Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

HundleyBre15.jpg

» SDA: Bowl Position

The games this week are much less hyped than last week's, but they still feature closely-ranked teams vying for conference pecking order in bowl season.

08 Nov 2007

The Week in Quotes: November 8, 2007

compiled by Ben Riley

WHEN THE LEVEE BREAKS, HENRY HAVE NO PLACE TO STAY

"[Expletive] you ... [Expletive] this ... don't you know who I am?"

-- Comments allegedly made by suspended Bengals wide receiver Chris Henry to a parking attendant working at the "Newport on the Levee" complex in Newport, Kentucky, after Henry allegedly left his car without paying

"You better pick that up bitch."

-- Alleged statement of Henry after throwing a $5 bill on the ground

"[Expletive] you, you better hope I don't see you again."

-- Alleged statement made by Henry and/or his companion before leaving "Newport on the Levee: A World Away From the Everyday." (1530 Homer)

ALTERNATIVELY, MARC ECKO COULD HAVE BILL BELICHICK LAUNCHED INTO OUTER SPACE

"The Spygate thing has diminished what they've accomplished. You would hate to have that attached to your accomplishments. They've got it. Belichick was fined $500,000, the team was fined $250,000 and they lost a first-round draft choice. That tells you the seriousness or significance of what they found."

-- Don Shula, personally trying to diminish what the Patriots have accomplished this season, even though "Spygate" occurred in Week 1 of the 2007 NFL Season

"I guess you got the same thing as putting an asterisk by Barry Bonds' home run record."

-- Shula, still diminishing

"I guess it will be noted that the Patriots were fined and a No.1 draft choice was taken away during that year of accomplishment. The sad thing is Tom Brady looks so good, it doesn't look like he needs any help."

-- Shula

"I don't know how people can't agree with that."

-- Shula, when asked if an asterisk should be placed on the Patriots' accomplishments this season

"You have to acknowledge what they accomplished, but I don't know how you disregard Spygate. It's there. It happened. You don't know what was on those tapes and how much it helped. I think the commissioner just wanted it to go away."

-- Shula

"You guys put forth the myth that we are pathetic losers down here clicking champagne glasses and clinging desperately to a record set 35 years ago. Somehow we've been portrayed as being evil. We don't ever blow our own horn. It's a great record, but the record doesn't get beaten. The Patriots have assembled a powerhouse of a team. They are a classy bunch of guys and play ball the right way. If they want to join the unbeaten club, come on aboard."

-- Jim Mandich, tight end for the 1972 Dolphins, blowing his own horn

"We would not be unhappy. We're not trying to be obnoxious about it, but we're proud we have a record nobody else does. If New England does it this year, we will sit and raise a glass of champagne to them."

-- Dick Anderson, safety for the '72 Dolphins (New York Daily News)

KEEP CHOPPING WOOD, BUT MAKE SURE YOU COMPLETE SAID CHOPPING BEFORE 9 P.M. THURSDAY

"We need to get this thing tightened up."

-- Jaguars head coach Jack Del Rio, after suspending Jaguars rookie linebacker Justin Durant and second-year offensive lineman Richard Collier after both players were arrested in separate incidents on November 3 (Collier for DUI, Durant for resisting arrest). Also, left tackle Khalif Barnes was fined an undisclosed amount for arriving late to a team meeting, and defensive tackle Marcus Stroud was suspended for violating the league's substance abuse policy.

"We have rules, and we have discipline. Let me clarify that for you. This a misunderstanding out there. We have tons of rules. We have a booklet of rules, just like every other team. We have a manual on rules."

-- Del Rio

"Be on time, be prepared and be a professional."

-- Del Rio, describing his all-encompassing "three rules" of good behavior

"If you do those things, you're not going to have these issues. A professional wouldn't think about making the choice to be out late as opposed to being in bed."

-- Del Rio (Florida Times-Union)

"I am disgusted with the irresponsible behavior that some of our players have demonstrated. They are embarrassing themselves, our organization and their peers. Any time there is alcohol involved and being out in early-morning hours shows a lack of respect for the code of conduct we expect from everyone in the Jaguars organization."

-- Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver (Jaguars.com)

PEOPLE TALKING WITHOUT SPEAKING/ PEOPLE HEARING WITHOUT LISTENING

"CBS has informed us that the unusual audio moment heard by fans during the Patriots-Colts game was the result of tape feedback in the CBS production truck and was isolated to the CBS broadcast. It was in no way related to any sound within the stadium and could not be heard in the stadium."

-- Official statement from the NFL regarding the "unusual audio moment" during the Patriots-Colts game that sounded to some as if the Colts were pumping artificial crowd noise into the RCA Dome

"We trust this will put an end to the ridiculous and unfounded accusations that the Colts artificially enhanced crowd noise at the RCA Dome in any way."

-- Statement from the Indianapolis Colts (Colts.com)

TO KICK IS EXPECTED, TO WIN IS DIVINE

"You'll get compliments once in a while. 'You're the kicker. Nice kick. Your team stinks.'"

-- Lions kicker Jason Hanson, describing what it's like to play for the Lions until this year

"People will be like, 'Are you still playing?' Because nobody cared. That used to burn me up."

-- Hanson

"They do it because I'm their neighbor. Outside of family, nobody is pumped to wear their Lions shirt."

-- Hanson, describing the reaction to his usual Christmas gift of a Lions t-shirt (Detroit Free-Press)

YOU MEAN, APART FROM HAVING THE FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK GET INDICTED ON FEDERAL RACKETEERING AND CONSPIRACY CHARGES?

