538 replies to this topic

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

TMQ drives me crazy at times.

Oct. 6 column, he says Crabtree should take the $16 million from SF:

Crabtree wants to be able to claim, "I got $40 million." There is no scenario in which he would actually receive that amount, regardless of what the contract says on paper. San Francisco's reported offer of $16 million guaranteed is right in line with where Crabtree was drafted -- and, ahem, $16 million is not chopped liver. Crabtree should take the deal before San Francisco has the sense to withdraw it, and before he becomes the Maurice Clarett of wide receivers.

Oct. 13:

In NFL news, is there a Crabtree Curse? San Francisco broke out of the gate 3-1, in part because management's no-compromise attitude toward holdout diva Michael Crabtree sent the message that nobody is bigger than the team. Then last week, suddenly Crabtree is granted $16 million guaranteed even though he skipped training camp, doesn't know the playbook, and spent the first month of the season relaxing on the couch. Suddenly the message sent is that you can jerk the 49ers around and get away with it. Immediately San Francisco lost to Atlanta 45-10 at home.

$16 million is a fair offer one week, and the next week he considers it to be giving in to Crabtree for holding out. WTF?

[NoXInNixon]

It's a matter of perspective. From Crabtree's point of view, he should take the offer because it'ss the best offer he's going to get. From his teammates' point of view, he's getting paid $16M, more than what many of them will ever make, when they had to attend training camp and the first five games of the season.

To me, it's a hollow point because I don't think many professional football players think much about how much their teammates earn.

[lexrageorge]

TMQ drives me crazy at times.

Oct. 6 column, he says Crabtree should take the $16 million from SF:


Oct. 13:


$16 million is a fair offer one week, and the next week he considers it to be giving in to Crabtree for holding out. WTF?

Not really inconsistent. It was a great offer to Crabtree; TMQ even mentions that he should take it "before SF has the sense to withdraw it". TMQ's view is that SF probably should have withdrawn it earlier, due to the message of giving in.

[BucketOBalls]

Grrr

Perhaps BB feared a Roughing the Kicker penalty which would have given Denver the ball on the 35, with time to kick a 52 yard FG?

It's possible. Praeter actually hit a number of 50+ yard shots. Got 5 Last year and he's had a 50 and 48 this year. Although when you throw in the probability of a penalty...eh, I dunno. I think it's defensible either way. Seems like the Pats never win coin tosses though.

This week, I think an astronaut kicked his dog or something.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Not really inconsistent. It was a great offer to Crabtree; TMQ even mentions that he should take it "before SF has the sense to withdraw it". TMQ's view is that SF probably should have withdrawn it earlier, due to the message of giving in.

He probably should have mentioned that when he brought it up Oct. 6, not use it as some nonsensical reason why the 9ers got smoked on Sunday. He did mention that $16 million was right in line with where Crabtree was drafted, so it could hardly considered to be an unreasonable offer.

[Hendu for Kutch]

Grrr



Perhaps BB feared a Roughing the Kicker penalty which would have given Denver the ball on the 35, with time to kick a 52 yard FG?

I looked back over the last 3 years in the NFL, and there have been 48 punt returns for TDs. There have been 37 punt blocks. For TMQ to dismiss the idea of a TD return while implying a punt block had an even decent chance of success really fits his MO. Facts be damned, conventional wisdom just has to be stupid.

Does he still bitch about blitzing and only cite examples where it didn't work (while ignoring similar examples where it did work)?

[jschip1]

I looked back over the last 3 years in the NFL, and there have been 48 punt returns for TDs. There have been 37 punt blocks. For TMQ to dismiss the idea of a TD return while implying a punt block had an even decent chance of success really fits his MO. Facts be damned, conventional wisdom just has to be stupid.

Does he still bitch about blitzing and only cite examples where it didn't work (while ignoring similar examples where it did work)?

But isn't this just evidence that more teams play for the punt return than the punt block, and that if more teams played for the punt block, like the Patriots might have done in that situation, those numbers might change?

[Shelterdog]

I looked back over the last 3 years in the NFL, and there have been 48 punt returns for TDs. There have been 37 punt blocks. For TMQ to dismiss the idea of a TD return while implying a punt block had an even decent chance of success really fits his MO. Facts be damned, conventional wisdom just has to be stupid.

