the 31.

More precisely, he first gets his hands on it around the 31(though maybe only the 30.5), but only gathers it in and controls is as he's heading backwards somewhere between the 29.5 and 30.2 or so. I think he was behind the 30 when he got possession of the ball(the ball seems to be just short of vertical of his planted foot which is just behind the 30 yard line), but anyone who seriously thinks he caught that for a 4 yard gain is simply delusional.

[Bostondevil]

Seriously. If the best you can come up with is strength of schedule based on last year's records then... I don't know what to say. Somehow what I've said is "blather"?

As for having less opportunity to play playoff teams because you are the playoff team from your division... good divisions get 2 teams into the playoffs, not 1 (sometimes 3). The Giants will end up playing 10 of their games against teams as good or better (based on record right now) than the Falcons. If they do make the playoffs they will certainly have earned it.

OK, I actually did the math, in 2008 all playoff teams averaged slightly under 6 playoff bound opponents. Division winners averaged slightly more than 6 playoff bound opponents. But would you like to guess who played the most playoff bound opponents in 2008? Yep, that's right, the New England Patriots (and the Pittsburgh Steelers).

But I guess that means you are right, Spades, the Giants 5-4 record (and 4 game losing streak) is much better than the Patriots 6-3.

[InSpades]

OK, I actually did the math, in 2008 all playoff teams averaged slightly under 6 playoff bound opponents. Division winners averaged slightly more than 6 playoff bound opponents. But would you like to guess who played the most playoff bound opponents in 2008? Yep, that's right, the New England Patriots (and the Pittsburgh Steelers).

But I guess that means you are right, Spades, the Giants 5-4 record (and 4 game losing streak) is much better than the Patriots 6-3.

When did I ever say that? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The Giants have had a slightly more difficult schedule and have a slightly worse record. If the Patriots played the Giants schedule they would very likely be 5-4 too.

I already told you that teams should average around 6 games against playoff bound teams, so you did math to prove to me that what I said was right? Thanks! So now you can understand why I would say that the Patriots playing 3 or 4 playoff teams would mean their schedule is easy.

[YourLandlord]

More precisely, he first gets his hands on it around the 31(though maybe only the 30.5), but only gathers it in and controls is as he's heading backwards somewhere between the 29.5 and 30.2 or so. I think he was behind the 30 when he got possession of the ball(the ball seems to be just short of vertical of his planted foot which is just behind the 30 yard line), but anyone who seriously thinks he caught that for a 4 yard gain is simply delusional.

4 yard gain? No way! First down? Yep.

The catch:

http://i37.tinypic.com/2nrj4et.jpg

---

Coming down with the ball: Foot is on the 30, entire body including ball is past the 30.

http://i36.tinypic.com/25oxh6u.jpg

This is where forward progress is ALWAYS given to the receiver. Especially when he has the first down, such as in this situation. However, the ref who called the bobble was just LOOKING for something dramatic to call there. He thought he spotted a bobble past the initial slight repositioning (which he couldn't as he was behind both players backs), and assumed he bobbled it all the way to the ground. If you watch the video, Faulk did nothing of the sort.

---

And finally, the tackle. At this point in play, and in the video, Faulk clearly had possession of the ball, as he has it tucked into his chest/stomach:

http://i36.tinypic.com/33usbdj.jpg

And what is that? Not only is his foot on the 30, right where he needs to be, but his entire body is PAST THE 30.

Certainly, it is a close play -- and good play by the defender to push him back a half a yard. But, Faulk ultimately resisted. The ref saw the slight push back, combined with the slight initial bobble, and made an assumption.

An assumption that was wrong.

That is a first down.

[YourLandlord]

When did I ever say that? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The Giants have had a slightly more difficult schedule and have a slightly worse record. If the Patriots played the Giants schedule they would very likely be 5-4 too.

I already told you that teams should average around 6 games against playoff bound teams, so you did math to prove to me that what I said was right? Thanks! So now you can understand why I would say that the Patriots playing 3 or 4 playoff teams would mean their schedule is easy.

Hey bro, when the Giants play their first-round playoff game, we'll see how they do!

[cato]

That is a first down.

Too bad the Pats couldn't challenge the spot.

[YourLandlord]

Too bad the Pats couldn't challenge the spot.

Not an issue if the ref called it correctly. I'm sure if they knew the ref was going to make a piss-poor call (which, given the game was in Indy, perhaps they should have), they would have saved one for just that occasion.

[JasonEvans]

Two comments--

1) Jeff Sagarin does a strength of schedule ranking when he ranks the NFL teams. (http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/nflsend.htm) It is not based on last year's results (that's just silly). He rates the Pats as the NFL's 4th best team with the 12th toughest schedule so far. They are 2-2 versus the top 10 teams in Sagarin's rankings and 3-3 versus the top 16 (the top half of the NFL).

By comparison, the Giants are the 18th best team with a SOS of 26.

2) Lets all try to remember the cardinal rule of posting on the DBR, attack the post (if you must) but not the poster. A number of you have toed right up to the civility line in this thread -- heck, some of you have crossed over it in my opinion. Continue posting like this and you will get infraction points.

--Jason "play nice, please" Evans

[Mal]

Jason's right, of course. Although I'd like to add that this has been one of the more entertaining threads to read through since the untimely demise of the PPB.

FWIW, I think the Pats looked decidedly mortal early in the season. Remember, they should have lost that game to the Bills, too, which would have them at 5-4 now. The last 4 weeks or so, however, Brady's seemed to start clicking, Maroney's been back and as good as ever (save for the goal line fumble last night), and Moss is starting to go bonkers like '07, too. That said, because of the defense, right now they look to be just shy of what I'd say are the four teams that have earned "elite" status at the halfway +1 game point in the season. They'll certainly be in the playoffs, given the inconsistency of the Dolphins and Jets, who they still own, but they may find themselves playing on wild card day if the Bengals keep it going. Possibly against Pittsburgh, which I wouldn't be looking forward to greatly if I were them.

[Bostondevil]

The Giants have beaten 4 bad teams and 1 good team. The Giants have lost to 4 good teams. The Patriots have beaten 4 bad teams and 2 good teams (I'm giving them the Ravens because I think they are better than 4-4 would indicate). The Patriots have lost to 2 good teams and 1 bad team. Which of these is significantly better than the other?

Here is where I interpreted what you said as indicating that the Giants 5-4 record was actually better than the Pats 6-3 record based on strength of schedule. You think I have a reading comprehension problem, I think you don't write very clearly. It's a standoff. I will admit that, on a second reading, "Which of these is significantly better than the other?" could be interpreted in more than one way. I picked one, perhaps you meant the other.

I do apologize though, in my previous post I meant to say that you were right about the average number of playoff teams played by playoff teams. I will note, however, that the Miami Dolphins last year, a playoff team, only played three games against other playoff teams. Which also proves my point. By virtue of being the division winner, the Dolphins had to face no other playoff teams in their division and only 3 playoff teams outside their division.