"I don't know what's happened since [I left the Atlanta Falcons] ... I left there thinking that team is going to be a hard-driving team to be reckoned with for the next 10 years."

-- Tim Ruskell, former assistant to Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay (Ruskell is currently the Seattle Seahawks general manager) (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

AT A MEDIUM PACE

"You've got to pace yourself. If you do too much, then it's useless. I did hear about a baseball player hurting himself or straining a muscle. I don't play it too much because I'm afraid of that, even though I don't see how that could happen."

-- Jaguars punter Adam Podlesh, describing his approach to ... Guitar Hero (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/110707/jag_215634712.shtml " target="_blank">Florida Times-Union)

THE WEEK IN HERM

"Damon's the guy ... He's done OK."

-- Herm Edwards' tepid endorsement of Chiefs' starting quarterback Damon Huard

"We're just going along, going along, and now we're going into our ninth game ... but what's great about it is we still have a shot at winning the division. That's the good thing."

-- Edwards

"I don't like going in at halftime when it's 6-0 or 10-3 ... It's too much pressure because you're always one play away from being down two scores when you play games like that. I'd like to have like a 20-point lead, and go in there, and say, 'Wow.' I might not come back. I might go home."

-- Edwards (Kansas City Star)

"He's got a swollen foot ... That's not good."

-- Edwards, describing the potentially season-ending injury to Chiefs running back Larry Johnson. Thou art a cruel mistress, Curse of 370. (Kansas City Star)

THE REST

"We've got to start beating teams that are good."

-- LaDainian Tomlinson (San Diego Union-Tribune)

"Loose bodies."

-- 49ers head coach Mike Nolan, describing what will be removed from the high-priced ankles of 49ers left tackle Jonas Jenning during his season-ending surgery (San Jose Mercury News)

"I played like [crap]. He [Ben Roethlisberger] played real well, and I didn't."

-- Ravens backup cornerback Derrick Martin, accurately assessing his play against the Steelers (Baltimore Sun)

"I got my head knocked and got a little dizzy."

-- Panthers quarterback David Carr, perhaps unsurprisingly, after suffering another concussion last Sunday (Gaston Gazette)

"Man you're short. I thought I was short ... You're shorter though, shorter than the ref! He got heels on."

-- Saints defensive tackle Hollis Thomas, talking to Jaguars running back Maurice Jones-Drew (from Inside the NFL)

"I am on my fantasy team. I think I'm gonna bench myself."

-- Lions wide receiver and TWIQ MVP-nominee Roy Williams, commenting on his play after notching a three-catch, 44- yard performance against the Broncos (Detroit Free Press)

Remember to send your quotes to quotes-at-footballoutsiders.com. Incidentally, in the opinion of the TWIQ compiler, track eight on "IV" is arguably the best rock song ever recorded. Listen to it, and revel in the genius that was John Bonham.

Posted by: Ben Riley on 08 Nov 2007

106 comments, Last at 12 Nov 2007, 1:14pm by Rich Conley

Comments

1
by Patrick (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 11:59am

i nominate:

"Whatever [the Steelers'] game plan was, it didn't work." Trevor Pryce, after his Ravens lost to the Steelers 38-7. In the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

2
by Doug Farrar :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 12:00pm

“I am on my fantasy team. I think I’m gonna bench myself.�

That's the ultimate "KCW" quote, is it not? Maybe he'll put himself on his own Loser League ballot.

3
by Flounder (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 12:21pm

At a medium pace! Ahhh, for the days when Adam Sandler was funny..........

4
by Costa (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 12:39pm

Gotta love Roy Williams!

5
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 12:51pm

Have we really made it to week 10 before the first Bengal arrest of the season?

6
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 12:54pm

Is there a more stupid phrase than, "Don't you know who I am?". Seldom do positive developments come forth after uttering these words.

I wish Don Shula would shut up.

7
by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:01pm

Will Allen (#6 )--

To be fair, we don't hear about all the times the “Don’t you know who I am?� ploy works.

8
by Aaron (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:06pm

Rich McKay owns the Falcons now? Arthur Blank is gonna be pissed to find that out.

9
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:06pm

Got a point there, star. It probably is less risky with parking attendents than with people with badges and weapons.

10
by zlionsfan (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:12pm

It's not really that hard to play Guitar Hero until you hurt yourself, especially not if you're using poor technique. Remember, we're talking about 20-somethings with a lot of free time on their hands. (Podlesh is only a year older than Zumaya, but maybe he's just not that into it.)

Maybe he could ask Stan or Kyle for tips on how to play for extended periods of time.

11
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:22pm

How do you get arrested for resisting arrest? What did Durrant do that they were trying to arrest him?

12
by hooper (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:36pm

Broncos WR Brandon Marshall, tongue firmly planted in cheek:

"You know what it was, man? No one ever talks about the Denver Broncos. You go 13-3, you don't hear about the Denver Broncos. You win a Super Bowl, you don't hear about the Denver Broncos. We had to make it exciting for you guys and lose a few games -- come up with a story, you know. Something like the Pittsburgh Steelers did when they won the Super Bowl. Lose a few, everybody's down and out and then we get some publicity. I think we did a good job of selling a bad season. Those three drops I had? Yes, that was an act. I dropped them on purpose. You guys are going to see a totally different team come Sunday."

(It was posted this morning on denverbroncos-dot-com.)

13
by Purds (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:38pm

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I am a Colts fan so I can't comment on this.

But I will.

I wish the NE video event did not happen, that BB did not do it nor get caught, that the NFL did not take away a draft pick.

Unfortunately, those things did occur. They really did.