Does he still bitch about blitzing and only cite examples where it didn't work (while ignoring similar examples where it did work)?

He does, but not as much because he's so busy lambasting teams for punting on fourth down, and ignoring instances where punts work or fourth down attempts fail.

[Hendu for Kutch]

But isn't this just evidence that more teams play for the punt return than the punt block, and that if more teams played for the punt block, like the Patriots might have done in that situation, those numbers might change?

That's certainly a possible outcome, but I don't think the numbers are evidence of it. It'd be an interesting exercise to see what percentage of called punt blocks actually result in a block (vs. blocks that happen out of a non-all out punt rush), however I know of no way to do so. There'd be a lot of factors to incorporate, such as the likelihood of touchbacks, fair catches, punts out of bounds, or downed punts for any spot on the field the opponent is punting from. I'm sure the quality of the return team would also be a huge factor.

However, just throwing it out there that they couldn't possibly return the punt for a TD but had more than an ultra-remote chance of getting the blcok is pretty intellectually dishonest.

[lexrageorge]

He does, but not as much because he's so busy lambasting teams for punting on fourth down, and ignoring instances where punts work or fourth down attempts fail.

If you read TMQ's articles carefully, he did cite a statistical study that stated that punting on fourth and short is in many cases not justified. This is the same type of statistical analysis for which guys like Theo, Bill James, et al, are widely praised in baseball. He does have a point here, and he does readily admit that the study has its own limitations. Hardly intellectually dishonest.

Also, what really gets TMQ's goat is when a trailing team punts on 4th-and-short from midfield midway through the 4th quarter. Then watches in disbelief as the punt sails through the endzone, and the winning team quickly crosses the original line of scrimmage. The trailing team then gets the ball back down 2 scores, or never gets the ball back at all. In such cases, all the punt did was secure the loss. Seems like an obvious move, but you see the Norv Turner's, Herm Edwards, Wade Phillips, Dick Jauron's of the world do this week after week after week after week....

As for the blocked punt comment that seems to have everyone here in a lather because TMQ dared to criticize the demigod, it appears that some folks here have trouble with partial tongue-in-cheek comments. His comment was that BB played the punt conservatively, taking his chances of winning the coin toss, which is guaranteed to be a 50% chance. These days, lose the coin toss, and your almost guaranteed to lose the game. His preference, as a football fan who values seeing exciting plays, is that BB go ahead and send the house and try for the block. You've got to admit it would have added some excitement. TMQ never claimed that such a move was justified by statistical analysis.

And, on that last point, consider the possible outcomes of sending the house:

a.) No block, and punt goes into end zone, or is downed deep. Most likely result, and the result would have no impact on the ultimate game outcome. Brady was going to kneel on that ball regardless.

b.) Punter under pressure and shanks the punt. Pats get possession in the 35-45 yard line range. Enough time for a quick long throw to get into 50 yard field goal range? Maybe.

c.) Blocked kick, Pats pick up and return for either TD, or close enough for FG try.

d.) Blocked kick, but no real advancement by the Pats. Similar outcome as (b).

e.) No block, and result is running into the kicker. This would appear to indicate a failure of execution more so than a failure of tactics.

Now, let's look at the outcomes for not rushing the punter:

a.) Kick is deep with no or minimal return, or into endzone for TB. Brady kneels, overtime, 50% chance of winning.

b.) Shanked kick. Same as (b) above.

c.) Kick is returned a long way, either for TD or FG try. Very unlikely outcome in this case, given where the punt was occurring.

d.) Return is attempted, but returner fumbles upon being hit. Denver recovers and scores. Also a failure of execution more so than a failure of tactics.

What's needed here is an analysis of the probability of each of the above scenarios playing out. Just stating the number of blocks and return TDs is not sufficient.

But, until someone can come up with evidence saying that going for the block was less likely to be successful than simply kneeling on the ball, it's ridiculous to call TMQ's comments as being intellectually dishonest.