[Bostondevil]

I still like watching the Giants lose. Who gets to beat them next?

[Bostondevil]

Ooooo, Atlanta! Go Falcons!!

[InSpades]

Here is where I interpreted what you said as indicating that the Giants 5-4 record was actually better than the Pats 6-3 record based on strength of schedule. You think I have a reading comprehension problem, I think you don't write very clearly. It's a standoff. I will admit that, on a second reading, "Which of these is significantly better than the other?" could be interpreted in more than one way. I picked one, perhaps you meant the other.


My point was that neither was really significantly different. They are both sitting at 1 more victory than they would have if they lost to every good team and beat every bad team. Obviously the Patriots are in better shape, but like I said, it has a lot more to do with their division and schedule than anything else.

[Bostondevil]

OK, point taken. I happen to think it's because the Pats are a much better team, but we are free to disagree on that point.

[moonpie23]

Duke gets all the foul calls!

oh please....the largest fine in NFL HISTORY? for CHEATING ! and then the commish burns the evidence to protect the league and the fact the pats had three rings in CONJUNCTION with that cheating? come on..

you can talk about the value of the cheating all you want, but let's not try to pretend it didn't happen...

obviously the commish's actions say that it did...

[Duke4Ever32]

Obviously the Patriots are in better shape, but like I said, it has a lot more to do with their division and schedule than anything else.

Wait...did you miss the part where Jason Evans pointed out that New England's strength of schedule was the 12th toughest to this point, and the Giants' was only the 26th toughest? I'm not sure how you can square that with this sentence?????

[Bostondevil]

Since we have never seen the videotapes and never will, we don't know what is on them. There is also the school of thought that what was on them was not worth the brouhaha and they were burned so the commish could save face.

It all brings to mind another cheating scandal, the 100 players who tested positive in 2003. The list was supposed to be suppressed and not made public but names keep 'leaking' out. Funny how the only names to be released are players of color/foreign born/Yankess/Red Sox, pick any two. Either release the whole list or quit covering the story.

We've never seen all the other NFL teams' videotapes either. And yes, they made them. But it's not a sexy story if you don't win.

[moonpie23]

But it's not a sexy story if you don't win.

three rings AND cheating make it pretty much ASHLEY JUDD....:D

[Bostondevil]

Yes, and it's something for people who's teams can never seem to get over the hump to complain about forever. Who's your football team, by the way, moonpie? Did their cheating ever get them anything or are they just too stupid to cheat? The more I follow professional sports the more I believe the cycling mantra "There are cheaters and there are losers". That might even be true of all sports. Except for Duke. And yes, I do believe that, Duke doesn't cheat.

I still follow sports though because, let's face it, some cheaters are just better than others, you still have to play the game.

[Bostondevil]

Cynical Girl by Marshall Crenshaw is one of my all time favorite songs.

[InSpades]

Wait...did you miss the part where Jason Evans pointed out that New England's strength of schedule was the 12th toughest to this point, and the Giants' was only the 26th toughest? I'm not sure how you can square that with this sentence?????

I used my brain and what I know about football to compare the schedules. (content redacted by moderator)

Interesting fact... the records of the Giants opponents and the records of the Patriots opponents are identical (40-41). The Giants have played more worse opponents but also played more better opponents (3 teams w/ 2 or less wins, 4 teams with 6 or more wins). Compared with 1 and 2 for the Patriots.

You compare the schedule and tell me which one is tougher:
Saints or Colts?
Cowboys or Broncos?
Chargers or Ravens?
Cardinals or Falcons?
Eagles or Jets?
Redskins or Dolphins?
Chiefs or Titans?
Raiders or Bills?
Bucs or Bucs?

I tried to just match up toughest to easiest opponents of each team (I went by record, and broke the record ties).

If you can say with a straight face that the Patriots have faced one of the toughest schedules while the Giants have faced one of the easiest then I will be impressed.

[moonpie23]

The more I follow professional sports the more I believe the cycling mantra "There are cheaters and there are losers".


man, that's sad.......

[moonpie23]

Cynical Girl by Marshall Crenshaw is one of my all time favorite songs.


as is mine.....


i think i touched a nerve there........you think tony dungy cheats? you think John fox cheats? you think tim duncan cheats? Shane battier?

a blanket statement that "everyone cheats" really smacks of someone who's team was caught at cheating and is embarrassed about it...


i don't blame the patriots for being embarrassed......it was a shameful piece of nfl history...

[Bostondevil]

I don't think Shane Battier cheats. In the NBA it's the referees. Is working the referees cheating? Cause I'd say that Shane and Tim both do that. They probably pick their spots extremely well too. I bet they are highly effective at working the refs. You tell me, is that cheating or is it part of the game?

Do I think Tony Dungy cheats? Hmmm. Let me put it this way, I will never believe that the Patriots were the only team who videotaped practices. Do I think that Tony Dungy never, not once, watched videotape of another teams' practice? No, no I don't. Here's where I differ from a lot of folks though, I don't think of it as cheating. So, in my own personal definition of cheating, I guess I don't think Tony Dungy is a cheater. No one has ever adequately explained to me how watching game tape is doing the hard work and watching practice tape is cheating. So I don't think the Patriots cheated either. Now, as far as cheating in the NFL, are steroids cheating or not? Cause if they are, every team is cheating. The size of the linemen in the current NFL as opposed to even 25 years ago is not because the nutrition has gotten better.

As far as baseball, stealing signs, corking the bat, trying to sneak spitters by the umps, that's all 'part of the game', isn't it? Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame!!! So, forgive me if I choose not to understand the hand-wringing over steroids. The MLB is complicit, turns a blind eye, wink, wink, and we'll ride along on the money the home run production will bring us. Leaking a few names from that 2003 list is monstrously unfair. Plus, I think upwards of 80% of major leaguers at the time had at least tried it. My feeling is to firmly state "No More" and move on. So, yeah, Manny Ramirez cheated but I'll forgive A-Rod, Ortiz, and Sosa as long as they don't test positive in the future. I would vote for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame. If the only reason he hit 70 home runs was steroids, there would be a lot of other 70 home run seasons. Barry Bonds too. The two best home run producers of the steroids era, they both belong in the Hall.

I meant the Cynical Girl comment as a joke. Although I do really like the song. I realized I sounded pretty darn cynical. I'm not really. I just look at the amounts of money involved in professional sports and I'm not surprised people are always looking for an edge. There is too much incentive to try stuff and not enough disincentive not to. Yet, I still watch sports. Since I view it as pretty much everybody is 'cheating', I figure it really is a level playing field, you still have to win the game.

Nah, you didn't touch a nerve. The supposed cheating was several years ago. There are some folks who just insist on bringing it up over and over again, cough. To me, it sounds an awful lot like 'Duke gets all the calls'. Usually I don't respond. Today, I felt like responding. Even if you do view it as cheating, the Pats have made a Super Bowl without it. Granted, they didn't win it, but they've only lost 9 games since the incident so fall back on your stale criticisms if you must but really, what's the point?

