NFL Week 8

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I like this quote, because I think it backs my point . Aside from having the single season QB rating record, what big time records did Montana hold? What records did the 49ers have during his time there?

The answer is 4 SuperBowls. And you don't have to run up the score to achieve that.

And I'd assume the media coverage is more for the undefeated record. And we aren't talking 21 point blowouts, we are talking about going for more when you already are up by 21. I'd imagine 3 TDs or even 2 TDs of a lead will get you the media coverage you desire.

Having lived through the 49ers destroy my team year after year in the 80s, I honestly don't see much difference between them and the current Patriots team. I can tell you for certain that many different games were well under control and they would still keep piling on the points. There is a reason I can't stand the 49ers to this day and root for them to lose more than any other team still. Its just part of football, what the Pats are doing now isn't really much different from what the 49ers did to my poor Falcons or the Saints or other teams back then. Check out the 1984 season:

vs Rams, up by 26 points in the 4th quarter, Montana still passing , throws a 44 yard pass to D.Clark for a TD. Final Score 33-0
vs Cleveland, up by 34 points, the 49ers still push for another score to go up 41-0 before the Browns score a TD in garbage time. Final score 41-7
vs Saints (who were a lousy team back then), they were up 28-3 in the 4th quarter thanks to an INT return for a TD, they still push down the field to go up 35-3 with very little time left which ended up being the final score.
vs the Vikings.. they were up 31-7 at halftime.. They kick 3 Field goals in a row.. they must not be trying to run up the score right? noo.. they just were stopped those particular drives before the end zone. The 49ers then score two more TDs in the 4th quarter to crush the Vikings 51-7.

So, you see thats why I don't really find what the Pats are doing to be a huge deal. The 49ers did it in the 80s, Buddy Ryan used to do it vs coaches he didn't like, the Pats are doing it now.. its just part of football. I dreaded the weeks where the Falcons would play the 49ers as a kid, not because I was afraid we would lose.. I was afraid we would be humiliated.... The only difference now with the Pats is that they are likely an even better team than that 49ers were.

[ISiddiqui]

But the point was, did the humiliation sell Montana jersies (and does it still to this day)? I don't think so.

And it doesn't matter to me who it was, piling on is still piling on.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But the point was, did the humiliation sell Montana jersies (and does it still to this day)? I don't think so.

And it doesn't matter to me who it was, piling on is still piling on.

Honest, non-facetious question. Why does it bother you (or anyone) so much? Are you concerned for the feelings of the other team? "It's not necessary" isn't really an answer, because there's a lot of things that aren't necessary. If the Pats lose a star player, that's their problem.

There's plenty of room for disagreement on this, I'm just trying to see the other side - at the pro level, I just can't understand why this is a hot topic.

I know SOME just don't like the Pats anyway, so this is an easy thing to criticize. (I'm not accusing you of that, I can tell you have this opinion globally.)

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But the point was, did the humiliation sell Montana jersies (and does it still to this day)? I don't think so.

And it doesn't matter to me who it was, piling on is still piling on.

The touchdowns scored in "garbage" situations added to his stats, and that certainly helps sell jersies. The main difference is that people remember what he did, not how he did it. But the 49ers, Steelers and Cowboys were all dominant teams that used to "run up the score" when they had the chance. It doesn't harm the teams at all, and the added stats absolutely will sell merchandise.

Take a look at the 2004 Colts, as noted by someone already in this thread. Those garbage TD Manning threw helped nab him the single season record. You betcha that was financially a very good thing for both Manning and the Colts.

My point is in a professional atmosphere, it isn't the responsibility of any offense, Patriots or not, to "lighten up". They are paid to score points. The defense is paid to stop points from being scored. That fact doesn't change whether the score is 3-0 or 52-0.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by molson

Honest, non-facetious question. Why does it bother you (or anyone) so much? Are you concerned for the feelings of the other team? "It's not necessary" isn't really an answer, because there's a lot of things that aren't necessary. If the Pats lose a star player, that's their problem.