[Hendu for Kutch]

What's needed here is an analysis of the probability of each of the above scenarios playing out. Just stating the number of blocks and return TDs is not sufficient.

But, until someone can come up with evidence saying that going for the block was less likely to be successful than simply kneeling on the ball, it's ridiculous to call TMQ's comments as being intellectually dishonest.

This sounds exactly like what I already said, so thank you for repeating that.

It'd be an interesting exercise to see what percentage of called punt blocks actually result in a block (vs. blocks that happen out of a non-all out punt rush), however I know of no way to do so. There'd be a lot of factors to incorporate, such as the likelihood of touchbacks, fair catches, punts out of bounds, or downed punts for any spot on the field the opponent is punting from. I'm sure the quality of the return team would also be a huge factor.

However, TMQ offered no such study, but felt free to say "You're not going to get a 90-yard touchdown return."

Dismissing the possibility of a TD return simply because it's unlikely IS intellectually dishonest. Why? Because the block is equally unlikely. Yet because that's what TMQ would do, he doesn't dismiss it with a wave of his hand.

It has nothing to do with "daring to criticize our demigod". It has to do with lazy analysis. You can't just say it WON'T happen because you prefer a different course of action.

Edited by Hendu for Kutch, 14 October 2009 - 11:18 AM.

[Shelterdog]

If you read TMQ's articles carefully, he did cite a statistical study that stated that punting on fourth and short is in many cases not justified. This is the same type of statistical analysis for which guys like Theo, Bill James, et al, are widely praised in baseball. He does have a point here, and he does readily admit that the study has its own limitations. Hardly intellectually dishonest.

Two responses:

First, I'm aware of the study that says you should never punt. It is obviously a limited study. What is intellectually dishonest is cherry picking the times that the strategy works and gnoring the times it doesn't and then saying "see - my anti-conventional wisdom proposition is right."

Second, while I can't find the probabilities of each of the events, I'd bet a lot of money on the proposition that roughing the kicker/running into the kicker (and giving Denver a long field goal) is a far, far more likely outcome of a punt block attempt than a punt block. There were 14 blocks in 2008 and 16 punt returns for touchdown so both of those outcomes are rare, occurring about once a week across the entire league. Roughing/running into the kicker occurs all the time - I'd bet it gets called five times a week across the league although, again, I can't find stats on the issue. Ignoring the most likely negative outcome of a decision and then saying it was a stupid decision is either dishonest, dumb, or lazy; I suspect it was the last.

[lexrageorge]

This sounds exactly like what I already said, so thank you for repeating that.



However, TMQ offered no such study, but felt free to say "You're not going to get a 90-yard touchdown return."

Dismissing the possibility of a TD return simply because it's unlikely IS intellectually dishonest. Why? Because the block is equally unlikely. Yet because that's what TMQ would do, he doesn't dismiss it with a wave of his hand.

It has nothing to do with "daring to criticize our demigod". It has to do with lazy analysis. You can't just say it WON'T happen because you prefer a different course of action.

You state this as fact, but I'm not sure you're doing any better than TMQ. And TMQ freely admits the purpose of his columns is entertainment, not the creation of scientific articles that stand up to peer review and can be cited as authority.

In this case, a 90 yard TD return would be extremely unlikely. The punt was happening from Patriot territory. If the punt goes long, it's a touchback. If it's short, the returner has very little time to do anything other than call a fair catch.

A punt block when rushing 8 is probably just as unlikely. A punt block rushing 10 or 11 is probably more likely; how much more, we don't know, because teams seldom do this. Is it more likely than a 90 yard TD return? I'm willing to be it probably is in this particular situation.

[lexrageorge]

Two responses:

First, I'm aware of the study that says you should never punt. It is obviously a limited study. What is intellectually dishonest is cherry picking the times that the strategy works and gnoring the times it doesn't and then saying "see - my anti-conventional wisdom proposition is right."

Second, while I can't find the probabilities of each of the events, I'd bet a lot of money on the proposition that roughing the kicker/running into the kicker (and giving Denver a long field goal) is a far, far more likely outcome of a punt block attempt than a punt block. There were 14 blocks in 2008 and 16 punt returns for touchdown so both of those outcomes are rare, occurring about once a week across the entire league. Roughing/running into the kicker occurs all the time - I'd bet it gets called five times a week across the league although, again, I can't find stats on the issue. Ignoring the most likely negative outcome of a decision and then saying it was a stupid decision is either dishonest, dumb, or lazy; I suspect it was the last.