Sure, Shula's not really the one who should point out the truth, but if he's asked directly, should he lie? The reality is that the video event complicates what should be the clearest-cut thing in the NFL, the NE dominance of the league this year.

14
by Purds (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:43pm

I know I'll take heat for that last comment, so let me add my contextual thinking here: I am all for athletes and coaches telling the truth. As an adult, I can't stand it when a boss tries to lie to me; I am insulted not so much by the lie but by that the thought that my boss wants employees who are so dumb they don't know they're being lied to.

(I could never be a Patriot player because of that, well, and the obvious physical limitations! But, I couldn't listen to BB with a straight face, unless he tells them in private a very different story.)

Finally, this is why I don't have a problem with someone like Peyton Manning telling the truth after the Steelers playoff loss a few years ago: "we had protection problems." That's what he said. Those with an agenda then called him a guy who threw his teammates under the bus (what a sad, overused cliche to begin with). What I saw in that statement was an athlete telling the truth.

15
by Diane (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:47pm

The "Mark Ecko" headline was priceless. Thanks for the morning laugh ...

16
by Ben Riley :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:55pm

#8

Whoops, my mistake. Fixed.

17
by gnomonclature (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:08pm

#13 I think Mike Vrabel said it best. "And I don't think that guys are going to draw on an old retired coach and old washed up players to pump us up."
And thanks for somehow bringing Peyton Manning into the discussion. I never saw it coming.

18
by bravehoptoad (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:10pm

...after both players were arrested in separate incidents on November 3 (Collier for DUI, Durant for resisting arrest).

How can you be arrested only for resisting arrest? They have to have been trying to arrest you for something in the first place for you to have been resisting it.

This makes it sound like he was DWB or something.

19
by bravehoptoad (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:12pm

Sorry for the double post...but why does everyone assume that Shula was trying to denigrate this season, rather than the previous three superbowls? All of those were won by three points. You wouldn't have to be cheating that much for it to have been a winning difference.

20
by johonny (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:14pm

Seems like the media for 2 weeks has been trying to bait the 1972 Dolphins into saying something bad about the Patriots. Too bad Shula finally gave in. Hey guess what all of a sudden not 1 but 4 negative 1972 articles pop out bashing the perfect Dolphins. It's almost like those were on the press ready to go when someone from 1972 team(!) said something. If the Pats go 16-0 and win the super bowl will books talk about spygate, sure. Will it be a negative, sure. (I think a real reporter might look harder at the HGH positive test by Harrison and the sudden resurgence of several older Patriots who were on serious decline coming into the season). But that's not what I'm here to talk about. It's this. WHO CARES WHAT THE 1972 TEAM HAS TO SAY. Why the heck bash Don Shula and the Dolphins? Check out the non-Florida sports bars. The 2 I regularly attend rarely have a person under 30 with Dolphin gear. The fish haven't won the Super Bowl in 34 years. They haven't been in the super bowl in 23 years. The last AFC championship game was 15 years ago. They have one of the longest playoff droughts in the NFL, and no hope that it will end soon. To me all this Don Shula, and Miami bashing this week just shows the writers age. They belong to the long ago past when the Dolphins mattered in the NFL. When it made sense to fly Miami some where to play an international game. When it made sense to get some Dolphin envy out and bash the 1972 team. If the Patriots make the Super Bowl this year they will have been in 6 Super Bowls(!) since the last Dolphins appearance in the big game SIX!!!. The Beast of the AFC east is long dead. Our team just doesn't warrant the press guys. Don't hate on the Dolfan, pitty us.

21
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:16pm

Forget it, I'm not entering into another discussion about how "complicating" or awful the taping shennanigans are, other than to note that anyone who gets their signs stolen is a complete moron, and I have limited interest as to the lives of morons. I say this as someone who advocated a much stiffer penalty for the Pats.

22
by James C (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:29pm

Purds

I wish the NE video event did not happen, that BB did not do it nor get caught, that the NFL did not take away a draft pick.

Unfortunately, those things did occur. They really did.

I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed above. I said on the threads at the time that it was a shame that it had happened and that it was clearly bad enough to invoke what was an unprecedented punishment. It was also a shame that Goodell opted to destroy the tapes without giving any meaningful insight as to exactly what went on. That move did nothing to remove any doubt as to how 'clean' the Pats three Superbowl wins were. There will likely never be the kind of disclosure required to fully reassure people that those three nail-biting games didn't involve any unfairly acquired advantages. The decision to opt for secrecy has left a 500lb Gorilla in the corner of the room which every league outlet or league approved broadcaster has chosen to ignore (the NFL is too big a honey-pot for anyone with a vested interest to tip it over). It is a stupid decision as sooner or later the gorilla will start throwing proverbial bananas (I guess I doubt that the full story will go with everyone involved to their graves). If the Pats and the league want the asterisk removed they should tell everyone the full story about how it got there, then there either would be a story or not.

The other thing that pisses me off about the whole debacle is that when you say anything critical about the scandal that isn't Patriot ball-washing you get accused of being bitter about how well they are playing this year. For the record I am not bitter (I am Murphy's ;) ), the two topics are unrelated, and the Pats are clearly playing great football this year.

23
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:34pm

I'll go one step further. Anybody who gets their signals stolen in the Super Bowl, short of having their communication between the coaches in the booth and the coaches on the sideline electronically intercepted, is too stupid to spend a moment being concerned about. Of course, that means Bill Callahan is too stupid to spend a moment being concerned about.

24
by Kneel Before Zod! (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:40pm

I fervently hope Shula is choking down whine instead of sipping champagne this year.
He maybe running his mouth because he knows the other topic of conversation, if the Pats do go 19-0, is going to be about the great teams the Pats had to beat and the cupcake schedule Shula lucked into.

