PFT: Skins' Godfrey blast Belichick for score...Belichick responds

[adbutcher]

That's the thing, if he kicked a FG I would have no issue with it at all. It doesn't look like blatant rubbing noses in it.

 

[silverblue]

there is a net touchdowns tiebreaker, but none for net field goals, so the touchdown make sense. The rules dictate that their is still something to go for in that situation. The season is more than just one game.

 

[peplaw06]

This is the risk that he faces when he keeps his starters in games that are blowouts. One gets hurt, and he will be asked about it, and I would think the players would wonder what they are doing out there in a obvious blowout situation when one hit can end not only your season, but CAREER!I also realize that it is the D's responsibility to keep the other team from scoring, but there is also a humbleness that can take the place of rubbing someone's face in it when they are clearly going to win a game. I seriuosly hope that someone get's banged up in one of these blowout losses late in the 4th quarter and see how his players respond then.

Yeah apparently all that "Humble Pie" I keep hearing about has the opposite effect.

there is a net touchdowns tiebreaker, but none for net field goals, so the touchdown make sense. The rules dictate that their is still something to go for in that situation. The season is more than just one game.

Somehow I don't think the net touchdowns tiebreaker is what's on Belicheck's mind.

NE 8-0
BUF 3-4
NYJ 1-7
MIA 0-8

The only other team with a shot at threatening their home field advantage is Indy, and they play them this week, so a net touchdowns tiebreaker won't be reached.

Oh and right now the Pats have 43 TDs, the Colts have 26.

 

[silverblue]

NE 8-0
BUF 3-4
NYJ 1-7
MIA 0-8

The only other team with a shot at threatening their home field advantage is Indy, and they play them this week, so a net touchdowns tiebreaker won't be reached.

Oh and right now the Pats have 43 TDs, the Colts have 26.

I guess you have one of those crystal balls that says Randy moss won't get hurt or Brady won't get busted for coke and the patriots will cruise to 16-0. You never know.

 

[khiladi]

Eh. The running up the score thing doesn't bother me. The diving at the knees of opposing players and late hits bother me.

Thank you... Issues like running up the score are irrelevant. The fact that Patriots get away with plenty of cheating game-time, with the refs doing absolutely nothing about it, is what irritates me...

 

[chargrove]

Does anyone know if the opposing teams are even watching the Patriots sideline for violations? I would think so.

 

[TheCount]

I guess you have one of those crystal balls that says Randy moss won't get hurt or Brady won't get busted for coke and the patriots will cruise to 16-0. You never know.

You can't possibly be serious. You think any of those teams are suddenly going to become epic or that the Patriots are suddenly going to become zeros?

 

[Rampage]

You can't possibly be serious. You think any of those teams are suddenly going to become epic or that the Patriots are suddenly going to become zeros?[/quote]
they could if a d-linemen "accidently" falls into brady's knees

 

[peplaw06]

I guess you have one of those crystal balls that says Randy moss won't get hurt or Brady won't get busted for coke and the patriots will cruise to 16-0. You never know.

Well if injuries were such a huge concern, shouldn't Belicheck be pulling his guys with a 38 point lead with 10 minutes left?

 

[khiladi]

But the calls going for the Patriots are just insane. They get free reign to do whatever their cheating hearts feel the need to.

But as long as you keep talking about irrelevant things such as running up the score, nobody will pay attention to the way the Patriots offensive line takes shot at the knees of players, or get away with plenty of holding, or Randy Moss can push-off receivers right in front of the face of refs and get away with it.

The only team that is going to beat them is a team with some self-respect, with players like Marion Barber, who will punch you back after getting punched... Players who will all out blitz, forcing Belichek to go max-protect...

You think Brady is dominant if he hits the floor more than once a a game? That guys has like 60 seconds to throw back there...

 

[silverblue]

Well if injuries were such a huge concern, shouldn't Belicheck be pulling his guys with a 38 point lead with 10 minutes left?

Probably not this early in the season, but maybe Belicheck will consider it later in the year when home field is all wrapped up

 

[TheCount]

Well if injuries were such a huge concern, shouldn't Belicheck be pulling his guys with a 38 point lead with 10 minutes left?

Exactly, if Bellichick is making the choice to "play for tiebreakers", then he is running the risk of losing a player to injury. What responsible coach would make that trade off? Losing a player to ensure a number of crap teams may not miraculously catch up in terms of record? He's obviously running up the score, that isn't even the argument, if you're looking for an argument.

The argument is whether it's cool to do that or not, and that conversation can go on forever.

 

[vta]

This thread is awful. From a pro athlete misplacing blame for an embarrasing blow-out on 'no respect', but of course not on sub-par play and poor coaching; to people hoping not only a player gets hurt, but a friggin' coach.