Ignoring the negative outcome of attempting a punt return (muff, fumble), which probably happens just as often as running into the kicker, is also dishonest, dumb, or lazy; most likely the last.

[Shelterdog]

Ignoring the negative outcome of attempting a punt return (muff, fumble), which probably happens just as often as running into the kicker, is also dishonest, dumb, or lazy; most likely the last.

Sorry man, it's none of the three. A muff or fumble on a punt from the 50 in Denver to Kevin Faulk is a low probability event unlikely to affect the games' outcome - that punt is either going inside the 10 or out of bounds and isn't even going to get fielded.

[axx]

TMQ is amusing, if only to see how many times he will advocate going for it on fourth down

[Rough Carrigan]

TMQ is amusing, if only to see how many times he will advocate going for it on fourth down

He literally advocates always going for it unless the distance is large. He wrote about some high school somewhere that does that. They go for it every time. And it works. A signifcant part of his point is that NFL coaches, for all the bravado, are wusses.

[dwightinright]

Not the TMQ article, but here's the story of a HS team that didn't punt: http://highschool.ri....asp?CID=892888

As a result, his 2008 team did not punt during 14 games. Such an unorthodox strategy may seem like lunacy, but it was successful: Pulaski won the 5A state title on Dec. 6.

The Pulaski coach has adopted an unusual approach to kickoffs as well. About 75 percent of the time, he uses an onside kick instead of a standard kickoff.

[lexrageorge]

TMQ is amusing, if only to see how many times he will advocate going for it on fourth down

What is equally amusing, and what gets TMQ's goat, are the coaches that punt in the following situation: Team down by 13, 7 minutes left in 4th quarter, 4th-and-1 on the opponent's 46 yard line. Result: punt, touchback, 3 plays later winning team is crossing the same spot, and losing team eventually gets the ball back with 1:45 left, down by 20.

Or when a 2-10 team punts when down 17-0 on 4th-and-short in the 2nd quarter.

Both of these scenarios happen all the time, as TMQ rightly points out.

No strategy in football is foolproof. Bad things can happen if you go for it and miss, or if you punt. But statistics do show that going for it on 4th-and-short normally benefits the team that goes for it. Google it if you must.

[Bellhorn]

Or when a 2-10 team punts when down 17-0 on 4th-and-short in the 2nd quarter.

I have to say, I've never really understood what a team's record has to do with whether they should punt or not. Going for it in a given game situation either increases your win probability, in which case every team ought to do it, or it doesn't, in which case no team ought to do it.

[JimBoSox9]

I have to say, I've never really understood what a team's record has to do with whether they should punt or not. Going for it in a given game situation either increases your win probability, in which case every team ought to do it, or it doesn't, in which case no team ought to do it.

Well there are two variables, the chance of success of a given play and the amount it increases your win probability if successful. A 10-2 team may opt for a safer play that keeps the win probability 50/50, and assume that they will come out on top over the 2-10 team. The 2-10 team should, per TMQ, always opt for the riskier play that could possibly boost win probability, because if they play the 50/50 odds and don't gamble, they will likely lose to the 2-10 team. I think you can consider both viewpoints valid even though the math is the same for both teams.

[Bellhorn]

Well there are two variables, the chance of success of a given play and the amount it increases your win probability if successful. A 10-2 team may opt for a safer play that keeps the win probability 50/50, and assume that they will come out on top over the 2-10 team. The 2-10 team should, per TMQ, always opt for the riskier play that could possibly boost win probability, because if they play the 50/50 odds and don't gamble, they will likely lose to the 2-10 team. I think you can consider both viewpoints valid even though the math is the same for both teams.

That's a fair point, but their suckitude also limits the upside of the gamble, and magnifies the downside, in comparison with a superior team. Unless I'm missing something, team quality alone doesn't impact whether or not a fourth-down conversion attempt, at a given level of success probability, is a better or worse idea.