25
by Eli Manning: Karaoke Superstar (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:43pm

#18: I assumed Shula was referring to this season because of this, "...the Patriots were fined and a No.1 draft choice was taken away during that year of accomplishment." So he was indeed referring to '07.

But if you ask me, Shula's comments are way off the mark. Its the accomplishments of the 2001-06 Patriots that have been denigrated. Spygate went down back in week 1, the Patriots never had a chance to derive an advantage from spying in '07...

Except perhaps where teams haven't changed their defensive signals since last year, but that doesn't seem possible. I had a little league coach once that changed his signals all throughout the season. Any pros that don't do the same must be bordering on incompetent.

26
by Eric P (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:46pm

19: I'm interested in this statement: "the sudden resurgence of several older Patriots who were on serious decline coming into the season." Who are those players you are referring to?

27
by jeff (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:52pm

Our society of laws recognizes the severity of a crime by two general concepts. Those crimes which are malum in se are punished with the full condemnation of everyone because we all recognized that such a crime is hideous and evil. The other concept are crimes which are malum prohibitum and represent crimes which for the good of society we need a rule to regulate them and the crime itself without the rule does not indicate an activity which on it's face is bad. The taping falls into the latter category. We made a rule which was broken but without the rule we wouldn't have recognized the taping as something which on its face was bad or evil. Don Shula is trying to protect his record. The taping was not malum in se but merely malum prohibitum. The entire discussion about an asterisk represents more than anything else just how much the media and the fans need something to talk about because the games themselves are just not that interesting.

28
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:02pm

"Sure, Shula’s not really the one who should point out the truth, but if he’s asked directly, should he lie? The reality is that the video event complicates what should be the clearest-cut thing in the NFL, the NE dominance of the league this year."

How? I could see it being an Asterix on 2004,2003, etc, but not on 2007. Theres absolutely no way it has had an effect on 2007, as it was caught 4 minutes into the first game.

29
by James C (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:07pm

#26

That argument makes no sense. You have taken the Patriots transgression within the boundaries of a league which has rules and a seperate ethical context to the rest of society and viewed it the light of what is accepted in regular society. If a guy in the street ran up to me and shoved me hard in the chest until I fell over it would be declared 'malum in se' by all right minded people (at least all those who don't actively dislike me). In the NFL it is blocking, no right minded person would blink an eyelid.

No the Pats didn't kill babies or anything of a similarly heinous nature, but they did break the rules of the quasi-societal structure in which they operate and exist. It is the rules and conventions of the quasi-societal strucure that they broke and must be judged by.

30
by slo-mo-joe (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:09pm

Can people please stop saying that the destruction of the Pats' illegal tapes prevents us from knowing whether and how much their record in the past few years is tainted?

The truth is, we will never know that, and the tapes cannot dispel the doubts, because the act of taping and the actual advantage derived from it at game time are distinct events. For the sake or argument, we can assume that the Pats had tapes of every signal ever sent by every opposing team's coaches for every game they played since the 1960's, and we still wouldn't know whether that information ever became useful at any time during a later game, and if it did, if the resulting coaching decision made a difference in the outcome of that play, and if that play was critical for the outcome of the game. Because of the way the information allegedly derived from the tapes would have likely been used during game situations, there wouldn't and couldn't be any direct evidence of its use.

In other words, knowing what was on the tapes Goodell destroyed would tell us diddly squat about the "taintedness" of the Pats' record. All it would have been good for would have been to cause more gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and baseless analysis from pundits and opposing teams/players. The only reasonable request Goodell could have made (which I strongly supported from the start) was for Belichick to actually explain publicly what the tapes were used for, and what advantage he derived from them. On the other hand, had he done so, most people who now constantly harp about the lack of transparency would not have believed him anyway.

So, overall, destroying the tapes, and thereby preventing their unauthorized leakage and additional damage to the league (by extending unfounded recriminations and/or by revealing analogous taping by other teams, evidence of which has been suggested to have been on the tapes) was not that a bad decision, really.

As for Shula, senility probably prevents him from realizing that if there is a Pats' season that cannot be assigned an asterisk, it is the current one (leaving aside the fact that his own arrival in Miami was tainted by proven rule-breaking by that team, and hence affects its subsequent records). The polite thing to do with yammering old folks is to let them yammer as much as they want, nod and move on.

31
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:14pm

"was for Belichick to actually explain publicly what the tapes were used for, and what advantage he derived from them. On the other hand, had he done so, most people who now constantly harp about the lack of transparency would not have believed him anyway."

I'm gonna try to find the quote, but I'm pretty sure he did explain what he was using them for (whether or not you want to believe him is up to you).

he said they were for tracking playcalling tendencies and advanced player scouting.

32
by mawbrew (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:17pm

Shula should have realized that there was no way he could make a comment like this without it looking like he's just some old codger trying to protect his 'legacy'. There's just nothing to be gained by it.

Re: 21

I think you're right about things eventually coming out, but minus the evidence there will always be doubt and debate. At this point, I'm even more mad about the way the NFL has handled this than I am about the Patriots cheating (and I'm plenty mad about that).

33
by JKL (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:18pm

You are missing the best of Herm this week. He actually had another "Q&A" yesterday, after the report from Denver came out that Larry had a broken foot and was done for the year. (http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/11/07/qa_with_herm_edwards__117/). The written description there has some editorial changes, even though it represents it as Herm's statements.

For example, he says doctors told him the foot was "swoll", not swollen. But you can access the video from that link. Good stuff as he puts on a dog and pony show trying to convince people he doesn't know and doesn't want to know the extent of LJ's injury.

