or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NFL 2016-17 Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NFL 2016-17 Thread - Page 172

post #2566 of 4994
^ True. I believe I said aloud "Who the f-ck rushes 2 on 3rd and 19" about a second after the snap on that one. Especially against a team that is not known for elite QB play or elite receivers. Rush 4 and drop 7 if you don't blitz.
post #2567 of 4994
Credit to Baldwin for that catch but Wilson never should have had the opportunity to throw so cleanly. facepalm.gif


Seattle's "okay" receivers give me hope though because no one on that team is as good as TY Hilton which the Pats managed to shut down. We still have a lot of time to discuss match-ups so I don't want to jinx anything. When Wilson turns on that zone read though, it looks near unstoppable.
post #2568 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Version 7 View Post

When Wilson turns on that zone read though, it looks near unstoppable.

GB has always had trouble with this play.Who can forget SF running all over GB with Clay Matthews getting completely turned around. I expect Belichick to have a better game plan stopping this play than Dom Capers.
post #2569 of 4994
Espn is reporting that 11 of 12 Patriot game balls were found to be underinflated by 2PSI. I'm guessing a really heavy fine (over $1M combined for the Patriots and Belichick) and loss of a 1st round draft pick if not more if it's determined that the Patriots doctored the game balls.
post #2570 of 4994
It's a witch hunt, I tell ya. LawrenceMD, Archie, where you at?
post #2571 of 4994
Meh. Just more fodder for people who hate the Patriots and prefer to find an explanation for their continued success over the years that goes beyond great players and coaching. I care much more about the game that's happening a week from Sunday.
post #2572 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasmade View Post

Espn is reporting that 11 of 12 Patriot game balls were found to be underinflated by 2PSI. I'm guessing a really heavy fine (over $1M combined for the Patriots and Belichick) and loss of a 1st round draft pick if not more if it's determined that the Patriots doctored the game balls.


I'm disappointed. I wish the patriots wouldn't resort to such tactics. so I guess what I really have to say is this:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
post #2573 of 4994
xED4C2k.jpg


DpNsss3.jpg


7bf9xUB.jpg
post #2574 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Version 7 View Post

xED4C2k.jpg


DpNsss3.jpg


7bf9xUB.jpg


eh.gif
post #2575 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibaldleach View Post

Meh. Just more fodder for people who hate the Patriots and prefer to find an explanation for their continued success over the years that goes beyond great players and coaching. I care much more about the game that's happening a week from Sunday.

At least from my point of view, I don't look at the Patriots as "cheaters" or a dirty team. They are habitual line steppers, but this stuff seems like it really has a negligible effect on the outcome of games.
post #2576 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcg View Post

I'm sure the idea was to protect the ball....just didn't look like anyone was close to him.
I get what you guys are saying, but I think a lot of times defensive players in that situation have been coached "err on the side of getting down, protecting the ball, and letting the offense do its thing". How many times has a player -- especially a player whose primary job is not be a ballcarrier -- given up a turnover precisely because they thought or assumed nobody was close to them, and then got stripped or blindsided by someone they failed to see?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLantern View Post

At least from my point of view, I don't look at the Patriots as "cheaters" or a dirty team. They are habitual line steppers, but this stuff seems like it really has a negligible effect on the outcome of games.

What's distinguishes a "line stepper" from a "cheater" in this instance? (Assuming they deliberately doctored the balls with bad intent, etc.)

There are certainly varying degrees of egregiousness, and I'm not suggesting that this on the heavy side of the scale. But habitually violating the rules (again, assuming for the sake of discussion that's an accurate statement) in surreptitious ways in the hopes that you won't get caught, or in the calculus that even if you do get caught occasionally the punishment is worth the risk, seems to fit the definition of "cheater" pretty well. Didn't we all play schoolyard ball with kids like that? Constantly cheating in small ways because they knew that sometimes they'd get away with it, other times the rest of us just wouldn't consider it worth arguing about, and that the chances they'd be totally excluded from playing were virtually nil? And they were right. We'd still invite them to play if we needed an extra guy. But they were still douches, and still cheaters.
post #2577 of 4994
[quote name="lawyerdad" url="/t/361395/nfl-2014-15-thread/2550#post_7636284"
But habitually violating the rules (again, assuming for the sake of discussion that's an accurate statement) in surreptitious ways in the hopes that you won't get caught, or in the calculus that even if you do get caught occasionally the punishment is worth the risk, seems to fit the definition of "cheater" pretty well. [/quote]

Sounds like the principal Seattle's secondary was built on. I don't in any way fault them for it, though.
post #2578 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I get what you guys are saying, but I think a lot of times defensive players in that situation have been coached "err on the side of getting down, protecting the ball, and letting the offense do its thing". How many times has a player -- especially a player whose primary job is not be a ballcarrier -- given up a turnover precisely because they thought or assumed nobody was close to them, and then got stripped or blindsided by someone they failed to see?
What's distinguishes a "line stepper" from a "cheater" in this instance? (Assuming they deliberately doctored the balls with bad intent, etc.)

There are certainly varying degrees of egregiousness, and I'm not suggesting that this on the heavy side of the scale. But habitually violating the rules (again, assuming for the sake of discussion that's an accurate statement) in surreptitious ways in the hopes that you won't get caught, or in the calculus that even if you do get caught occasionally the punishment is worth the risk, seems to fit the definition of "cheater" pretty well. Didn't we all play schoolyard ball with kids like that? Constantly cheating in small ways because they knew that sometimes they'd get away with it, other times the rest of us just wouldn't consider it worth arguing about, and that the chances they'd be totally excluded from playing were virtually nil? And they were right. We'd still invite them to play if we needed an extra guy. But they were still douches, and still cheaters.

You're totally right, I guess I feel that the difference between line-stepping and substantive cheating is that people look dumb when they try to greatly discount the achievement of the Pats for line stepping, whereas substantive cheating (for example, pay for play in the NCAA) should diminish the perception of achievement. If you want to levy huge fines for line-stepping I'm cool with that, it just seems disingenuous that people are using petty offences to claim that the Pats aren't really that good.
post #2579 of 4994
I think we mostly agree. I hate BB, TB, and the Pats, but to suggest that they aren't great at what they do would be silly. That's one reason (I think you were saying the same thing in slightly different words) it all seems so ridiculous - they don't "need" to cheat to be great (except to the extent it's an inextricable part of their competitive drive).
post #2580 of 4994
SUl0Qhf.png


I'm really hoping karma doesn't bite us....again
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NFL 2016-17 Thread