(What definitely does affect it, however, is the specific matchup of offenses and defenses. The better the "our offense vs. their defense" matchup in comparison with the reverse, the more beneficial the upside of a fourth-down gamble becomes. And paradoxical as it may seem, the worse the "our defense vs. their offense" is in comparison with the reverse, the less there is to be gained by punting. So the more that a team's "comparative advantage" lies in their offense, the more it makes sense for them to attempt a fourth-down conversion at a given level of success probability. But this is probably best left for a thread in BbtL someday.)

[The Allented Mr Ripley]

but their suckitude also limits the upside of the gamble, and magnifies the downside,

Maybe so, but then, why show up?

Sometimes you just gotta play for the points that might be there for the taking.

[The Allented Mr Ripley]

In the cold light of day, I have no idea about what point I was trying to make in my previous post.

[URI]

Maybe so, but then, why show up?

Sometimes you just gotta play for the points that might be there for the taking.

If it's any cosolation Rip, I've read this post sober and drunk and I have no idea either.

Which means it ranks up there as my favorite posts on the board.

[Dogman2]

If it's any cosolation Rip, I've read this post sober and drunk and I have no idea either.

Which means it ranks up there as my favorite posts on the board.

Clearly you read the post while durnk the second time because there is only one post there.

Edited by Dogman2, 10 January 2010 - 10:25 PM.

[weeba]

From today's:

Baltimore at New England Analysis: They were booing loudly and lustily in the first quarter at Gillette Stadium, when early errors by the home team staked the Ravens to a quick lead. Way to support your team, New England fans! There was intense booing after Tom Brady's second first-quarter interception, more booing after Belichick ordered a draw on third-and-20, still more booing after Brady threw the ball away on a second-and-goal. Sure, you've won three Super Bowls in a decade, but what have you done for us lately? Either the New England home crowd is incredibly spoiled, or it's comprised of 68,765 fair-weather friends.

I would think a crowd of 68k booing after many of the early mistakes is indicative of a fanbase that cares; not one that is spoiled or fair-weather. If the fans DIDN'T boo, TMQ would probably be on them for being so fair-weather that no one was paying attention; or that we were so complacent due to the recent SB victories that we didn't care for the outcome of this game.

[Mystic Merlin]

From today's:



I would think a crowd of 68k booing after many of the early mistakes is indicative of a fanbase that cares; not one that is spoiled or fair-weather. If the fans DIDN'T boo, TMQ would probably be on them for being so fair-weather that no one was paying attention; or that we were so complacent due to the recent SB victories that we didn't care for the outcome of this game.

I have been pretty critical of Pats fans in the past, but this is fucking dumbfounding in its stupidity.

Should we not boo because the Pats have been successful? Fuck no - ANY team that shits all over the field like that deserves boos. Why should we hold back when over half the team wasn't even around in '07?

'07 alums: Brady, Faulk, Maroney, Morris, Light, Mankins, Neal, Koppen, Kaczur, Moss, Welker, Thomas, Warren, Green, Wright, Wilfork, Alexander, Sanders, Meriweather, Gostkowski, Hanson --> That's 22. That's 31 other players who weren't even around as recently as two years ago.

[Alternate34]

I have been pretty critical of Pats fans in the past, but this is fucking dumbfounding in its stupidity.

Should we not boo because the Pats have been successful? Fuck no - ANY team that shits all over the field like that deserves boos. Why should we hold back when over half the team wasn't even around in '07?

'07 alums: Brady, Faulk, Maroney, Morris, Light, Mankins, Neal, Koppen, Kaczur, Moss, Welker, Thomas, Warren, Green, Wright, Wilfork, Alexander, Sanders, Meriweather, Gostkowski, Hanson --> That's 22. That's 31 other players who weren't even around as recently as two years ago.

While I really have no opinion on booing, the 2007 alumni list is a pretty shitty argument for booing. While over half the players on the team were not a part of the team in 2007, almost all of the impact players/starters were. Brady, Faulk/Maroney, Light, Mankins, Neal, Koppen, Kaczur, Moss, Watson and Welker are 10 of 11 starters on offense. Thomas, Warren, Green, Wright/Wilfork, Alexander, Sanders are 6 of 11 on defense. Gostkowski and Hanson are both the main special teams players.

