Speaking of the nation's tears, the anti-Pats bias among the fans and opposing players is so strong that this is the 3rd year in a row not a single Patriot will be playing in the Pro Bowl.
The Nation's Tears: Volume II
- Thread starter jmcc5400
- Start date
- Status
From comedian-masquerading-as-columnist Norman Chad: "The Patriots and their fans are so loathsome, I wish we could Brexit New England ... Is Brady the greatest quarterback ever? Five years ago he was in the conversation, now he is the conversation. So I will concede his place in NFL history if he will get the heck out of Dodge, crawl back to his supermodel spouse and stop tormenting us on the day of rest every autumn and winter."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/i-cannot-sit-here-and-watch-the-patriots-win-week-after-week-year-after-year/2019/01/27/5a408f1a-20f1-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html?utm_term=.80d2ce698912
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/i-cannot-sit-here-and-watch-the-patriots-win-week-after-week-year-after-year/2019/01/27/5a408f1a-20f1-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html?utm_term=.80d2ce698912
I do have to give him top marks for this line, though:
"If the Patriots played ISIS for charity, my suspicion is no money would be raised."
"If the Patriots played ISIS for charity, my suspicion is no money would be raised."
This is pretty funny, but also I'm on board with the Brexit New England move.
I've wanted a new country starting, say, east of Lake Champlain, down through Lake George and through the Hudson for a while. That makes for a nice natural border. An ocean, a long border with Canada, yet easy access to America's new border city of NY. I like it.
I know, keep it in V&N....
Going to pick up my son at swim practice and I'm wearing a Pats sweatshirt. Big crowd of people at a soccer game next door. One of the parents goes "Oooh look at the new Pats fan."
It was just one of those moments. I started to laugh. "I got this three Super Bowls ago. You're right...its pretty new. Just three years old."
It was just one of those moments. I started to laugh. "I got this three Super Bowls ago. You're right...its pretty new. Just three years old."
This rankled. Frank Bruni, stay in your lane.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opinion/super-bowl-rams-patriots-trump.html?fbclid=IwAR0YLXuTqEksxs7RCQ7o4fajjV_kd8jaKV9vOCylH08zyyZ1GDBls5XUnZc
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opinion/super-bowl-rams-patriots-trump.html?fbclid=IwAR0YLXuTqEksxs7RCQ7o4fajjV_kd8jaKV9vOCylH08zyyZ1GDBls5XUnZc
Manish mocking a storyline that no one is seriously talking about
https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/ny-sports-julian-edelman-hall-fame-super-bowl-mehta-20190129-story.html
https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/ny-sports-julian-edelman-hall-fame-super-bowl-mehta-20190129-story.html
Bruni's not wrong that mistrust of authority has swung past the point of usefulness in America.
He should, however, take issue more with the attitude of fans who are reflexively unable to accept a loss (at all, nevermind with grace), and instead instantly pick the easiest target to make themselves feel better. Instead of, you know, participating in that same general decline in character and sportsmanship.
And man, the whining over the roughing-the-passer call is bizarre to me, even by those subterranean standards. It was 2nd and 7 on a do-or-die drive. Do you think Brady fails to convert on 3rd and 4th down? Nation's Tears, indeed.
He should, however, take issue more with the attitude of fans who are reflexively unable to accept a loss (at all, nevermind with grace), and instead instantly pick the easiest target to make themselves feel better. Instead of, you know, participating in that same general decline in character and sportsmanship.
And man, the whining over the roughing-the-passer call is bizarre to me, even by those subterranean standards. It was 2nd and 7 on a do-or-die drive. Do you think Brady fails to convert on 3rd and 4th down? Nation's Tears, indeed.
The Saints also could have taken care of business in OT after winning the coin toss. Pretty sure Brady and Co. could have handled that pressure.
Obviously, it's fair to say that the Rams probably shouldn't be in the Super Bowl, as they benefitted from the single worst blown call in the history of the sport, a call which, if correctly officiated, almost certainly means the Saints win the game.
But the Patriots? Pointing out Spygate is absurd. There was ONE CALL that was wrongly officiated that went for the Patriots. That was it. And I'm going to be a bit of a legalist here, but if you watch the play carefully, Jones *DOES* graze the face mask of Brady.
The slo-mo starts at the 40 second mark of the video. You see that as Jones' hand comes down, it ever so slightly grazes the face mask. You see Brady's helmet move downward as Jones' hand swipes down. It's small, it's slight, it's nothing that was in any way egregious, but he absolutely DOES make contact with Brady's face mask. Here's the official rule designating a foul for contacting the helmet (from: https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2018-nfl-rulebook/#article-9.-roughing-the-passer):
"an opponent forcibly hits the quarterback’s head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder"
Now, was it contact? Yes. Was it "forcible" contact? No. However, consider the notes at the end of the rule:
"Penalty: For Roughing the Passer: Loss of 15 yards and an automatic first down; disqualification if flagrant.