The Tour de France? It's impossible to win if you don't cheat. I used to want to believe that Lance didn't cheat. Now I just hope he never gets caught.

[bluebear]

as is mine.....


i think i touched a nerve there........you think tony dungy cheats? you think John fox cheats? you think tim duncan cheats? Shane battier?

a blanket statement that "everyone cheats" really smacks of someone who's team was caught at cheating and is embarrassed about it...


i don't blame the patriots for being embarrassed......it was a shameful piece of nfl history...

wow..talk about faux drama.. I wonder how you describe other instances of cheating that actually have a clear impact on the outcome of a given game..

[Bostondevil]

If you can say with a straight face that the Patriots have faced one of the toughest schedules while the Giants have faced one of the easiest then I will be impressed.

Nah. The Giants and the Patriots probably have relatively equal schedules. When you originally brought up the point, I thought you were arguing that the Giants play a tougher schedule which I don't agree with. Isn't the whole philosophy of NFL scheduling supposed to help even out the strength of schedule factor anyway? Bad teams play bad teams and good teams play good ones.

[rskale7]

Just wanting to say that I like the Patriots, and I don't know what B. was thinking during the game. But to me, it seems like this is overkill to me. Maybe I'm a little biased being a fan. :o

[Duke4Ever32]

I used my brain and what I know about football to compare the schedules. (content redacted)

Interesting fact... the records of the Giants opponents and the records of the Patriots opponents are identical (40-41). The Giants have played more worse opponents but also played more better opponents (3 teams w/ 2 or less wins, 4 teams with 6 or more wins). Compared with 1 and 2 for the Patriots.

You compare the schedule and tell me which one is tougher:
Saints or Colts?
Cowboys or Broncos?
Chargers or Ravens?
Cardinals or Falcons?
Eagles or Jets?
Redskins or Dolphins?
Chiefs or Titans?
Raiders or Bills?
Bucs or Bucs?

I tried to just match up toughest to easiest opponents of each team (I went by record, and broke the record ties).

If you can say with a straight face that the Patriots have faced one of the toughest schedules while the Giants have faced one of the easiest then I will be impressed.

I don't have to say anything. Jeff Sagarin is a widely respected sports statistician. You can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sagarin

If he says the Patriots have played the 12th toughest schedule so far, while the Giants have played the 26th, then I'm sorry, but his research and statistics and findings carry much more weight than yours, and I think most knowledgeable NFL fans don't question his methodology. He's a much more credible source than you are.

This reminds me of PPB debates. One side cites facts, the other says "damn your facts and reasoning - here's what I KNOW in my head!".

[InSpades]

I don't have to say anything. Jeff Sagarin is a widely respected sports statistician. You can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sagarin

If he says the Patriots have played the 12th toughest schedule so far, while the Giants have played the 26th, then I'm sorry, but his research and statistics and findings carry much more weight than yours, and I think most NFL fans would agree with that.

I think most football fans would say "doesn't he do college ratings?". If you're unable or unwilling to do your own analysis that is fine.

[bluebear]

I think most football fans would say "doesn't he do college ratings?". If you're unable or unwilling to do your own analysis that is fine.

I don't think most sports fans would describe him in that way. Do you think what you have posted thus far as an analysis is as or more robust than Sagarin in measuring SOS...

[InSpades]

I don't think most sports fans would describe him in that way. Do you think what you have posted thus far as an analysis is as or more robust than Sagarin in measuring SOS...

I would say that I've watched more football this year than Jeff Sagarin's computers have. Do you want to debate that point?

If you asked a football fan who had a harder schedule between 2 teams almost every single one of them would just pull up the schedules of each team and tell you. Pretty much none of them would go look for someone's computer analysis.

[Duke4Ever32]

I think most football fans would say "doesn't he do college ratings?". If you're unable or unwilling to do your own analysis that is fine.

You're missing the point. Any analysis I, or you, could do would pale next to what he does. That would be similar to saying that you or I would do better at designing a rocket than a NASA scientist would. The guy is a statistician. This is what he does for a living. If you think your credentials at this kind of thing are more impressive than Jeff Sagarin's, then by all means present them. You're just making yourself look foolish in persisting that you know more about this kind of thing than Jeff Sagarin.

Frankly, if you think you're entitled to more credibility than Jeff Sagarin on this, there's no point in me wasting any more of my time discussing this with you. To me, it just sounds like you can't admit that there's objective evidence which proves that you're wrong.

[Duke4Ever32]

I would say that I've watched more football this year than Jeff Sagarin's computers have. Do you want to debate that point?

If you asked a football fan who had a harder schedule between 2 teams almost every single one of them would just pull up the schedules of each team and tell you. Pretty much none of them would go look for someone's computer analysis.

This is laughable, and I'm done if this is how you debate. In all honesty, you're not coming across as credible if you think a person's eyeball opinion of a schedule is more credible than an expert's statistical analysis. Do you also purport to know more about the nation's financial system than Ben Bernanke just because you own a bank account?!

[bluebear]

I would say that I've watched more football this year than Jeff Sagarin's computers have. Do you want to debate that point?

If you asked a football fan who had a harder schedule between 2 teams almost every single one of them would just pull up the schedules of each team and tell you. Pretty much none of them would go look for someone's computer analysis.

What the average football fan thinks is irrelevant. I watch more football than the computers do too but in looking at schedules I would also be including my own subjective bias in comparing teams, especially those with identical records. I probably also wouldn't look at home/away especially when it comes to comparing different tiers of teams, etc.

[moonpie23]

wow..talk about faux drama.. I wonder how you describe other instances of cheating that actually have a clear impact on the outcome of a given game..

the largest fine in NFL history.....you don't think roger MILHOUS goodell thought it had any impact on the outcome of the game?

then let everyone see the tapes.. why destroy them? it made no sense, unless you needed to sweep it under the rug and protect the league...you would only destroy them to make absolutely CERTAIN no one ever saw what was on them.....

[InSpades]

This is laughable, and I'm done if this is how you debate. In all honesty, you're not coming across as credible if you think a person's eyeball opinion of a schedule is more credible than an expert's statistical analysis. Do you also purport to know more about the nation's financial system than Ben Bernanke just because you own a bank account?!

That's possibly the worst argument ever. Sagarin is an expert in statistics, I have no doubt in that. Is he an expert on football? Do you believe everything computers tell you blindly? If Peyton Manning broke his leg tomorrow, would the Colts still be one of the 2 best teams in the NFL? Sagarin's ratings sure would still say that. If I ask you who's the better team between the Saints and the Colts do you go look at Sagarin's ratings? Or do you look at what you have seen from both teams? I guess we should just let the computers pick the NCAA tournament field since they are infallible.

[Duke4Ever32]

That's possibly the worst argument ever. Sagarin is an expert in statistics, I have no doubt in that. Is he an expert on football? Do you believe everything computers tell you blindly? If Peyton Manning broke his leg tomorrow, would the Colts still be one of the 2 best teams in the NFL? Sagarin's ratings sure would still say that. If I ask you who's the better team between the Saints and the Colts do you go look at Sagarin's ratings? Or do you look at what you have seen from both teams? I guess we should just let the computers pick the NCAA tournament field since they are infallible.