[Mystic Merlin]

While I really have no opinion on booing, the 2007 alumni list is a pretty shitty argument for booing. While over half the players on the team were not a part of the team in 2007, almost all of the impact players/starters were. Brady, Faulk/Maroney, Light, Mankins, Neal, Koppen, Kaczur, Moss, Watson and Welker are 10 of 11 starters on offense. Thomas, Warren, Green, Wright/Wilfork, Alexander, Sanders are 6 of 11 on defense. Gostkowski and Hanson are both the main special teams players.

What I meant was that booing was deserved no matter what, but that it's particularly idiotic to argue otherwise since most of the team - and, yes, special teams and half the defense matter - is pretty new.

Alexander has played like 2 defensive snaps this year, btw.

Whatever, I thought I was clear, but there you go.

EDIT - I guess my ultimate rationale is that if I'm going to cheer wildly when things go well, then I can logically boo when they don't go well. I don't boo pretty much ever, but I think it's warranted when a team plays that horribly in a playoff game.

Edited by Mystic Merlin, 12 January 2010 - 01:11 PM.

[dwightinright]

So, clearly, the fans should cheer after each turnover. Like they do in other stadiums.

I mean, come on--the fans did cheer when the Pats recovered that fumble, and when they scored the TD. It's one thing to boo all day long, it's another to boo after specific incidents that clearly SUCK.

[Jody Reeds Well]

I don’t understand why it is thought to be fair-weather when really the fans were just being passionate about their team. I was at the game. There was a colossal line at the gates to get in. During the ridiculous wait, I had to hear that Ray Rice brought back a TD but only 4 seconds had come off the clock. When I finally made it into the stadium, I was just in time to see the Ravens punching it in from the goaline. It was 14-0 before I even got a chance to sit down in my seat!

Call it tough love, but it was apparent that the Pats weren’t trying. How many times did they run Kevin Faulk up the middle from shotgun? How many times can they go three and out? Where was the sense of urgency in the most important game of the season. The booing was entirely about the effort being displayed on the field, not the history.

FWIW, the fans did cheer pretty loudly when it was possible for the team to get back into the game in the 2nd quarter.

[NoXInNixon]

Just my opinion, but booing your own team, ever, is dumb. You want the team to win, right? It's one thing for a fan base to express disappointment in a bad play. But that's "Awwwwwwww!" or silence. A home crowd should help the home team play better. When David Ortiz kept coming to plate when he was completely lost last year, the fans encouraged him. They wanted him to do better, and booing him was just going to discourage him more.

The only time I'd boo is if I thought my team wasn't even trying. Colts fans were right to boo against the Jets. If you hold the opinion that Randy Moss doesn't care and isn't trying, fine, then boo him. But not the entire team.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

So they drew 68000 to the stadium on a bitterly cold day, and the fans are "spoiled" because they reacted poorly in such circumstances to a horseshit performance not seen since Rod Rust coached 'round these parts? I call bullshit.

The Pats were incompetent from opening snap to final gun on Sunday. They didn't do a single fucking thing right. This, from a team considered to be a SB contender at the beginning of the year. You bet your ass they deserved to be booed, and lustily, on Sunday. The fans reacted appropriately. And as noted, they did cheer loudly at times in an effort to help the team get back into the game. Hell, when Edelman caught a TD to make it 24-7 you've thought the Pats tied the game based on the crowd's reaction.

[Jody Reeds Well]

The only time I'd boo is if I thought my team wasn't even trying.

This was the case on Sunday.

[judyb]

Also, of course they are incredibly spoiled. How could they not be?

[Shelterdog]

So they drew 68000 to the stadium on a bitterly cold day, and the fans are "spoiled" because they reacted poorly in such circumstances to a horseshit performance not seen since Rod Rust coached 'round these parts? I call bullshit.