Notes
- When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.
- See 8-6-1-c–d for personal fouls prior to completion or interception."
In other words, by rule, the official did what he was supposed to do.
Moreover, on that same play, if you watch Edelman (which they never go back to by way of replay), you'll see him getting absolutely mugged going over the middle. No flag. So instead of a 15-yard roughing penalty, it should have been a 12-yard pass interference penalty. Or at minimum, a 5-yard defensive holding (or illegal contact) penalty and an automatic first down.
This is not to speak of the numerous calls (or non-calls) that went the Chiefs' way during the game, which we've recounted several times in this forum. Some egregious ones too.
C’mon, it was a bad call. No football fan wants roughing the passer called on that.
The fact that there could have (should have) been a holding call on Edelman on the same play is a better response. Also on the very next play Berry mugs Gronk and there is no call. The Chiefs got away with a lot of holding in the secondary, Romo even mentioned it during the telecast.
But the roughing the passer called was bad, it is OK to say it.
The fact that there could have (should have) been a holding call on Edelman on the same play is a better response. Also on the very next play Berry mugs Gronk and there is no call. The Chiefs got away with a lot of holding in the secondary, Romo even mentioned it during the telecast.
But the roughing the passer called was bad, it is OK to say it.
I did say it at the top of my post. I've said it multiple times. But *technically* it was justifiable from an officiating perspective. Not my fault that the rules say, "When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer."
I think the Patriots got a break there, but on the very same play they got hosed on a non DPI (or defensive holding) call on the defender mugging Edelman. And nobody can point to any other play in the game where the Patriots benefitted from a bad call.
As was the non call on the pick play. As was the non call against NO on the Goff facemask.
Bruni's column is absolutely atrocious and I am a fan of his work.
But when you say it is a bad call but also technically defensible you are not saying it was a bad call.
It was a bad call.
Edit: we are in full agreement that on the whole there is no reason to think the officiating benefitted the Pats in that game. There were several missed calls that benefitted the Chiefs. I just think it is foolish to twist yourself into a pretzel citing rulebook passages to defend a bad call. The roughing the passer call was bad, and at the very least if that’s roughing then the Pats did get away with one against Mahomes.
As you noted, the correct answer is that the officials missed a blatant PI/defensive hold call on the same play.
Even Steven.
It’s like people aren’t even trying anymore. Even some generally good writers are getting lazy. The Patriots’ success bothers people that much that now we’re being told that a bad roughing call on 2nd down in a game where the Pats converted a million 3rd and long’s is the reason they advanced.
The whining if the Pats win on Sunday may be at historic levels. Everyone is just so triggered.
Well the rule is somewhat ambiguous right? Consider the two parts I cited:
"an opponent forcibly hits the quarterback’s head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder"
and
"When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer."
Was there contact with the facemask? Yes. Slight. Was it "forcible"? Clearly not. So from THAT standpoint, I think it was a bad call. It wasn't forcible contact. And yet the referees are clearly instructed that if they are in doubt, they "should always call roughing the passer". ALWAYS. That's the default position. That doesn't mean it happens all the time. That doesn't mean that people WANT to see that called. I know I thought, wow, that's ticky tack. But if the refs see that hand motion and are instructed in that situation to call it, and they call it, well, aren't they doing their job as instructed?
So I thought it didn't meet the "forcible" component, and yet clearly for the ref he saw enough to be obligated to call it. The Patriots caught a break and I think if that play was reviewable, it gets reversed. So from that standpoint, bad call. But I'm just giving you what the rules state.
I'd agree. One thing is for sure: NFL refereeing is very inconsistent.
There was this from a Pittsburgh TV station on Monday. The person who typed the chyron was fired..
https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/ny-sports-tom-brady-chyron-pittsburgh-known-cheater-20190130-story.html
The Daily News straight news story is also salty...
https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/ny-sports-tom-brady-chyron-pittsburgh-known-cheater-20190130-story.html
The Daily News straight news story is also salty...
I really hope that person feels it was worth it now that they have been....
Wait for it...
sacked.
Wait for it...
sacked.