Why do you think one of the moderators here cited Sagarin's index in addressing this issue??

We're not debating who the better team is. We're debating who has played the harder schedule. And as I said before, Sagarin's index regarding strength of schedule is a much more accepted, researched, detailed, statistically supported and credible source than whatever subjective criteria you're throwing out there. There's really no point in even discussing this with you, as you're failing to grasp the difference between statistical objectivity and your own whimsical subjective analysis.

Just because I'm interested, how old are you?

[InSpades]

Why do you think one of the moderators here cited Sagarin's index in addressing this issue??

We're not debating who the better team is. We're debating who has played the harder schedule. And as I said before, Sagarin's index regarding strength of schedule is a much more accepted, researched, detailed, statistically supported and credible source than whatever subjective criteria you're throwing out there. There's really no point in even discussing this with you, as you're failing to grasp the difference between statistical objectivity and your own whimsical subjective analysis.

Just because I'm interested, how old are you?

I've been following professional football for 20+ years and I've never heard anyone ever reference Sagarin ratings or strength of schedule for the NFL until this thread. Every week sports columnists rank the teams in the NFL, how many of them do you think use a computer to do it? Every week people bet millions of dollars on football, how many of them do it based on what a computer tells them? When choosing between "biased + knowledgeable" vs. "unbiased + knows the final score of the games", I will take "biased + knowledgeable" everytime.

[Duke4Ever32]

I've been following professional football for 20+ years and I've never heard anyone ever reference Sagarin ratings or strength of schedule for the NFL until this thread. Every week sports columnists rank the teams in the NFL, how many of them do you think use a computer to do it? Every week people bet millions of dollars on football, how many of them do it based on what a computer tells them? When choosing between "biased + knowledgeable" vs. "unbiased + knows the final score of the games", I will take "biased + knowledgeable" everytime.

I understand what you're saying, and I think you're right in terms of saying which team is better than which other team. Whether one team is better than another isn't easily quantified, and I don't know that a computer can do that.

But when it comes to who has played a more difficult schedule, not just who is the better team, there are multiple factors involved - record of opponent, whether those games were road or home games, records against common opponents, the records of the teams each opponent has played, etc. - that make a statistical analysis and quantification more desirable. The average fan can't keep up with all the variables that go into SOS, and I think a computer analysis of all the stats is more reliable than a fan's opinion, which can easily be influenced by subjective factors.

Sagarin wouldn't have the reputation he has if he didn't know what he was doing. Honestly, I've never seen anything he's done be criticized.

[Duke4Ever32]

Even more fuel for the controversy over that 4th-and-2 play:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-belichickpats111609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

[moonpie23]

"Since the Patriots had blown their timeouts and the play came just outside the two-minute warning, which would’ve triggered an automatic review, it’s all a moot point.?

[bluebear]

the largest fine in NFL history.....you don't think roger MILHOUS goodell thought it had any impact on the outcome of the game?

then let everyone see the tapes.. why destroy them? it made no sense, unless you needed to sweep it under the rug and protect the league...you would only destroy them to make absolutely CERTAIN no one ever saw what was on them.....

tell me how it impacted the outcome of the game..

[moonpie23]

knowing exactly which plays were being called for the defense from the sidelines would give the cheating team a dishonest edge.

that would probably impact the outcome of the game. Obviously, commissioner goodell agreed.

[bluebear]

knowing exactly which plays were being called for the defense from the sidelines would give the cheating team a dishonest edge.

that would probably impact the outcome of the game. Obviously, commissioner goodell agreed.

people try to steal signals all the time in games..tell me how a guy taping them on the sidelines is getting that information to the coaches who are then getting that information to the players in real time..it's a joke..

[moonpie23]

it's a joke..


sure....it's a joke...that's why goodell went with the small fine...

[bluebear]

sure....it's a joke...that's why goodell went with the small fine...

that doesn't answer the question..

[moonpie23]

"it's a joke" isn't a question...

[bluebear]

"it's a joke" isn't a question...

I guess this sums up your argument..

[moonpie23]

no....the largest fine in NFL history given out for cheating confirms my indictment. There really is no argument.

if there had been, i'm sure the hoodie would have argued it to death....instead, he conspired with the commissioner to sweep the whole thing under the rug, take his punishment and try to forget about it.

[bluebear]

no....the largest fine in NFL history given out for cheating confirms my indictment. There really is no argument.

if there had been, i'm sure the hoodie would have argued it to death....instead, he conspired with the commissioner to sweep the whole thing under the rug, take his punishment and try to forget about it.

got it...no facts about the actual incident just opinions and conjectures on the punishment...

[moonpie23]

it wasn't one actual incident....it was multiple times and the pats had been WARNED in a letter to all the teams that it was ILLEGAL !

gathering the signals was not AIMED at helping the team during THAT specific game, it was aimed at being able to identify subsequent signaling, cross-reference those signals with game film and allow the cheating team to identify defensive plays for games down the road....specifically the PLAYOFFS....

OBVIOUSLY prior knowledge of the defensive strategy at the line of scrimmage would give the offensive unit a significant edge and impact the outcome of the game.

[77devil]

Jason's right, of course. Although I'd like to add that this has been one of the more entertaining threads to read through since the untimely demise of the PPB. .

Agreed. Not sure either how the Boston, New York feud was reignited(see playoff baseball thread), but for those of us who are ambivalent about both, sit back, enjoy and wait for the collateral damage.

[JasonEvans]

I've been following professional football for 20+ years and I've never heard anyone ever reference Sagarin ratings or strength of schedule for the NFL until this thread. Every week sports columnists rank the teams in the NFL, how many of them do you think use a computer to do it? Every week people bet millions of dollars on football, how many of them do it based on what a computer tells them? When choosing between "biased + knowledgeable" vs. "unbiased + knows the final score of the games", I will take "biased + knowledgeable" everytime.

If you chose not to trust any sort of computer program when it comes to strength of schedule, what other method is there for determining it? Are you able to rank all the teams in the NFL based on viewing all their games or carefully examining all the scores of those games (weighing where the game was played and other factors)?

Personally, I get to watch no more than 2 or 3 NFL games a weekend. I supposed I could watch more if I wanted, but I cannot imagine any of us viewing more than maybe 5 games (and two of those would be partial viewings flicking back and forth).

I can look at scores, but if I tried to memorize them and weigh who had impressive wins and who did not, I could probably summon up enough brain power to keep track of a week or two or maybe three weeks of the season, but by week 5 or 6 I would be largely hopelessly lost. I am pretty good at keeping track of a couple teams over the course of a full season, but no way could I do even 1/3rd of the teams in the league. For example, I recall all the Falcon's games and most of their scores. I think I could tell you with a small margin of error who the Saints have played and how the Saints have done from blowout to close win too... but beyond those two, I am gonna get lost really quick.

