AFC Championship: Patriots vs Steelers, the buildup

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Any thoughts on the James White usage yesterday? Seemed like he took a bit of Lewis' role running between the tackles in spots where we dont usually see James White. Not sure if it was ball security related or the Steelers were using different personnel packages when White was on the field and it was game plan related.
I think that the Pats might like White as a blocker more than Lewis, so that is why he ends up in there at times. There was one play, maybe the long Hogan TD, where White did a great job picking up the blitz, which is part of why TB had so much time.

EDIT: Yep. That was the play. Times came on a delayed blitz right up the middle and White stuffed him.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
I do think they may have a point on the Brady fumble/non fumble on the sneak. I didn't really understand the ruling; was it that it was inconclusive? That Brady was down before teh ball came loose?
The ruling was that since there was no clear recovery on the replay they couldn't call it a fumble and award it to Pittsburgh.

That ruling kind of pushes aside whether or not the ref thought it was a fumble.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
I think that the Pats might like White as a blocker more than Lewis, so that is why he ends up in there at times. There was one play, maybe the long Hogan TD, where White did a great job picking up the blitz, which is part of why TB had so much time.

EDIT: Yep. That was the play. Times came on a delayed blitz right up the middle and White stuffed him.
Thanks for finding that. What a block! He crushed it.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
8,845
San Diego
The ruling was that since there was no clear recovery on the replay they couldn't call it a fumble and award it to Pittsburgh.

That ruling kind of pushes aside whether or not the ref thought it was a fumble.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the call on the field was no fumble (possibly because, as a QB sneak, no official had a good view of what was happening live) and then after review the announcement was that the play "stands" as called, which simply means there was not indisputable evidence in favor of a reversal. Since the Steelers needed to win on two elements--the fumble (1) happening and (2) being clearly recovered by a Steeler--all we know from the "call stands" explanation is that there was insufficient proof of at least one of those elements. From the video, I think it's more likely that the recovery wasn't proven, but it could have been both as I think the ref could have reasonably decided that Brady was not indisputably a live runner when the ball came out.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
They show what the ref is looking at in the booth on the stadium scoreboard and I dont think they got to the point of looking for a clear recovery. Maybe they were trying to do it in the last angle they checked from behind the play, but they never really rolled the tape past the moment when Brady's knee hit.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,884
The explanation of the challenge also muddied things, because I think some people took it as saying that there *was* clear recovery, and that Pitt was challenging that the runner was down first, not that they were challenging that the runner was down *and* there was clear recovery.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
The explanation of the challenge also muddied things, because I think some people took it as saying that there *was* clear recovery, and that Pitt was challenging that the runner was down first, not that they were challenging that the runner was down *and* there was clear recovery.
Yeah, and as many people in the gamethread elaborated, if you saw all the slo-mo replays and had to decide whether there was or was not a fumble, a majority of people would probably agree Brady was down before a fumble. If they call it a fumble on the field, 10-20% chance they overturn it on replay. As-called (no fumble), there is 0% chance you overturn it based on what you see there.

Steelers fans claiming that call was BS are, I have to assume, basing their rage on the fact that their guys came out of the scrum with the football. Which just isn't how any of this works.

I'll allow two tough calls against them - the unnecessary roughness PF, and the non-call on the Chung hold. The 4th-down fade in the endzone was damned good defense, but given that he did make (verrrrry incidental) contact and didn't turn around, I've certainly seen that called before. I can maybe understand a complaint about that play. But those are marginal calls, they let a lot of stuff go, and so bringing it up to whine just seems really small-beer given that they were down by 27 points when garbage time started. It's like complaining about that one call in the 2005 Divisional at Denver - we were owned in that game, start-to-finish, so at most, a bad call is adding insult to injury.

But that's the fans on a message board. How about Mike Tomlin's postgame remarks?

"I tip my cap to those guys, they're the champions of the AFC and rightfully so. You know, not a lot went our way tonight, not only in terms of the final score but in how the game was played. They're to be complimented for that, we didn't get the things done that we wanted to get done, on offense or defense or special teams, in a consistent enough manner for it to be competitive and close. Some of the splash plays that you look for in those competitive and close games, in the stretch run that we've had in the second half of the season, just not enough positive things in terms of the style of play for those things to unfold, so the result is the result."

...