Q: So, no one has told you that his foot is broken?

EDWARDS: “What I just told you is what I’ve been told. That’s all I care to know about, to be quite honest. What you have to understand is very simple. When you’re a football coach here’s what you want to know on Monday [after a game on Sunday]: is the player going to be available to play [next] Sunday? The doctor says maybe, questionable, doubtful. Once they tell me that they think he’s not going to be able to play I say fine and move on. That’s all I’ve got to do. I don’t have to worry about anything. I don’t have to worry about next week. I can’t control next week. I’ve got to concentrate on this week and get the football team ready to play. That’s where it’s at.�

34
by Purds (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:19pm

#16 And thanks for somehow bringing sarcasm into the discussion. I never saw coming such a witty rhetorical device on an internet forum.

35
by White Rose Duelist (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:29pm

Will Allen - If you don't want to talk about something, it's probably more productive to just not talk about it, rather than posting comments that are guaranteed to start a debate (that you may come into later) and then say you don't want to talk about it.

36
by RoyFlip (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:32pm

Don't remember where I heard this, but shouldn't the asterisk be on the Dolphins record: only 14 game regular season. Good enough for Roger Maris' 61*.....I played rugby against an old boys team with black and yellow striped jerseys. They called themselves the Used To Bee's. 72 Dolphins need to develop a similar perspective.

37
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:33pm

Not destroying/showing the tapes would have accomplished precisely nothing.

The same people (here and elsewhere) who are sanctimoniously proclaiming "without being able to see those tapes, we have to proclaim the Patriots evil" would, if the tapes were shown, be proclaiming just as sanctimoniously "well, how do we know that Goodell showed us everything or that the Pats handed over everything. Showing those tapes was a meaningless, hollow gesture designed to try to make it all blow over. We have no choice but to proclaim the Patriots evil"

I'm also amused to hear proven, penalized cheater (thank you AP and Jim Laske!) Don Shula in full sour grapes mode. Hey Donny -- as a Pats fan I can tell you it makes my day to see how jealous you are over the Pats success!

38
by gmc (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:34pm

I'm a Colts fan, but I don't care about Spygate. So they taped it - it isn't like they weren't watching the signs anyway - all they get is the oppotunity to watch them some more.

And it was the JETS for God's sake.

Herm should get an honorary KCW for LJ's injury given that it is such an obvious 370 curse issue... or 416 curse issue...

The best Herm quote is the one about a 20 point lead.

39
by White Rose Duelist (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:40pm

How about, instead of dicsussing Shula or taped signals, we talk about this awesome picture from the Onion? (link in name) I suspect this will make it a lot tougher for him to pass for 5,000 yards.

40
by Purds (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:55pm

Patsfan:

Why is it "sanctimonius" to ask for a visual explanation of what exactly caused the NFL to take a first round draft pick away from a team? It's not like the NFL takes draft picks away every day.

Let's face it; destroying the tapes was just a strange, unnecessary move by the NFL. Personally, I am almost certain those tapes show nothing more than we expect, a few coaches giving signals. So, if it's that simple, why destroy them, or rather, why destroy them so quickly? It's more odd than damaging, I think, to the NFL or NE.

I mean, are the tapes themselves dangerous? We see Herm picking his nose or something? And, as everyone on both sides has noted, everyone with a brain has since changed signs, so they can't have any lasting football value. Why, then, destroy them. Just odd.

If you were to look at it objectively, and this were in another context, the "stink" test would be failed (if it stinks, there's probably something wrong here). For example, what if a school fired a teacher for filming his classes without permission of the students, the filming in itself an innocuous event the teacher used to study himself, how his students reacted to his questions, etc. Now, say, the school board collected all the tapes and burned them, assuring everyone that there was nothing incriminating about the tapes. Wouldn't that seem odd?

Again, I wish the whole thing had never happened. If last Sunday's NE/Indy game proved anything to me, it's that NE is very good, deserves all the credit, and has great players whose incredible story this year is being unfairly muddled by two stupid things, the video event and the late scores. It's like there is a conspiracy , but it's a conspiracy to not let the NE players shine gloriously in what they've accomplished. (As an aside, I single out the players, not the coaches, because in watching Sunday I was struck by how much, even if we want to talk about the brilliance of BB or the Dungy Tampa 2, that game was decided by great players making great plays: Addai's TD run, Brackett's interception, Moss' long catch while being mauled, Brady's first TD throw through the defensive traffic, Welker's punt return late where he had just a little opening but turned it into 30 yards, Sander's stop on 3rd and 1)

41
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:00pm

"I mean, are the tapes themselves dangerous? We see Herm picking his nose or something? And, as everyone on both sides has noted, everyone with a brain has since changed signs, so they can’t have any lasting football value. Why, then, destroy them. Just odd."

Because maybe the Patriots handed over a whole bunch of tapes that they hadn't themselves recorded. Maybe they handed over tapes they'd traded with other teams.

Either way, showing the public would do nothing to make this better (people would still be questioning if they showed everything) and could make things worse.

42
by johonny (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:07pm

34 -I agree completely. Dolphins and the fans are completely jealous over the Pats. I know I am. Why shouldn't I be? The Pats are winning and the Press loves them. Miami stinks and the press still hates them. Why all the negative Dolphin news still! The media is living 15-20 years in the past when everyone in Northeast was jealous of the Shula and the Dolphins. They don't get that the modern Dolfan doesn't see his team as the BIG team of the East but the doormat and perennial 2nd banana to Pats, Bills or Jets season in and season out (heck they aren't even good enough to be second banana anymore). There are plenty of negative stories one could write about this Pats team. But oddly I'm not reading them instead I'm getting negative news about the 1972 Dolphins! Hey media get over it, the Pats are now the Eastern team. Their the Cowboys, Raiders, Dolphins, 49ners of the naughts. I don't need more negative news about the Dolphins. In case you haven't noticed they stink. Dolfans need your pity and a little nice press about Shula and 1972 because frankly most of us Dolfans are forgetting why we watched them on Sundays.