So, I ask again-- if not using the strong brainpower of a computer, how do you suggest we rank all the NFL team's SOS.

Oh, and I know you are only saying that the Pats sked is easier than the Giants, but (to me) it only makes sense to compare each to the rest of the league. After all, if one is easier by a tiny margin then it really does not make all that much of a difference but if one is easier by a wide margin (like one of the dozen toughest versus one of the half dozen or so easiest) then that is somewhat noteworthy, don't ya think?

--Jason "I agree that Sagarin is not noted for his NFL rankings, but how does that make his rankings worthless in a discussion of SOS?" Evans

[InSpades]

I never said they are worthless. They provide a point of view. I think computer rankings are much more valuable in college basketball. There's so many teams and no one can possibly keep track of all of them. When there's a team I haven't heard of and I want to get an idea of how good they are I will certainly look at computer rankings. I think they are a starting point for a discussion, not an ending point for discussion. When those computer rankings tell us the Big Ten is a more competitive league than the ACC don't we all just laugh them off? We see enough of the ACC and the Big Ten to make our own judgement on that. The ACC dominates the Big Ten in the challenge basically every year. Are we biased? Maybe. Are we wrong? I don't think so.

[bluebear]

it wasn't one actual incident....it was multiple times and the pats had been WARNED in a letter to all the teams that it was ILLEGAL !

gathering the signals was not AIMED at helping the team during THAT specific game, it was aimed at being able to identify subsequent signaling, cross-reference those signals with game film and allow the cheating team to identify defensive plays for games down the road....specifically the PLAYOFFS....

OBVIOUSLY prior knowledge of the defensive strategy at the line of scrimmage would give the offensive unit a significant edge and impact the outcome of the game.

Everyone was warned in a letter..do you really think that no other teams were engaged in similar practices..
I understand about the use in subsequent games. For that to be issue, a team would have to play a team again in the same season and would have to assume that the team never changes their signals. Again, players and coaches try to steal signals in real time without using video cameras. I'm not arguing whether or not BB "cheated". He was told not to do something and he did..but the drama that this was one of the most shameful events in the history of the NFL is ludicrous. No one, including you, has presented any clear evidence that the Patriots benefited from having this information.

[brevity]

Agreed. Not sure either how the Boston, New York feud was reignited(see playoff baseball thread), but for those of us who are ambivalent about both, sit back, enjoy and wait for the collateral damage.

Thank you. I'm looking forward to the exploding brains on both sides. (And if they could take out Bristol, CT while they're at it, so much the better.)

Are DBR infractions given out for an overinflated sense of self-importance?

[Bostondevil]

Didn't you know that Boston - New York rules all sports except for college hoops? Oh you little people rooting for your 'teams'. You're so cute. Pat, pat, pat. ;)

[Duke4Ever32]

Agreed. Not sure either how the Boston, New York feud was reignited(see playoff baseball thread), but for those of us who are ambivalent about both, sit back, enjoy and wait for the collateral damage.

I think I'm a common thread in both. Really, I'm just here for everyone's entertainment and amusement! :)

[rasputin]

Everyone was warned in a letter..do you really think that no other teams were engaged in similar practices..
I understand about the use in subsequent games. For that to be issue, a team would have to play a team again in the same season and would have to assume that the team never changes their signals. Again, players and coaches try to steal signals in real time without using video cameras. I'm not arguing whether or not BB "cheated". He was told not to do something and he did..but the drama that this was one of the most shameful events in the history of the NFL is ludicrous. No one, including you, has presented any clear evidence that the Patriots benefited from having this information.

How could anybody present clear evidence when the evidence has been hidden and destroyed?

[cato]

Didn't you know that Boston - New York rules all sports except for college hoops? Oh you little people rooting for your 'teams'. You're so cute. Pat, pat, pat. ;)

Seriously. Every year when the NFL puts out their schedule, the first game I circle is that heated Patriots-Giants rivalry game.

[Duvall]

Seriously. Every year when the NFL puts out their schedule, the first game I circle is that heated Patriots-Giants rivalry game.

I've already got my Knicks-Celtics watch party lined up.

[Bostondevil]

Seriously. Every year when the NFL puts out their schedule, the first game I circle is that heated Patriots-Giants rivalry game.

Cato, please, how NFC centric, it's the heated Pats - Jets rivalry! (Which actually is kinda heated ever since Parcells left for the Jets.)

[Bostondevil]

I've already got my Knicks-Celtics watch party lined up.

Don't forget Bruins - Rangers!!!

[Bostondevil]

Wow, Boston really does have better sports teams than New York. New York has the Yankees and, and, and, still searching. :D

[cato]

Cato, please, how NFC centric, it's the heated Pats - Jets rivalry! (Which actually is kinda heated ever since Parcells left for the Jets.)

Ha! That is funny. Calling the Jets a New York team.

[Bostondevil]

Ha! That is funny. Calling the Jets a New York team.

Oh yeah, I forgot, New York only claims the Jets when they manage to win something. It has been awhile.

[Bostondevil]

Too bad they can't do the same thing with the Knicks.

[mkirsh]

As an outsider to the whole NY-Boston rivalry (DC fan, we've got our own problems to worry about), what I'm going to say is probably going to offend the Boston crowd, but Boston fans seem to be the new NY fans. From a town that had scrappy underdog status for so many years, I now see Boston fans boasting about how many titles they have, how bad many of the NY teams are, how the Giants title was a fluke because an "inferior" team won, etc etc (basically everything in this thread). Boston sports have been on an incredible run this decade, there is no disputing that, but the constant comparisons to NY teams seems a little insecure. Maybe I just don't get it as someone removed from the day to day of the rivalry, but as a casual fan I rooted for the Sox in '03 and '04, but if they play in the Series next year I would bet I would find myself rooting for the NL.

[moonpie23]

No one, including you, has presented any clear evidence that the Patriots benefited from having this information.

how about a $500,000 FINE.....the LARGEST IN NFL HISTORY.....that means whatever was on those tapes was worse than ANY OTHER TRANSGRESSION by player, team or coach.......NO other transgression was as bad...


there is only one legitimate reason for destroying the evidence........


Goodell knew it could hurt the league....BADLY.......so he did what he needed to do, protect the brand..


it must have been something SO damning that he had only one choice..

[Bostondevil]

As an outsider to the whole NY-Boston rivalry (DC fan, we've got our own problems to worry about), what I'm going to say is probably going to offend the Boston crowd, but Boston fans seem to be the new NY fans. From a town that had scrappy underdog status for so many years, I now see Boston fans boasting about how many titles they have, how bad many of the NY teams are, how the Giants title was a fluke because an "inferior" team won, etc etc (basically everything in this thread). Boston sports have been on an incredible run this decade, there is no disputing that, but the constant comparisons to NY teams seems a little insecure. Maybe I just don't get it as someone removed from the day to day of the rivalry, but as a casual fan I rooted for the Sox in '03 and '04, but if they play in the Series next year I would bet I would find myself rooting for the NL.