The Pats were incompetent from opening snap to final gun on Sunday. They didn't do a single fucking thing right. This, from a team considered to be a SB contender at the beginning of the year. You bet your ass they deserved to be booed, and lustily, on Sunday. The fans reacted appropriately. And as noted, they did cheer loudly at times in an effort to help the team get back into the game. Hell, when Edelman caught a TD to make it 24-7 you've thought the Pats tied the game based on the crowd's reaction.

Regardless of whether you think a team should get booed or not, has anyone here ever seen a home playoff team (1) have such an empty stadium at the start of the game, (2) get booed so consistently, starting in the first quarter, and (3) have their stadium so completely empty early in the fourth quarter? I can't think of anything like it.

EDIT: I'm an idiot about the Eagles game which was obviously in Dallas.

Edited by Shelterdog, 12 January 2010 - 03:11 PM.

[RIrooter09]

<br />Regardless of whether you think a team should get booed or not, has anyone here ever seen a home playoff team (1) have such an empty stadium at the start of the game, (2) get booed so consistently, starting in the first quarter, and (3) have their stadium so completely empty early in the fourth quarter? I can't think of anything like it. The Eagles game the night before was nothing like it even though the Eagles put up a stinker as well.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

The Eagles game was in Dallas so...

Edited by RIrooter09, 12 January 2010 - 03:08 PM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Regardless of whether you think a team should get booed or not, has anyone here ever seen a home playoff team (1) have such an empty stadium at the start of the game, (2) get booed so consistently, starting in the first quarter, and (3) have their stadium so completely empty early in the fourth quarter? I can't think of anything like it. The Eagles game the night before was nothing like it even though the Eagles put up a stinker as well.

The stadium certainly looked full enough to me at the beginning of the game.

The stadium emptied out after Ghost missed the FG in the 4th and announced to the whole world to abandon all hope of a comeback. The fans' reaction at that point was eminently reasonable.

They got booed so consistently in the 1st quarter because it was 24-0 after the first quarter. They deserved every bit of the abuse heaped upon them because they were out of the game after 5 fucking minutes. I know this term gets over used here, but that game and their effort were a disgrace. I half expected to see Marc Wilson at QB, they were that bad. If I had paid over $100 for a ticket to freeze my ass off for a highly anticipated playoff game and got THAT performance, I would have been pissed off beyond belief.

As noted, the Eagles/Cowboys game was in Dallas.

Look, the fans aren't stupid. The Pats served chicken shit in lieu of the expected chicken salad and the fans in attendance responded accordingly. Can't say I blame them one bit.

[Spacemans Bong]

Didn't the Patriots game barely sell out? I recall a lot of ST holders passed up tix for the game, which was part of the reason why guys on this board were saying they got tix on Wednesday. That's pretty weaksauce.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Didn't the Patriots game barely sell out? I recall a lot of ST holders passed up tix for the game, which was part of the reason why guys on this board were saying they got tix on Wednesday. That's pretty weaksauce.

It did sell out, though. Place was full.

Now, it may not have been full at the beginning of the game; the security process there backs up fan arrivals considerably. I experienced this myself at the Jax game a couple of weeks ago, where my brother and I arrived well in time for the game but barely made it to our seats because the screening took so long.

As noted before, while watching in the comfort of my own home I thought the fans were plenty loud when the Pats finally scored, or forced a punt or two in one of their few positive moments of the day.

[dcmissle]

Regardless of whether you think a team should get booed or not, has anyone here ever seen a home playoff team (1) have such an empty stadium at the start of the game, (2) get booed so consistently, starting in the first quarter, and (3) have their stadium so completely empty early in the fourth quarter? I can't think of anything like it.

EDIT: I'm an idiot about the Eagles game which was obviously in Dallas.

Let's stipulate that almost everyone is spoiled. Whether you like this or not, I think it could have a beneficial impact if it leads the Krafts to conclude that they too should not take the last 10 years for granted. This should be a period of introspection in Fox.

[Shelterdog]

The stadium certainly looked full enough to me at the beginning of the game.

The stadium emptied out after Ghost missed the FG in the 4th and announced to the whole world to abandon all hope of a comeback. The fans' reaction at that point was eminently reasonable.

They got booed so consistently in the 1st quarter because it was 24-0 after the first quarter. They deserved every bit of the abuse heaped upon them because they were out of the game after 5 fucking minutes. I know this term gets over used here, but that game and their effort were a disgrace.