43
by Bobman (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:12pm

Let's just ignore Mr. Shula and celebrate the open-arms policy of Jim Mandich and Dick Anderson, also quoted above. They are busting the media cliche and acting like grownups.

If one were to take Shula seriously, you'd find him teetering between two statements: (1) Season 2007 is tainted because they cheated in ONE game (the first one, for about 20 minutes) against a lame opponent and then were made to stop? NO, 2007 is not tainted, unless you somehow believe the 20 minutes of Jets signals they destroyed somehow helped them beat Indy last week.

Ergo, (2) previous seasons/SBs are tainted in Shula's mind (his among others), but that has no bearing on the asterisk he's proposing if they go 19-0 in 2007. He always struck me as a pretty sharp guy... until now.

When a Colt fan is defending the Pats, 5 days after losing to them, something must really be screwy. (musta been that brain removal surgery I had yesterday! waah-ha-ha. I kill me.)

Personally, I now want them to go 16-0 because I feel that there will be some slight mental let-down after the season (every slight advantage helps) and the extra effort to accomplish 16-0 will likely leave a few extra nicks and bruises on the players, especially the older guys and rookies, again maybe slowing them down just a step, by the time they face Indy again (if). It'll also make someone's win (Indy? Pitt? Tenn? the NFC North amalgam team proposed in another thread?) all the more glorious in the playoffs, if it happens.

Go Pats! Until mid-January, that is.

44
by FullmoonoverTulsa (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:13pm

#33 - were they from Nanaimo?

45
by Flounder (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:14pm

*sigh* Yet another FO thread ruined........

46
by Bobman (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:17pm

Hey, shula has come back to planet earth. Maybe it weas the medication talking.... link at my name.

47
by AlexDL (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:17pm

As a Patriots fan myself, I would have liked the opportunity to have viewed what was on the tapes that were handed over. I am of the belief that more information is better. Unlike seemingly most people in authority, I trust people to draw their own conclusions and make up their own mind from the facts as they are presented. Not having that information severely limits the facts that we do have and does nothing but promote uninformed speculation.

If the tapes were no more than a scouting tool, as I would like to believe. I want to know that. If the tapes were used to actively gain an advantage in game, I want to know that information also.

Regarding Don Shula, why shouldn't he say what he feels? I just don't understand the feeling that everything has to be taken as a personal insult. The guy has an opinion. So be it.

Purds (37) that was very well said.

48
by slo-mo-joe (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:20pm

#25:
19: I’m interested in this statement: “the sudden resurgence of several older Patriots who were on serious decline coming into the season.� Who are those players you are referring to?
That would be the same players who before the Colts game (actually, up to half-time in that game, according to some prominent TV commentators) were said to look old and washed up. Go figure.

49
by bravehoptoad (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:26pm

#18: I assumed Shula was referring to this season because of this, “…the Patriots were fined and a No.1 draft choice was taken away during that year of accomplishment.� So he was indeed referring to ‘07.

He was making those statements to validate how serious the cheating was. The Patriots were guilty of cheating to an extent not seen before in the NFL, as proven by how steep the fine was.

Shula's not stupid. He's not suggesting 19-0 get an asterisk, if it happens. He's talking about the ramifications of the cheating on the Pats "dynasty" of the last few years.

50
by gnomonclature (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:27pm

Purds, I would expect sarcasm on an internet forum, even if it isn't the rhetorical device that witty folk like you prefer. Bringing up Peyton Manning in a discussion of Shula's opinion of the Pats isn't any better. Admittedly, I brought a rock to a gunfight, but the best you could manage was a stale turd.

51
by mawbrew (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:31pm

Re: 28/34

You're right about there being ongoing suspicion about whether the Pats turned in all the evidence. Such is your fate when you're caught cheating - people will be considerably more skeptical of your honesty.

And again the NFL's behavior in this regard didn't help matters. They were very passive in actually collecting any evidence.

Having said that, if the Pats actually did comply with Goodell's request there may have been considerably more to it than just the tapes. Presumably, there would be documentation about the decoded signals indicating when they had been decoded (game day or later). There may have even been documentation about which teams (if any) changed their signals between when the info was decoded and the next time the Pats played them. We have no idea what records the Pats kept.

If the NFL had been more aggressive in collecting evidence and more tranparent about what they discovered, there may still have been doubt (see first paragraph), but people would have been able to reach their own conclusions.

52
by zip (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:33pm

Roy Williams is funny.

#36 is funny.
#46 is funny.

I have high hopes for #56 based on this pattern.

The rest of this discussion is not funny.

Damn.

53
by patriotsgirl (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:39pm

35: I agree, this quote deserves a spot in the Herm Hall of Fame:
I’d like to have like a 20-point lead, and go in there, and say, ‘Wow.’ I might not come back. I might go home.�

It's the funniest thing I've read in a while.

Re: 42. Even before reading that link, I was inclined to blame the media rather than Shula for those comments; they were obviously trolling for someone to try to start controversy.

54
by sam (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:45pm

wrt 36:

Perhaps now is a good time to mention that I was walking through the parking lot of a school for the study of Christian worship the other day minding my own business when I almost fell over after seeing the following bumper sticker:

WHAT WOULD ED HOCHULI DO?