(Q: You've been so aggressive defensively during this entire win streak. It didn't seem like you brought as much pressure, blitz, any particular reason for that?)
"You know, it wasn't effective. We did, at times, when we did it wasn't as effective as we'd like it to be. They made some quick throws. You know, like I said at the beginning, the style of play of the game was probably what was most disappointing. It leaned more toward their style of play as opposed to their style of play, that's not what we wanted."

(Q: <on chris hogan>)
"We just didn't make enough plays. Weren't tight enough in coverage, didn't apply enough consistent pressure to the quarterback. Largely, over the course of the game, and the same could be said about those scores."

(Q: "Mike, do you have a philosophical opposition to quarterback sneaks?")
"I do not."

(Q: "Mike in terms of the style you were looking for, more running, ball control, that kind of thing --")
"You know, not necessarily specifically that, but you know, they played the type of ball that they normally play, and we didn't play the type of ball that we normally play. And in order for us to be successful, we felt like we had to play our style of ball, and it didn't get to that.
(Q - why do you think that is?)
You know, you have to compliment them of course. It starts there. But we didn't make enough plays, didn't execute enough. We didn't put our guys in good enough position consistently. We failed collectively."


The rest of the Q&A was similarly classy. From the jokes over this past week, you might have expected lots of "I'm not saying - I'm just saying" excuse-making, and he really didn't do that at all.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
The explanation of the challenge also muddied things, because I think some people took it as saying that there *was* clear recovery, and that Pitt was challenging that the runner was down first, not that they were challenging that the runner was down *and* there was clear recovery.
Just Jim Nantz.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
The rest of the Q&A was similarly classy. From the jokes over this past week, you might have expected lots of "I'm not saying - I'm just saying" excuse-making, and he really didn't do that at all.
Tomlin seems like a decent guy who has earned the respect of his players. He's a better coach than he's given credit for. A lot of the negativity around him comes from entitled Stillers fans who are freaked that they won't get to be sevensburgh before someone possibly knocks 'em off their perch.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
They show what the ref is looking at in the booth on the stadium scoreboard and I dont think they got to the point of looking for a clear recovery. Maybe they were trying to do it in the last angle they checked from behind the play, but they never really rolled the tape past the moment when Brady's knee hit.
They didn't. The angle they showed on the scoreboard clearly showed his knee was well down. No need to spend anymore time on it.

I don't remember a faster replay ever. He got the angle, knee was clearly down, time to move on. I'm watching the broadcast now and interested to see what CBS showed, because it was very clear at the stadium it was 100% not a fumble.

Edit: Rewatching the game now and just got the fumble.

#1 They challenged the fumble and a clear recover
#2 Phil Simms is an idiot.
#3 The call was was not confirmed, it was "as ruled on the field"
#4 CBS didn't have the angle that showed Brady's left knee clearly down.
#5 The ref reviewed it so quickly, CBS showed the official hanging out waiting for the end of the TV timeout.
 
Last edited:

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Do they?
Both teams seemed pretty similar to me yesterday. A quick look at DPI and DH penalties show both teams with same amount.
Not saying the Pats aren't just not sure what you are basing it on?
Pats play more man-to-man than the Steelers and cover tighter. You have to be within five yards of a receiver to hold him, something Pittsburgh had trouble doing last night.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
Tomlin seems like a decent guy who has earned the respect of his players. He's a better coach than he's given credit for. A lot of the negativity around him comes from entitled Stillers fans who are freaked that they won't get to be sevensburgh before someone possibly knocks 'em off their perch.
He is certainly a good coach but some of the negativity has to do with the way he handled the problems he had with his NFL-controlled headsets.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
He is certainly a good coach but some of the negativity has to do with the way he handled the problems he had with his NFL-controlled headsets.
Well yeah, around here. But a large swath of the country sees that as one of his positives.

I live in Stillers country so take that for what its worth.
 

GregHarris

beware my sexy helmet/overall ensemble
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2008
3,460
Don't forget about interfering directly with on field play.
 