There's plenty of room for disagreement on this, I'm just trying to see the other side - at the pro level, I just can't understand why this is a hot topic.

I know SOME just don't like the Pats anyway, so this is an easy thing to criticize I'm not accusing you of that, I can tell you have this opinion globally.

Seems like there are a couple camps


- those that inherently dislike belicheck or the pats. this is an easy ax to grind.

- those that are just babies. randall godfrey comes to mind.

- those that stand on the moral high ground

- those that just take the view that generates the most talk and controversy. seems like lately several national types go out of their way to do this.


don't really hear a peep from most coaches or players though. like someone said, what's more insulting: taking a knee every play of the 4th quarter or going out there and continuing to play normally?

[miami_fan]

SI.com had a couple of columns on this earlier this week. Here is Dr. Z's

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....up/index.html

Essentially it is one of those "unwritten" rules of the sport. I find it similar to stealing a base or dragging a bunt up the line in baseball when the score is 30-1. Now, personally I don't have a problem with that either. I use the same rational. These are pros and it is not the offense's job to let up. It is the defense's job to stop. I know I am in the minority but that is the way it seems to me. I find it interesting that in baseball if someone did that, that person or someone else on the team would get a pitch placed in his earhole and everyone would cheer. Yet the suggestion that someone take a run at a football player in response to "running up the score" is somehow caveman like.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I was thinking about this a couple of days ago. It is interesting to see in various sports what the "unwritten" rules are.

Football - You should take your starters out and move to a conservative game plan
Baseball - You should still hit as well as you can, but not bunt for a hit or steal bases
Basketball - You can still score at will, but you should take your starters out
Hockey - I have no idea
Soccer - As far as I can tell, there is no letting up. Chelsea won 6-0 the other week and continued working hard for a goal and celebrated wholeheartedly the sixth goal.

I wonder what leads to the different mindsets in different sports. I guess the big thing to me, as someone who watches the premier league in England, is that the team in the lead is always trying to score, and at no point is considered "running it up" - if the goals keep going in, the losing team is the one that is looked down upon.

Interesting Post.

Football seems to be alone in the "running the score up is bad" department as far as pro sports goes. And in football, you have a much smaller bench to utilize than the other sports.

[Butter]

It's a bit different in soccer, though, as goal difference is tiebreaker #1. Point differential is not a major factor in any of the major American sports.

[Pumpy Tudors]

At least in pro sports, I stopped being a fan for "unwritten rules" a while back. I think it's when I found out about the one in baseball that says you're not supposed to break up someone else's perfect game by bunting for a hit.

So, yeah, unwritten rules can pretty much bite me.

[Daimyo]

The problem to me is not so much the Pats are running up the score its that the losing teams are letting them. If the Pats want to leave their starters in with 30 point leads and continue to pass deep and play aggressively the defense should do the same and start calling all-out blitzes and such. Don't try to injure, but basicallyhit Brady hard enough that he knows you're still playing the game too.... basically they should play just as hard and aggressive as the Pats.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The problem to me is not so much the Pats are running up the score its that the losing teams are letting them. If the Pats want to leave their starters in the defense should start calling all-out blitzes. Start hitting Brady just a bit late if you can't get the sack... basically they should play just as hard and aggressive as the Pats.

Right. I heard some people calling out Greg Williams after last week.

One of these games they should just cancel the second half and then see how foolish these other teams feel.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The problem to me is not so much the Pats are running up the score its that the losing teams are letting them. If the Pats want to leave their starters in with 30 point leads and continue to pass deep and play aggressively the defense should do the same and start calling all-out blitzes and such. Don't try to injure, but basicallyhit Brady hard enough that he knows you're still playing the game too.... basically they should play just as hard and aggressive as the Pats.