55
by sam (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:47pm

I for one am also interested in what Durant was doing before resisting arrest without violence.

Although if I remember correctly from my U.S. Government class in high school, a lot of things technically fall into the category of "arrest." As in, if you get pulled over for speeding you are technically "under arrest." Maybe that has something to do with it.

56
by bsr (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:49pm

#43 - Do the tapes come with a football pedigree that will help you decipher what your looking at? If not then I think showing them to the public is as useful as showing a lay person an MRI scan. Without putting it into context it is nothing at all to look at. In this case, why not just take the opinion of the expert, a football coach to tell you what you are looking at. To my knowledge, almost all football coaches have said this is very minor. From Chuck Knox who called it "a whole lot of nothing" to even Dungy who stated "No, I don’t think it was an advantage." Parcells, Jimmy Johnson, Martz, Cowher almost every coach that would be in the know about these things says it isn't a big advantage if at all. If these guys don't think it is a big deal then why do people feel the need to make a big deal out of it?

57
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:55pm

"...Jack Del Rio, after suspending Jaguars rookie linebacker Justin Durant and second-year offensive lineman Richard Collier after both players were arrested in separate incidents on November 3 (Collier for DUI, Durant for resisting arrest)."

I'm pretty sure you have to have an attempt at arrest made on you for something else arrest-worthy, in order to be charged with resisting arrest.

58
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:59pm

Once again I'm late to the party...

Sam - check out the link in my name.

59
by The Boilermaster (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 5:01pm

@50: The obvious answer is "lift more weights".

Speaking of SuperRef, does anyone else feel that he's overrated as a ref simply because he's so recognizable? I mean, i really don't know the names of many other refs, yet Hochuli has gotten quasi-famous.

60
by The Boilermaster (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 5:08pm

@54:

That is awesome....

Probably my favorite thing on that website is the "Dont Kiss Me I'm Polish" shirt, even though it's not strictly speaking about Ed Hochuli.

61
by Doug (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 5:20pm

Hey guys,

Not to beleaguer the point, but the Patriots' punishment is not "Unprecedented." The Denver Broncos got a similar punishment (loss of draft pick, fines) due to their Salary Cap cheating during their Super Bowl winning era. I'm pretty sure the Niners got something similar meted out in the late days of their Dynasty. No one begrudges those wins to Denver & Elway or to San Fran & Young - it's just competitive gamesmanship in a professional sports league to fudge the Salary Cap, but I'd say that having more good players on the payroll than is allowed is probably more beneficial than having a videotape of something you can see on television.

New England "cheated" in the first half of the first game of the season. If the rest of the league hasn't changed their signs since then, they DESERVE to be beaten.

I'm a longtime Niners fan, but I think the Patriots team this season has been unreal and I have to give them credit where credit is due. They're a fantastic team.

62
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 5:37pm

57: If we're listing teams that have been docked 1st round Draft pick, let's not forget to mention the Dolphins, who were punished for hiring... Don Shula away from the Colts.

63
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 6:07pm

47.

"If the tapes were no more than a scouting tool, as I would like to believe. I want to know that. If the tapes were used to actively gain an advantage in game, I want to know that information also."

Alex, how do you propose to know what the tapes were used for by looking at them? We know what was on them: Other coaches making hand signals, and the clock, time, score, etc.

64
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 6:18pm

Re: #36

Great find! We should ponder what other signals can double as attacks in single combat.

65
by PHn (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 6:38pm

After howling in laughter at the links in #36 and #54, I hereby request an upcoming TWIQ section be dedicated to Mr. Hoculi or, lacking material, refs in general.

66
by bubqr (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 6:51pm

Damn, wrong pattern.

67
by Jimmy (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 7:16pm

#57

Denver got fined a draft pick for breaching salary cap rules. To be clear, they were under the cap during the year that they commited the transgression, but as a result of building a new stadium were very short of cash. To resolve the problem they approached John Elway and asked him if he would mind defering his salary for the year and receiving the money plus interest a year later, as he was already pretty loaded he agreed. I can see why the league wanted to penalise the team to stop that kind of problem occuring, but the Broncos didn't gain a competitive advantage by their actions.

68
by Vincent Verhei :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 7:21pm

A note from Ben Riley, who's having trouble logging on himself right now:

"There seems to be some confusion over the arrest of Jags LB Justin Durant. He was, in fact, arrested for "resisting arrest," which is a crime unto itself. According to Wikipedia:

Resisting arrest is a term used in the United States and elsewhere to describe a criminal charge against an individual who has committed at least one of the following acts:

Eluding a police officer who is attempting to arrest the individual;
Using or threatening to use force against an officer during an arrest;
Providing an officer with false identification (either verbally or by presentation of a false official document, i.e. a fake ID)."

69
by Doug (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 7:46pm

@62:

Not to be argumentative, but isn't getting to keep Elway on the team (AND have a new stadium, for use as a lure to bring in better talent players as part of their perk/benefits of salary) a competitive advantage?

If he'd been an ass about it and said "no, pay me the money" - well, their "Enron Style Creative Accounting" wouldn't have been able to keep him anyway. But he saw the potential benefits to go along with the scheme.

(I'm not an expert on that Denver situation, so correct me if this is crazy. But I'm just of the opinion that everyone out there is gaming the system to get an advantage, and that the Jets didn't have much chance against the Pats anyhow - and the NFL has cleared any other wrongdoing with the tapes, much like they cleared the Colts of Crowd Noise violations. So we should move on and enjoy the ridiculous level of talent on the field for New England while we have it... The season'll sadly be over all too soon!)