Bellhorn

Lumiere
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2006
2,328
Brighton, MA
It's like complaining about that one call in the 2005 Divisional at Denver - we were owned in that game, start-to-finish, so at most, a bad call is adding insult to injury.
Don't want to wander too far off topic, but this is wrong - the game was 10-6 at the time, with all of Denver's points having come off of turnovers. In a tight game where both offenses were having trouble putting points on the board, the free seven points due to the Ben Watson play being called incorrectly were huge.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
I stand corrected, and probably should have gone with some call in the 2009 Baltimore WC game, except I had drank myself into oblivion by the 2nd quarter that day and thus don't remember any calls.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
If Nantz had half a clue, Steelers fans would hardly be complaining about the fumble challenge. He kept beating the dead horse of his own stupidity and it took over a quarter for him to correct it. Maybe he was just wish casting. Anyway, Steelers fans are right up there with Yankee fans in terms of obnoxiousness and entitlement and their tears are delicious.
 

thebradybunch12

New Member
Jan 19, 2016
18
Anyone know what the deal with the end presentation was? I thought a rep of the nfl was supposed to hand the trophy not Nantz of all people. Not that it really matters just wondering if this was an attempted slight at the patriots by the nfl
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Anyone know what the deal with the end presentation was? I thought a rep of the nfl was supposed to hand the trophy not Nantz of all people. Not that it really matters just wondering if this was an attempted slight at the patriots by the nfl
1--Why would the Pats care who gives them the trophy?
2--No. For example, Nantz intro'd Rod Smith last year to present the trophy to Broncos owner.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
If you watch that game and come away with any other conclusion than the Patriots were the more talented, better coached team, I don't know what to tell you. And the idea that's not a fumble, I mean, get serious.

I do think they may have a point on the Brady fumble/non fumble on the sneak. I didn't really understand the ruling; was it that it was inconclusive? That Brady was down before teh ball came loose? Either way, seemed like the Pats caught a break there. Other than that, I mean, they blew the Steelers' doors off, it's not like this turned on a call one way or the other.
I was confused by this. Isn't an elbow on the ground "down"? I thought he was down.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
I think that the Pats might like White as a blocker more than Lewis, so that is why he ends up in there at times. There was one play, maybe the long Hogan TD, where White did a great job picking up the blitz, which is part of why TB had so much time.

EDIT: Yep. That was the play. Times came on a delayed blitz right up the middle and White stuffed him.
So on that play...there are two guys coming on the delayed blitz. Seems like the 1st guy is heading in to essentially block and open a gap for the trailer (Times?). Two guys running full steam on that blitz into the line, and white picks up the guy who slips (barely) past the OL.
 

thebradybunch12

New Member
Jan 19, 2016
18
1--Why would the Pats care who gives them the trophy?
2--No. For example, Nantz intro'd Rod Smith last year to present the trophy to Broncos owner.
1. Thanks yea i wasnt sure how it went.
2. I highly doubt the patriots care about anything the nfl does but i also dont doubt the nfl taking every chance they get to throw off the pats
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
I was confused by this. Isn't an elbow on the ground "down"? I thought he was down.
In order to be overturned, two elements must be met:

1. Clear fumble

2. Clear recovery

In this case, 1 is irrelevant, because a "clear recovery," by definition, cannot come about as the result of a scrum, which occurred on the play.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
I was confused by this. Isn't an elbow on the ground "down"? I thought he was down.
If it had been ruled a fumble on the field it would have been automatically reviewed and
left as a fumble. There was no indisputable evidence as to when the ball came out or as to who recovered the ball. Probably was a fumble and a Steeler recovery, but that's not where the review started. I have no idea as to what the announcers were seeing though.
I wasn't sure the elbow was down first; there was no good view.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
The Steelers defense looked lost at times as Tom Brady shredded them in the AFC championship game Sunday night.

Brady threw for a postseason franchise record 384 yards in the Patriots’ 36-17 win. Pittsburgh played zone all game and Brady tore it apart.

A day later, the Steelers admitted they were surprised by the way Brady and the Patriots offense went at them.

“The first drive hit us by surprise,” linebacker Bud Dupree told reporters on Monday. “They came out firing and they caught us off guard. We were checking and they were checking at the same time. Hats off to that team. They had a great preparation.”

Pittsburgh didn’t think the Patriots would run the no-huddle as much as they did.

“We didn’t really anticipate it like that,” Dupree said. “It was more in their approach to the no huddle, the checks they made right away. It was a great job by Tom Brady.”

As for the approach against Brady, Dupree said the defense wanted to attack Brady up the middle, but the Patriots running backs did a good job picking them up.