Where is DC anyway? Are there any professional sports teams there?

Bostondevil is enjoying the ride for as long as she can.

[cato]

No one, including you, has presented any clear evidence that the Patriots benefited from having this information.

I'm not sure why people are arguing about spygate, but this statement is disingenous at best. Why would anyone break the rules and risk substantial penalties if there was no benefit? When you make a calculated decision to violate league rules, you do a cost/benefit analysis. You don't just go around cheating if it doesn't help you win.

[Duvall]

As an outsider to the whole NY-Boston rivalry (DC fan, we've got our own problems to worry about), what I'm going to say is probably going to offend the Boston crowd, but Boston fans seem to be the new NY fans. From a town that had scrappy underdog status for so many years, I now see Boston fans boasting about how many titles they have, how bad many of the NY teams are, how the Giants title was a fluke because an "inferior" team won, etc etc (basically everything in this thread). Boston sports have been on an incredible run this decade, there is no disputing that, but the constant comparisons to NY teams seems a little insecure.

Why would people be offended by statements that are clearly correct?

[bluebear]

how about a $500,000 FINE.....the LARGEST IN NFL HISTORY.....that means whatever was on those tapes was worse than ANY OTHER TRANSGRESSION by player, team or coach.......NO other transgression was as bad...


there is only one legitimate reason for destroying the evidence........


Goodell knew it could hurt the league....BADLY.......so he did what he needed to do, protect the brand..


it must have been something SO damning that he had only one choice..


What could hurt the league..everybody knew what was on the tapes..it's not some big secret...
Sorry, but the size of the fine is not proof of anything outside of wanting to make a statement..

[bluebear]

I'm not sure why people are arguing about spygate, but this statement is disingenous at best. Why would anyone break the rules and risk substantial penalties if there was no benefit? When you make a calculated decision to violate league rules, you do a cost/benefit analysis. You don't just go around cheating if it doesn't help you win.

You do if you don't really think its a big deal, and if you already have a bit of an ego, and if your MO is to study/catalog everything about the game and your opponents...
As I said before, people try to steal signals in real time..wouldn't you find that to be a little more valuable than hoping that you play an opponent again and that they haven't changed their signals..

[cato]

You do if you don't really think its a big deal, and if you already have a bit of an ego, and if your MO is to study/catalog everything about the game and your opponents...
As I said before, people try to steal signals in real time..wouldn't you find that to be a little more valuable than hoping that you play an opponent again and that they haven't changed their signals..

Belichick thought the benefit outweighed the cost. Exactly my point.

[bluebear]

Belichick thought the benefit outweighed the cost. Exactly my point.

My point is that I doubt he would have done it had he known the cost was going to 500K and a stain on his legacy..I think he viewed any marginal game value or general scouting value worth it only because he thought there was no real cost...

[moonpie23]

What could hurt the league.


umm....three rings as a result of cheating.......that would hurt.....if goodell had to take the rings back.....

[moonpie23]

My point is that I doubt he would have done it had he known the cost was going to 500K and a stain on his legacy..I think he viewed any marginal game value or general scouting value worth it only because he thought there was no real cost...

obviously, he did something a lot more than what you're sizing the problem up to have been....

[bluebear]

obviously, he did something a lot more than what you're sizing the problem up to have been....

why..

[moonpie23]

What could hurt the league..everybody knew what was on the tapes..it's not some big secret...
Sorry, but the size of the fine is not proof of anything outside of wanting to make a statement..

No, only a FEW people knew what was on the tapes.....and then goodell destroyed them....why? what was so bad that they couldn't be viewed ?

if it was a simple as you suggest, goodell would have just fined B a hundred k, and put them in the file cab...


goodell tipped the whole thing by richard nixoning out on the whole thing....

[bluebear]

No, only a FEW people knew what was on the tapes.....and then goodell destroyed them....why? what was so bad that they couldn't be viewed ?

if it was a simple as you suggest, goodell would have just fined B a hundred k, and put them in the file cab...


goodell tipped the whole thing by richard nixoning out on the whole thing....

please tell me what you think was on the tapes..

[bluebear]

umm....three rings as a result of cheating.......that would hurt.....if goodell had to take the rings back.....

god knows there wasn't any talent on those teams..must have cheated to win..

[moonpie23]

why..

to win....at any cost, cheating served his goals...

[moonpie23]

please tell me what you think was on the tapes..


something that could hurt the league...hard...

something that might have forced goodell's hand to take back the three rings and ban belicheat from the game.....

but here's the real thing.......there is NO WAY goodell could vacate three superbowl titles.....no way.......

vegas would have a horse head in his bed...

[bluebear]

something that could hurt the league...hard...

something that might have forced goodell's hand to take back the three rings and ban belicheat from the game.....

but here's the real thing.......there is NO WAY goodell could vacate three superbowl titles.....no way.......

vegas would have a horse head in his bed...

Again Mulder, tell me what was on the tapes..

[YourLandlord]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8144f81a/Official-Review-Week-10

According to the VP of Officiating on NFL Network:


--You do NOT need to get 2 feet down after a bobble, you need to control the ball.

--You get forward progress "where you first control the ball after the bobble because you are in contact with a defender".

--All he'll say is that he's happy that official made a "quick, decisive decision".

--Had the official given NE a first down he doesn't think a replay would change that ruling.


Looks like as blatant as an admission of a wrong call as possible without coming out and saying it.

[moonpie23]

Again Mulder, tell me what was on the tapes..


i don't have that information....but i can tell you from the actions of the people involved, that it was something very bad.....the fine and destruction of the evidence would suggest nothing else....

[moonpie23]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8144f81a/Official-Review-Week-10

According to the VP of Officiating on NFL Network:

"--Had the official given NE a first down he doesn't think a replay would change that ruling."

Looks like as blatant as an admission of a wrong call as possible without coming out and saying it.

i would also think that given the call, a replay on a challenge WOULD have reversed that call...

too bad he didn't have a challenge...

[bluebear]

i don't have that information.....

speculate..

[asbcheeks]

Jets, who they still own

Head to head? How do you figure?

[moonpie23]

speculate..

but goodell did NOT have to speculate and again, handed down the largest fine IN NFL HISTORY as punishment for the cheating. so, as much as you'd like to dismiss it as "no big deal" the facts clearly show that it was....

then, to make sure, he destroyed the evidence of possibly the greatest cheating scandal in professional sports.

[bluebear]

but goodell did NOT have to speculate and again, handed down the largest fine IN NFL HISTORY as punishment for the cheating. so, as much as you'd like to dismiss it as "no big deal" the facts clearly show that it was....

then, to make sure, he destroyed the evidence of possibly the greatest cheating scandal in professional sports.

You haven't presented any facts beyond the size of the fine. You continue to throw out statements about "the greatest cheating scandal in professional sports" and yet you can't even speculate on what could possibly be on those tapes to back up your assertion..