I agree with your point, but disagree with the common notion that the Pats aren't resting their starters in these games. Sure, they probably keep them in longer than other teams, but Matt Cassell (who scored a TD against Washington) and Kyle Eckel have seen garbage time action. Randy Moss ususally isn't in the game at the end, same with some of the older guys on defense.

[rkmsuf]

Or if you root against NE then you should be happy the more the starters are on the field.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Or if you root against NE then you should be happy the more the starters are on the field.

Of course.

I wonder what the reaction would be (god forbid), if the Colts were able to run up the store in a win against the Pats.

There'd be some sentiment that is was OK, because it was against the Pats. But I guarantee I wouldn't complain.

[rkmsuf]

I would be complaining about the Pats getting pasted. Not focussed on the Colts. Who gives a crap how they do it if they cream you by 30.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

That's a good point, Butter, one that I hadn't had thought of.

But it doesn't really speak to the whole sportsmanship issue. When Sheva hit #6 at the end of the game, they didn't solemly celebrate and get back to midfield. They did the whole run around, dogpile, cheering stuff.

If that had happened in American sports, they would have been castigated for it. But in England it's normal behaviour.

I wonder if this is related to the crowd in London booing after the Giants took a knee to end the Dolphins game?

I don't know about the last sentence, cause the booing really annoyed me - and gave Tom Coughlin the chance to be patronising towards us which annoyed me even more.

I always felt why football is pretty much alone in 'not running the score up in football' was the injury risk - being a more physical game, it's a trade off: the winning team take their foot off the gas and the losing team don't hit as hard to try to avoid injuring the opponents.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I always felt why football is pretty much alone in 'not running the score up in football' was the injury risk - being a more physical game, it's a trade off: the winning team take their foot off the gas and the losing team don't hit as hard to try to avoid injuring the opponents.

I can't see that being it. In fact nothing will get a guy ripped more by the announcers and the coaches than a defensive player letting up on an opponent that has been kicking your ass all over the field all day.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

What about players who have financial incentives in contracts that might not be reached if a winning team goes too conservative? What about potential free agent players that could get more money in the offseason by staying in longer and racking up stats and big plays? What about giving your reserves the full range of the playbook to see how they can perform in a non preseason game? What about the fans of the winning team (at least for home games) paying very high ticket prices that want to see their team play hard and full out for almost 4 entire quarters instead of 2 1/2?

I throw this out there because these issues have never really been raised too often in the discussion and I think they are valid points in favor of a team playing its normal game for almost all of it.

As a fan, if I committed an entire day taking my kid to a game and paying big bucks for tickets, parking, concessions, and then saw them take the second half off (and Brady, Moss, etc. coming out very early, I actually be a little pissed.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

Interesting Post.

Football seems to be alone in the "running the score up is bad" department as far as pro sports goes. And in football, you have a much smaller bench to utilize than the other sports.

No sure I agre with the smaller bench idea. Football rosters are 46? strong now? So basically you have a replacemnt and more for every position save the punter and kicker.

Hockey would have the smallest ratio because every player plays save the backup goalie most nights. You generally don't see the star players not getting their shifts. In most cases if its a blowout the players just tend to dump the puck and play defense more than if they were in a closer game.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

No sure I agre with the smaller bench idea. Football rosters are 46? strong now? So basically you have a replacemnt and more for every position save the punter and kicker.

Hockey would have the smallest ratio because every player plays save the backup goalie most nights. You generally don't see the star players not getting their shifts. In most cases if its a blowout the players just tend to dump the puck and play defense more than if they were in a closer game.

I think there's a couple of other factors that make football's bench smaller. Injuries, and the fact that you have more backups at QB, WR, and RB then any other positions. Teams don't usually have a back up at every position at O-line, linebacker, defensive back, and sometimes secondary. (Something I really only know from filling out FOF depth charts). And it's the only sport you can usually assume you'll lose at least a couple of people to minor injuries during the game, thinning the bench further. In basketball, it's easy enough to throw out 5 non-starters. With hockey, you can leave your entire first line out for the reasons you mentioned.