“We were trying to attack the middle and trying to win one-on-ones, but we just couldn’t get off,” Dupree said. “It would have worked, but we couldn’t stop them on third down to get into the situation we really wanted to get in.”
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2017/01/23/steelers-admit-they-were-surprised-by-patriots-offensive-attack/
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
Chad Finn reported today that the game had a 74% market share in the Boston market. That means that 26% of people watching TV around here were watching something else. How is that possible? What were they thinking? Are they brain-dead? Zombies? Alzheimers victims with Nurse Pratchett forcing them to watch Home Shopping Network?
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,275
UK
Chad Finn reported today that the game had a 74% market share in the Boston market. That means that 26% of people watching TV around here were watching something else. How is that possible? What were they thinking? Are they brain-dead? Zombies? Alzheimers victims with Nurse Pratchett forcing them to watch Home Shopping Network?
The 2014 World Cup final got an 86.3% share in Germany. That was the title game and soccer is THE sport in Germany in a way football is not in New England. Add together the people who hate sports and the people who are only Cs fans or whatever, I'm surprised it's that high for the AFCCG.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
It's insanely high and they said on WEEI today that the only other Pats game that was higher was the AFCC against the Ravens in 2013, which was 76%. To think 24% of the region isn't concerned with sports or more specifically football actually strikes me as low, I'd expect it higher.

Also, it's Nurse Ratched.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Chad Finn reported today that the game had a 74% market share in the Boston market. That means that 26% of people watching TV around here were watching something else. How is that possible? What were they thinking? Are they brain-dead? Zombies? Alzheimers victims with Nurse Pratchett forcing them to watch Home Shopping Network?
As I spent most of yesterday scanning the internets basking in the Pats glory my coworkers who is completely uninterested in sports didn't say boo about theygame. So I guess throw him into that 26 percent of people. I have felt bad that I have that procrastination outlet after wins while he doesn't but I think this number proves he's the odd one.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
It's insanely high and they said on WEEI today that the only other Pats game that was higher was the AFCC against the Ravens in 2013, which was 76%. To think 24% of the region isn't concerned with sports or more specifically football actually strikes me as low, I'd expect it higher.

Also, it's Nurse Ratched.
One minor correction is that it was the second highest rated non-Super Bowl game.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
According to Ron Jaworksi on ESPN Radio this morning, the Patriots used "10 personnel" 10 times this year. They used it 19 times against the Steelers.

Chess and checkers.

Mike Greenberg kept asking Golic and Ryan Clark why only the Patriots do things like this and they kept saying "Well other teams can, but most prefer to dance with who brought you" and Greenberg kept saying "But isn't it clear that this philosophy is better? Not every time but over the long haul?"
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
Great quote -- though in reality, I think this is the first game in months where the Pats had four reasonably healthy WRs. So that makes a difference.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
According to Ron Jaworksi on ESPN Radio this morning, the Patriots used "10 personnel" 10 times this year. They used it 19 times against the Steelers.

Chess and checkers.

Mike Greenberg kept asking Golic and Ryan Clark why only the Patriots do things like this and they kept saying "Well other teams can, but most prefer to dance with who brought you" and Greenberg kept saying "But isn't it clear that this philosophy is better? Not every time but over the long haul?"
I think because it's just hard to do. Hard for coaches to come up with the game plans and hard for the players to adjust every week.
Plus it opens you up for criticism. If it doesn't work then you get the second guessers. And most coaches worry about those things. Belichick no longer needs to, not that I'm sure he ever did.


As for the hurry up offense. Belichick was asked about the flea flicker. He went on to mention how Pitt doesn't really substitute on D. Play mainly 12 or 13 guys. I'm sure that was part of the reasoning. Tire them out.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Great quote -- though in reality, I think this is the first game in months where the Pats had four reasonably healthy WRs. So that makes a difference.
Absolutely but we all know that the overarching message is that most teams are less incentive than the Patriots. During the Patriots' run of success, the team has taken many different forms whereas teams like the Ravens, Steelers, etc. rarely change from year to year. Sometimes their personnel is good enough where it doesn't matter. But times like this year, Pitt got smoked.

As a BC fan, I hate watching our moron coach use the same game plan regardless of opponent or personnel. It's refreshing that the Patriots take a fresh look at everything each week.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
According to Ron Jaworksi on ESPN Radio this morning, the Patriots used "10 personnel" 10 times this year. They used it 19 times against the Steelers.

Chess and checkers.
I mentioned this in the other thread, but Lengel only played special teams Sunday. It'll be interesting to see how much of this was game-plan specific to Pittsburgh and how much was "we don't want Lengel out there."