The game is 60 minutes of play; because somewhere along the line someone came up with the idea that they can kneel on the ball doesn't change that and it shouldn't be mandatory.

Play football to play football. You want respect and consideration? Go home to the people who love you, don't look for it from strangers earning millions of dollars to score points.

 

[peplaw06]

The argument is whether it's cool to do that or not, and that conversation can go on forever.

Well the answer to that is:

Of course it's cool to run up the score... As long as it's my team giving, not receiving.

 

[PABoysFan]

I know I'm late in the discussion here but a couple of thoughts...
I think what's getting under people's skin about the Patriot's approach lately has been a question of objective. Primary objective of any game is victory. Once that is no longer in doubt then other objectives take over. I don't ever remember seeing a team where the secondary objective is to score a many points as possible (outside of maybe bitter divisional rivalries, or Super Bowls). Almost without exception teams have used blow-out time to develop the long term objectives (injury prevention, player development) where individual mistakes won't jeopardize the victory. The other thing you expect is a conservative game plan and the elimination of 'aggressive' plays (4th down conversions, 2pt conversions, on-sides kicks, etc.)
Many times coaches of the losing team will let their starters in to see what they're made of or to see if they can work their way out of the funk of an especially unproductive day...they also have secondary objectives once the game is out of hand. The losing teams approach with starters should have no bearing on what the victor decides to do I don't buy that line of argument.
While I respect the opinion of those who feel that the Patriots are within bounds with what they are doing I am in more agreement with those who see the Patriots doing something in 2007 that is crossing unwritten boundaries of sportsmanship in the NFL. To me they are stupidly risking injury, preventing backups who will need to carry the team in the event of injury from needed game time, and generating bad will in order to accomplish some secondary objective that I'm not sure puts them ahead in the long run.

 

[CoCo]

I must say I'm quite surprised at the number of folks who believe there is nothing wrong with running up the score. I think it's largely an accepted norm that you just don't do that in sports.

In most peoples eyes sportsmanship is important even though there may not be specific written rules to enforce it. They are unwritten, agreed upon standards of conduct.

I think when coaches/players start ignoring those issues it really risks escalation.

Even if you don't particularly care if an opponent runs it up on you, you better heed the warning if it bothers them. There may be another issue that doesn't especially bother them but is very important to you.

Yeah, I do think Belichek is on pretty thin ice.

 

[peplaw06]

I know I'm late in the discussion here but a couple of thoughts...
I think what's getting under people's skin about the Patriot's approach lately has been a question of objective. Primary objective of any game is victory. Once that is no longer in doubt then other objectives take over. I don't ever remember seeing a team where the secondary objective is to score a many points as possible (outside of maybe bitter divisional rivalries, or Super Bowls). Almost without exception teams have used blow-out time to develop the long term objectives (injury prevention, player development) where individual mistakes won't jeopardize the victory. The other thing you expect is a conservative game plan and the elimination of 'aggressive' plays (4th down conversions, 2pt conversions, on-sides kicks, etc.)
Many times coaches of the losing team will let their starters in to see what they're made of or to see if they can work their way out of the funk of an especially unproductive day...they also have secondary objectives once the game is out of hand. The losing teams approach with starters should have no bearing on what the victor decides to do I don't buy that line of argument.
While I respect the opinion of those who feel that the Patriots are within bounds with what they are doing I am in more agreement with those who see the Patriots doing something in 2007 that is crossing unwritten boundaries of sportsmanship in the NFL. To me they are stupidly risking injury, preventing backups who will need to carry the team in the event of injury from needed game time, and generating bad will in order to accomplish some secondary objective that I'm not sure puts them ahead in the long run.

The Skins onside kick has zero bearing on what the Pats did. And that's mainly because the Pats had already completed a long bomb to Moss and gone for it on 4th down long before the Skins kicked it onside.

If the Pats were insulted by the Onside kick, they would have gone down and scored again... on a 50 yard go route to Moss.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I guess you have one of those crystal balls that says Randy moss won't get hurt or Brady won't get busted for coke and the patriots will cruise to 16-0. You never know.

I doubt any of the teams in the division will win five more games so the Patriots are pretty safe.

 

[peplaw06]

I doubt any of the teams in the division will win five more games so the Patriots are pretty safe.

5 game lead on the division with 8 to play? Their magic number is 4.:laugh2:

 

[CoCo]

BTW - Is Belichek's defense of why he went for it on 4th down (up 38-0)supposed to indicate that he felt a FG would be running it up? Or is he simply suggesting that 41 (38 + a FG) is a dangerous number when 6 TD's & PAT's would give the opponent 42?

If its the former, a simple kneel down would answer the dilemma, or even "run only" plays like most teams do when its too early to kneel.

I actually have more respect for the "score vulnerability" reason than thinking his only chance was to pursue TD's rather than "run it up" with a FG.

I'm confused by his answer.