[Duke4Ever32]

he destroyed the evidence of possibly the greatest cheating scandal in professional sports.

As I've said previously in this thread, I'm a Steelers fan and not a Patriots fan. The statement above, however, as well as many of the other statements you've made in this thread, are nothing more than your own speculation and conjecture. If it helps you get through the day to see the Patriots this way, that's fine and that's your prerogative. But the simple fact is that you don't KNOW what was on the tapes, and to make conclusions about what was or wasn't on them and whether that did or did not benefit the Patriots is simply not justified by the "evidence" you have. You're taking circumstantial evidence and using it to prove something which it isn't capable of proving. And to go further and suggest that what was on the tapes would have caused the league to vacate three Super Bowl wins is just unsubstantiated and irresponsible.

Does the fine and destruction of evidence suggest highly inappropriate behavior? Yes.
Does the fine and destruction of evidence establish that something bad was on the tapes? Most likely.
Does the fine and destruction of evidence establish that the Patriots obtained information which they then were able to use to their benefit in future games? Not at all.
Does the fine and destruction of evidence establish that the Patriots' Super Bowl wins were tainted and should be vacated? Not by a long shot.

[moonpie23]

You haven't presented any facts beyond the size of the fine. You continue to throw out statements about "the greatest cheating scandal in professional sports" and yet you can't even speculate on what could possibly be on those tapes to back up your assertion..

***MY*** speculation is merely that. however, without ANYONE's speculation, it's obvious that it WAS something that warranted severe punishment.

now, that being said, MY speculation will be one much more devious than probably you patriots fans. and i will say, that i don't care WHICH team this happened to. I would still speculate (from reports but ultimately from the resulting fine) it would have been the same for any team. Because it was the patriots, and goodell could not POSSIBLY take back the rings, he HAD to destroy the evidence or risk the league being hurt tremendously.

what could have been on the tapes?

A - Most likely scenario (which would NOT cause goodell to destroy evidence - but a moderate fine and public viewing of the tapes)

- All the defensive sideline signals from the NY jets game in question.

B - More serious scenario(where belichick would have been more embarrassed, but a moderate fine and non destruction of the evidence even if they were just not shown to the public and locked away in goodell's file cab)

Walk throughs of each playoff and super bowl opponent

C - More serious (where goodell would be faced with vacating the wins and hurting the league itself.) in which he would, again, have to destroy the evidence.

Video footage of each opponent's PLAYBOOK, walk throughs AND sideline hand signals.

D - WORST CASE SCENARIO (where goodell would absolutely positively have to kill everyone in the room (well, you know what i mean) OR lay the largest fine ever for coach or player on him, take away a draft pick hit team for another huge fine and DESTROY THE EVIDENCE

Surveillance Video footage of belichick making some sort of deal with some other team or gambling entity. (Ex: to throw a game or alter point spread etc)

you want speculation.....i give you........speculation. And if you don't think the patriots' super bowl wins haven't been "tainted", do a google search of "PATRIOTS' TAINTED SUPER BOWL WINS"........about 25000 hits..


personally, i think it's C

[Duke4Ever32]

And if you don't think the patriots' super bowl wins haven't been "tainted", do a google search of "PATRIOTS' TAINTED SUPER BOWL WINS"........about 25000 hits..

And this proves what, exactly?

I just did a google search for "faked moon landing". It returned 4,840,000 hits. Oh my gosh! I've just proven that the moon landing was faked!! :rolleyes:

[moonpie23]

dang, i knew that movie with OJ was real....or was that mars.....

but just aside, prove the moon landing WAS real...

and "tainted" is highly subjective in this case.....mainly due to all the speculation

[YourLandlord]

baseless speculation

You do realize that the person who brought all this to light, the former employee with an ax to grind, made much milder assertions than this? You would expect him to make the wildest possible claims. That his statements about the tapes weren't that big of a deal should end your crazy thinking. But, you've demonstrated time and again on these boards that you're pretty big into conspiracy theories about everything, so I shouldn't expect any less I suppose.



but just aside, prove the moon landing WAS real...


And there goes any remaining shred of credibility you may have left. It must be pretty miserable looking for the worst in every situation you encounter. I feel bad for you.

[bluebear]

***MY*** speculation is merely that. however, without ANYONE's speculation, it's obvious that it WAS something that warranted severe punishment.

now, that being said, MY speculation will be one much more devious than probably you patriots fans. and i will say, that i don't care WHICH team this happened to. I would still speculate (from reports but ultimately from the resulting fine) it would have been the same for any team. Because it was the patriots, and goodell could not POSSIBLY take back the rings, he HAD to destroy the evidence or risk the league being hurt tremendously.

what could have been on the tapes?

A - Most likely scenario (which would NOT cause goodell to destroy evidence - but a moderate fine and public viewing of the tapes)

- All the defensive sideline signals from the NY jets game in question.

B - More serious scenario(where belichick would have been more embarrassed, but a moderate fine and non destruction of the evidence even if they were just not shown to the public and locked away in goodell's file cab)

Walk throughs of each playoff and super bowl opponent

C - More serious (where goodell would be faced with vacating the wins and hurting the league itself.) in which he would, again, have to destroy the evidence.

Video footage of each opponent's PLAYBOOK, walk throughs AND sideline hand signals.

D - WORST CASE SCENARIO (where goodell would absolutely positively have to kill everyone in the room (well, you know what i mean) OR lay the largest fine ever for coach or player on him, take away a draft pick hit team for another huge fine and DESTROY THE EVIDENCE

Surveillance Video footage of belichick making some sort of deal with some other team or gambling entity. (Ex: to throw a game or alter point spread etc)

you want speculation.....i give you........speculation. And if you don't think the patriots' super bowl wins haven't been "tainted", do a google search of "PATRIOTS' TAINTED SUPER BOWL WINS"........about 25000 hits..


personally, i think it's C

This is exactly what I wanted as it helps me decide whether it is worth continue to debate you on this topic..thanks

[Duke4Ever32]

Yeah, I'm pretty much done debating when the person I'm debating with says something like "prove the moon landing was real". Hey, wait a minute, how do I know that I even actually exist?!

Okay then, I'll be moving right along outta this thread...

[moonpie23]

look you guys can downplay it all you want.....I'm not the one handing out huge fines and destroying evidence.


adios guys...

[InSpades]

Decided to take another look at the Sagarin Ratings (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl09.htm) after a bit more data. Interestingly enough he *still* has the Patriots as the 3rd best team in the NFL. Does anyone really believe that? They are 3-5 vs. his top 16 teams (1-3 vs. the top 10, with their win over Baltimore... who really shouldn't be in his top 10). They still haven't won a true road game.

Fortunately for them their schedule is still favorable and their division is still bad so they will likely make the playoffs. Should things stand as they currently look... they are heading towards a rematch with Denver in the playoffs and possibly another trip to Indy after that.

Are the Pats fans still excited about this team going far in the playoffs? I wouldn't be surprised to see them beating a wildcard team but after that... I don't see them winning @ SD or @ Indy (possibly they could get lucky and play @ Cincy instead).