For some ungodly reason, I decided to dip back into talk radio for a quick minute today. I caught some of Rich Eisen's show on Sirius. The very familiar, whiny voice of LaDanian Tomlinson was on with him. He said he can't see the Pats getting over 21-24 on the Rams D and thinks that the Rams will be able to score more than that. He cited the Pats unfamiliarity with McVay and the Rams, much like it was last year with Doug Pederson and the Eagles. He also said that Wade Phillips has enough history scheming against Brady and the Pats that they should be successful.
Never mind that Brady is 6-3 against Phillips. He's averaged nearly 300 yards game. 21 touchdowns and 7 INT's. Granted, not otherworldly numbers from Brady, but hardly pedestrian. And we all remember the O-line issues the last time they faced in Denver.
The sour grapes from these former players is hilarious. They want so badly for New England to lose.
Never mind that Brady is 6-3 against Phillips. He's averaged nearly 300 yards game. 21 touchdowns and 7 INT's. Granted, not otherworldly numbers from Brady, but hardly pedestrian. And we all remember the O-line issues the last time they faced in Denver.
The sour grapes from these former players is hilarious. They want so badly for New England to lose.
Not very sports guy tries to sports and make broader point about the world, fails to sports correctly.
This guy is probably a bad employee, but because he was making fun of an unpopular/unimportant (my words) person he now gets positive attention...
Life is weird.
There's nuance here that you're missing.
Does any fan want to see that called against their team on defense? No. It would piss me off.
Was it a made-up, invented or phantom call? Also no - it was justified, technically, by the rules, but their interpretation was too liberal for most.
It's borderline. Sometimes you'll see it called, it's not an outrage to have it called, but it's uncommon-to-rare for that little contact to result in a flag. It's in a completely different class than the Saints DPI play, or lots of other calls that are just unambiguously bad work by the officials.
And on that technical point, the "violent motion towards the QB's head" really is a material part of the rule. I can't remember exactly where off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure I've seen that over-the-top hook-punch/slap called, even when they entirely whiffed. The point of the rule is to prevent anyone swinging for the QB's head.
Basically that was like 60% bad call, as opposed to lots of other 90% or 100% bad calls. Saying "it was a bad call" lumps them all in together, and that's not a realistic evaluation of what happened.
Did you hear the whole interview? The most interesting part of the interview to me was that he basically admitted that he wanted to be a Patriot and thought he was going to be one. Seemed like he was pretty sure (at least in his mind) the Pats were gonna take him with the 6th pick, but instead San Diego grabbed him with the 5th.
I did not. I only had it on for 3-4 minutes while he talked about the game. That is pretty interesting.
There should be an alarm that goes off every time that that game is mentioned and how the Bronco's D-Line had a field day. This alarm would immediately set off video clips of Stork and his head bob.
I wondered why anyone would choose New England over San Diego in 2000 and then realized we had Bledsoe and San Diego had a stew of Leaf/Harbaugh/Flutie in 2000-1. He might not have gotten a chance to play with Brady, however, even if New England drafted him. Butterfly effect might have meant BB calls a run play instead of a pass and Mo Lewis ends up far away from Bledsoe. To be fair, since it seems BB disliked Bledsoe's game and saw something in Brady, he still might have eventually played with him. Although I think the Pats' D is downgraded significantly without the attention offenses had to afford Seymour.
Yes, butterfly effect being what it is, if LT gets drafted by the Pats, they most certainly do not win the Super Bowl in 2002. But Brady would have found a way into the lineup eventually.
Same day Rivers played (and played well) on a torn ACL if I recall correctly.
Tomlinson's whining from that era will never get old, he was at consistently at Marshall Faulkian levels of salt.
Nah. Rivers tore his ACL that game and was replaced by Billy Volek. He played on it against the Pats the following week and didn't perform particularly well.
That was the gist of my comment to him in the NYT. But it ran a little longer than that...
Speaking of butterfly effects....man...Pippen, Hugh Hollins, and the Jordan comeback. Who knows how that all would have played out.
The thing is, in the last few weeks, Deadspin has been sort of hilarious with Onion level football articles. Their 'take downs' of the Pats have slipped into being obviously ironic, no?
A bad call is one that you need to see on film a few times to see that you got wrong.
An exceptionally bad call is one that you know is wrong the first time you watch the tape. This, like the Saints play, is in that category.
You didn't even need a replay for the Rams-Saints PI play. It was obvious the moment it happened.
I would call the former simply an "incorrect call". No matter what we do with replay and related gimmicks, there will always be a degree of error, which to some extent we have to live with unless we want 7 hour games.
The second category, the exceptionally bad call, could be fixed by a game speed replay review. When it's that obvious, no harm is done in reversing the call on the field. Save the endless parsing of rules and 20 minutes of slow motion replay review for training the officials to do better.
- Status