As noted, the Eagles/Cowboys game was in Dallas.

Look, the fans aren't stupid. The Pats served chicken shit in lieu of the expected chicken salad and the fans in attendance responded accordingly. Can't say I blame them one bit.

The question isn't whether the Pats deserved to be booed. That's a completely subjective question and it depends entirely on what you think of the "ethics of booing."

The question is whether anyone has ever seen anything like this before. I have not that I can recall. Have you?

EDIT: DCMissle - what message do you think this sends the Krafts? If I'm Kraft the business man I'm thinking to myself that maybe I shouldn't care about wins or losses and should focus on having a flashy team and a more media friendly coach because I'm dealing with America's most childish and spoiled sports fans fans who, unlike fans in every other city in America, will turn on the team when its down 14-0 in the first quarter of a home playoff game.

Edited by Shelterdog, 12 January 2010 - 03:24 PM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The question isn't whether the Pats deserved to be booed. That's a completely subjective question and it depends entirely on what you think of the "ethics of booing."

The question is whether anyone has ever seen anything like this before. I have not that I can recall. Have you?

Did ya miss the early 90s?

"Ethics of booing" is IMO a bunch of bullshit. You pays your money, you can cheer or boo as you see fit. I'm not advocating throwing objects onto the field or fighting in the stands or getting piss-falldown drunk at the games and making everyone else around you miserable, but the reaction of people here upon hearing the boos boggles my mind. You bet your ass you can boo at that performance.

To me, the fans' reaction on Sunday is the least interesting of all the storylines that came out of that game.

[Alternate34]

The question isn't whether the Pats deserved to be booed. That's a completely subjective question and it depends entirely on what you think of the "ethics of booing."

The question is whether anyone has ever seen anything like this before. I have not that I can recall. Have you?

My friend who went to the game and has been to many Pats games said the screening to get in was ridiculous and responsible for so many not making it in by kickoff. It wasn't a lack of passion or desire to see the game. Personally, I can only remember regular season games at other stadiums where this has been the case, but I am sure that it has happened in the postseason as well.

Leaving in the 4th quarter when all hope is gone. I have seen that alot. The other option is fans just sit there and boo or cry.

[dwightinright]

The Pats were incompetent from opening snap to final gun on Sunday. They didn't do a single fucking thing right.

WRONG!!! The covered well on the opening kickoff.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

EDIT: DCMissle - what message do you think this sends the Krafts? If I'm Kraft the business man I'm thinking to myself that maybe I shouldn't care about wins or losses and should focus on having a flashy team and a more media friendly coach because I'm dealing with America's most childish and spoiled sports fans fans who, unlike fans in every other city in America, will turn on the team when its down 14-0 in the first quarter of a home playoff game.

If I'm Kraft I'm thinking that my fans are great since the Pats have sold out every game since Kraft bought the team in 1994.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

WRONG!!! The covered well on the opening kickoff.

[jtn46]

Leaving in the 4th quarter when all hope is gone. I have seen that alot. The other option is fans just sit there and boo or cry.

Leaving that place is so absurdly difficult, though, that unless you're good with being in the parking lot/on that one street with the car dealerships for the next three hours, you have to leave early. It doesn't reflect badly on fans that they prefer to avoid that misery if they think the chances of the team coming back are slim.

I can see the POV that says we shouldn't boo, I think booing individuals on your own team is ganging up and probably can be counterproductive. Still, booing a team is a little different in general, and while sure, we could be Lions fans and could be given the option to boo yet another loss by a crappy team, whenever effort comes into question the fans have a right to be upset, and when it's 24-0 in 5 minutes, effort probably fairly comes into question.

[Dannyb413]

My friend who went to the game and has been to many Pats games said the screening to get in was ridiculous and responsible for so many not making it in by kickoff. It wasn't a lack of passion or desire to see the game. Personally, I can only remember regular season games at other stadiums where this has been the case, but I am sure that it has happened in the postseason as well.

Leaving in the 4th quarter when all hope is gone. I have seen that alot. The other option is fans just sit there and boo or cry.