[bluebear]

Are the Pats fans still excited about this team going far in the playoffs? I wouldn't be surprised to see them beating a wildcard team but after that... I don't see them winning @ SD or @ Indy (possibly they could get lucky and play @ Cincy instead).

Not if they play the way they have played recently. I still think they have enough talent to make a run if they put things together. The defensive has a lot of holes and the offense has not done enough to cover up those holes. They should have won that game in Indy but they have looked average since that game..The next few games will tell the story..if they run the table and start to play well, I think that could challenge Indy or SD...if they split the games and limp into the playoffs, I wouldn't be surprised to see them get bumped in the wildcard game..

[Bostondevil]

Something feels wrong with the Pats right now. I would be shocked to see them make the AFC Championship game, let alone the Super Bowl. But, everybody still has to play the games. I'd don't think the Colts are a Super Bowl team either, but somebody has to come out of the AFC. The Colts are the shakiest and/or luckiest 12-0 team I've ever seen. Hopefully they won't get anymore of those 4th quarter pass interference gifts after Christmas.

[rasputin]

Something feels wrong with the Pats right now. I would be shocked to see them make the AFC Championship game, let alone the Super Bowl. But, everybody still has to play the games. I'd don't think the Colts are a Super Bowl team either, but somebody has to come out of the AFC. The Colts are the shakiest and/or luckiest 12-0 team I've ever seen. Hopefully they won't get anymore of those 4th quarter pass interference gifts after Christmas.

There's another team THIS YEAR that is just as shaky and/or lucky at 12-0; that's the Saints. They just barely squeaked by both the Rams and Redskins.

[Chicago 1995]

Something feels wrong with the Pats right now. I would be shocked to see them make the AFC Championship game, let alone the Super Bowl. But, everybody still has to play the games. I'd don't think the Colts are a Super Bowl team either, but somebody has to come out of the AFC. The Colts are the shakiest and/or luckiest 12-0 team I've ever seen. Hopefully they won't get anymore of those 4th quarter pass interference gifts after Christmas.

Even with a couple of dicey calls in their favor, the Colts are still owed about 4 dozen pass intereference calls from the playoff games against the Pats earlier in the decade.

I'm not a Colts fan, but Pats fans shouldn't be complaining about the stripes. They got away with murder when they were on their run earlier this decade.

[Bostondevil]

I'm not complaining as a Pats fan, it's the Texans who really got can we say screwed here? I guess we'll find out.

[Bostondevil]

Even with a couple of dicey calls in their favor, the Colts are still owed about 4 dozen pass intereference calls from the playoff games against the Pats earlier in the decade.

I'm not a Colts fan, but Pats fans shouldn't be complaining about the stripes. They got away with murder when they were on their run earlier this decade.

Really? It's 48? Because I could have sworn that one was a legit and 2 more could have gone either way, so, really, I'd say it's at a maximum of 45. Plus, there's the gift the Colts got in this year's Pats game, so that brings it down to 44. Does the gift from the Texans game count in the total or is it only for Pats-Colts games? If it's only Pats-Colts, then how many gift pass interference calls are the Colts owed by all the other teams?

[InSpades]

There's another team THIS YEAR that is just as shaky and/or lucky at 12-0; that's the Saints. They just barely squeaked by both the Rams and Redskins.

I'm not sure how the Saints can look so good (against the Patriots) and then so bad (against the Redskins) in such a short time period. It will be interesting to see if either of them make it to 16-0. If I had to bet... I would bet on the Saints. I think the only chance they have to stumble is the Cowboys at home (please don't let them stumble there!). The rest of their schedule doesn't seem like it will pose that much trouble (but you probably would've thought that about the Redskins too!). The Colts I think have the tougher road overall. Broncos at home is about as tough as the Dallas game but the other 3 opponents (even if 2 of them are from the AFC east) are tougher. At Jacksonville won't be easy. Would certainly be exciting if they both made it to 16-0.

As for New England... I think their season comes down to the Buffalo game. They can't afford to lose that game or they lose the tiebreaker against Miami. Luckily for the Patriots, Miami has a tougher schedule left and is a game back but if the Patriots lose to Buffalo... look out.

[tecumseh]

I always felt Kurt Warner to be a pretty reasonable guy and he feels he was absolutely robbed by the Pats for what it's worth. Could be sour grapes. The fact that the league did nothing proves nothing. What could they do? They did not want to damage the image of one of their marquee players and franchises.
I mean a lot of golfers knew Tiger was out of control but they had to protect their breadwinner.

[moonpie23]

There's another team THIS YEAR that is just as shaky and/or lucky at 12-0; that's the Saints. They just barely squeaked by both the Rams and Redskins.

and, believe it or not....the panthers...

[moonpie23]

this weekend against the panthers should be interesting....

brady with his sore, um,,,,,everything......


jake with his sore, ummm....something....


any predictions?

[Bostondevil]

I always felt Kurt Warner to be a pretty reasonable guy and he feels he was absolutely robbed by the Pats for what it's worth. Could be sour grapes. The fact that the league did nothing proves nothing. What could they do? They did not want to damage the image of one of their marquee players and franchises.
I mean a lot of golfers knew Tiger was out of control but they had to protect their breadwinner.

What are you talking about? Oh, you mean the Patriots '01 Super Bowl win? That one where the highest powered offense in football managed to score 17 points? That one?

Nah, the Patriots won that year because of Joe Andruzzi. It was karma.

[bluebear]

this weekend against the panthers should be interesting....

brady with his sore, um,,,,,everything......


jake with his sore, ummm....something....


any predictions?

It definitely should be interesting. I'll be curious to see how the Pats respond to a rocky week. Chance of a little light snow. Panthers should run, control the clock and keep it close. Pats need to establish some sort of consistent offensive and if they aren't going to run I'd like them to try and get the TE and RBs more involved in the short passing game. I'm thinking Pats by 4 with the scores in the 20s...

[rasputin]

What are you talking about? Oh, you mean the Patriots '01 Super Bowl win? That one where the highest powered offense in football managed to score 17 points? That one?

Nah, the Patriots won that year because of Joe Andruzzi. It was karma.

I think the point was that that high-powered offense's receivers were manhandled by Patriots' defensive backs and no interference called.

[moonpie23]

well, jake is scratched and brady is "questionable".....

this could just be an ugly game...

[moonpie23]

well, i guess a crappy-playing patriots team is still better than the "could i aim this thing at my foot any better" pitiful panthers...


please, can then just bag the rest of the season?

[Highlander]

well, i guess a crappy-playing patriots team is still better than the "could i aim this thing at my foot any better" pitiful panthers...


please, can then just bag the rest of the season?

my favorite part was the back to back illegal shift penalties to turn a reasonable 3rd and 8 into an impossible 3rd and 18.

[moonpie23]

not to mention that fine, chateau de kicker of rough - '68 when we could have tied it up.....maybe...

ugh...