Mike Greenberg kept asking Golic and Ryan Clark why only the Patriots do things like this and they kept saying "Well other teams can, but most prefer to dance with who brought you" and Greenberg kept saying "But isn't it clear that this philosophy is better? Not every time but over the long haul?"
It's easy to say, "why don't they change up what they do?" but you have to really build your organization that way. You need smart players who can handle that, who can handle coaching like that, coaches who can teach a variety of stuff, a pro scouting organization that can identify these weaknesses, a scheme that is flexible enough to adjust. For instance, Erhardt-Perkins uses route "concepts" that can be run out of a variety of formations and personnel. You don't just fall out of bed doing this stuff, running zone all year and then deciding to play man one week.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
“We were trying to attack the middle and trying to win one-on-ones, but we just couldn’t get off,” Dupree said. “It would have worked, but we couldn’t stop them on third down to get into the situation we really wanted to get in.”
That situation you wanted to get in being, "we now have the ball"? Nice tactical insight there, Bud.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I mentioned this in the other thread, but Lengel only played special teams Sunday. It'll be interesting to see how much of this was game-plan specific to Pittsburgh and how much was "we don't want Lengel out there."


It's easy to say, "why don't they change up what they do?" but you have to really build your organization that way. You need smart players who can handle that, who can handle coaching like that, coaches who can teach a variety of stuff, a pro scouting organization that can identify these weaknesses, a scheme that is flexible enough to adjust. For instance, Erhardt-Perkins uses route "concepts" that can be run out of a variety of formations and personnel. You don't just fall out of bed doing this stuff, running zone all year and then deciding to play man one week.
As for the Lengel part, it seemed pretty clear that the Pats were going to pass a lot (as they typically do against Pitt). With that plan in mind, I'm sure 99 out of 100 people, from BB to me, would say they would rather have almost any WR or RB be one of the pass-catching options over Lengel. In one of the other threads looking at the Falcons, it was mentioned how teams have had success going heavy and running over the quick, but undersized, front 7 of the Falcons. So we may see more Lengel (and I imagine more Fleming as TE/6th Lineman). Run those formations enough, and we might see Lengel catch a pass on play-action as a release.

As for your latter point, Simms at one point on Sunday, (I think it might have been in the closing moments), how the Pats run so many different combos out of each formation. It certainly gives the team great flexibility in game-planning, but it is highly dependent on having players who can grasp all those concepts. We've heard the negative of this many times when Player X "can't grasp the system." But maybe this is also related to BB's apparent preference for guys who "love football." If you love something, you spend more time learning all about it. That helps make these multiple combinations happen.
 

Pesky Pole

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
2,468
Phoenixville, PA
I look forward to the penalties coming to the Steelers for not reporting the pre-existing injury on the injury report last week.

21. PIT - Le'Veon Bell had pre-existing injury

Source: The Associated Press - Barry Wilner

Updating an earlier report, Pittsburgh Steelers RB Le'Veon Bell (groin) had an injured groin before the AFC Championship game Sunday, Jan. 22. Bell said he had been managing the ailment, but he knew during warmups that he wasn't close to 100 percent.

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ FOOTBALLGUYS VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

He left the game and returned for one play, but he knew his day was done afterwards. 'I saw the seam and couldn't hit it,' Bell said. 'It was like I was running 50 percent out there. At that point, I knew I couldn't go. I was holding the team back.'
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,209
South of North
2 things. First, "Jordan, Jordan, Jordan":

https://my.mixtape.moe/itxwse.mp4

Second:


Ben Volin on Twitter: "Per Simms, Belichick made Dion Lewis carry a football around all last week. Teammates tried to slap it out of his hands when walking past."

Which obviously reminded me of this (sorry for the crap quality):

 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
It's insanely high and they said on WEEI today that the only other Pats game that was higher was the AFCC against the Ravens in 2013, which was 76%. To think 24% of the region isn't concerned with sports or more specifically football actually strikes me as low, I'd expect it higher.

Also, it's Nurse Ratched.
The B's Game 7 against the Canucks got a 64 share, which I think is more surprising (on the high side), than the above figures.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I heard on the radio that if he retires he'll need to write the Steelers an $18M check. The chances of him retiring are essentially zero.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
I heard it as well. From the sounds of it, it's because he signed a $31mm signing bonus. He'd be part way through the contract and retiring, so he'd have to give a bunch back.
Oh, I gotcha. I thought they were speaking metaphorically.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
8,845
San Diego
I heard it as well. From the sounds of it, it's because he signed a $31mm signing bonus. He'd be part way through the contract and retiring, so he'd have to give a bunch back.
Is this common? I thought a signing bonus was in essence a team-friendly mechanism to defer cap hits to the later years of a contract, but had no idea it would operate as a penalty for early retirement by a player.