70
by Jimmy (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 8:02pm

The season’ll sadly be over all too soon

I am a Bears fan, right now I am not sure that the season can't be over soon enough. ;)

71
by g-man (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 8:18pm

37 - Since spygate, I have seen comments about revealing to the public what was on the tapes that the Patriots turned over the Goodell. My interpretation of the events is that Goodell was extremely upset that the Jets-confiscated-tape was leaked to the public and that he didn't want all the other tapes turned over to be seen because the purpose of taking the tapes from the Patriots was so they couldn't utilize them to gain an advantage over the competition. By releasing them to the public, the Patriots, and any other team, could utilize the information on them to gain an advantage.

My understanding is that Goodell required that Belichick turn over all tapes and associated documentation, including notes, to the NFL so BB could not gain any advantage from them. By destroying the tapes, it guarantees that noone can leak them or utilize them. Of course, Goodell has to trust BB to fully comply with his requirement of turning over all copies. Goodell is also relying on Kraft's abhorrence of the incident to help keep BB in line and the fact that BB has no history of directly lying to the NFL. Goodell implied a much more severe penalty if he finds out that BB did not fully comply with this requirement.

72
by Athelas (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 9:02pm

Re #36-
I think it would be funnier with Mike Carey. He whips his arm around so fast...

73
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 9:47pm

Re: #67

Yeah, but Carey doesn't have the Hulk-like strength for the actual decapitation :)

74
by dazed and confused (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 9:51pm

#62
Hmmm I wonder what would have happened if the Broncos had missed payroll because they short of cash. I'd guess their season just might have turned out a little differently. It is naive in my mind to think they derived no competitive advantage from their actions.

75
by Boggle (not verified) :: Thu, 11/08/2007 - 11:20pm

One possible reasons for destroying the evidence is that it implicated other teams in similar activities. I have heard that the Jets were taping the Patriots signals last year but were just asked to stop and not reported to the NFL. What if New England had some evidence of this and / or other rule infractions and gave this to Goodell? I could see him wanting to destroy the evidence to avoid the entire league becoming embroiled in controversy.

As a Patriots fan, I accept the punishment as there is no question rules were broken. What irritates me is that belief that the Patriots have done something dramatically worse than what every other team has done or is doing. For example, there are regularly issues with communication for visiting teams (e.g. Patriots had no coach-to-QB communication during the Indianapolis game, but the Colts still used their communication system). These situations also give a competitive advantage (as large as taping signals in my view), but nobody talks about them at all. No NFL team is totally clean and New England's infractions should be seen in that light.

76
by oldnumberseven (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 4:22am

I agree with Purds parenthetical note that the cliche '...under the bus' is overused, and should be retired. Plus what does Jerome Bettis have to do with any of it anyway? Why throw someone under Bettis anyway? First, you have to pick up Jerome, then put someone under him, then what?

77
by Jimmy (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 8:08am

#69

The whole problem could almost certainly have been resolved another way by taking out further loan facilities (I say from personal experience as a FD of a construction company, although with nothing as large as a stadium), but until you have overseen the budget of a construction project you have no idea how limited cashflow can really start to screw things up. As I say it could have been resolved through further loans but all that would have acheived would have been shipping 3% extra of the money to a bank.

The Broncos didn't get any extra players on the field or on their roster as a result of their transgression, but the league didn't want that kind of financial practice to go ahead so they issued a punitive fine.

78
by Jimmy (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 8:21am

Sorry to double post, but I had a further thought. I suspect that the prime mover behind getting the Broncos fined for their finacial manouvering was the union. I imagine they were furious that a player had been asked (however amenable to it Elway was) to delay his salary to allow speculative investments by the ownership. Elway was clearly glad to help, but I suspect the union wanted to ring fence players fees from any similar action in the future. It might not seem like a bad idea with a guy that is loaded like Elway but imagine an owner telling his rookies that half of their money is going to be held back until he has finished the mall complex on the side of his stadium. When you hear stories about how some owners used to shaft the players on a regular basis it doesn't suprise me that the union wanted this trodden on. Upshaw and Tagliabue were so tight that Upshaw probably wrote the grievance. For the record I think the Broncos received an appropriate punishment, but didn't gain a competitive advantage.

I can't see it overly bothering the other teams, everyone profits when a team gets a fancy new facility.

79
by RickD (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 11:42am

I'm pleased that some people have found a way to continue to snipe at the Patriots during their bye week.

It's two-and-a-half months later. Get over it. Nobody is saying anything new at this point. The Colts just played the Pats in Indy, with all the officiating helping the Colts and the radio link to Brady's helmet out and the Colts still lost. Deal with it.

80
by sam (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 12:35pm

63 (Vince/Ben):

OK, but if he resisted being arrested by doing any of those three things... we'd like to know what the original arrest attempt was for. What was he doing that got the cops involved and wanting to arrest him in the first place?

81
by James C (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 2:21pm

I’m pleased that some people have found a way to continue to snipe at the Patriots during their bye week.

It’s two-and-a-half months later. Get over it. Nobody is saying anything new at this point. The Colts just played the Pats in Indy, with all the officiating helping the Colts and the radio link to Brady’s helmet out and the Colts still lost. Deal with it.

Way to go you have just proved what several earlier posters had said, namely that if you try do discuss the topic in a sane manner some demented little Pats troll will turn up and bleat on about how it is because they are playing well.

with all the officiating helping the Colts

Mike Pereira has explained that the Pats weren't cheated by the refs, here is what he had to say about the Hobbs PI,

"“When the contact first occurred, and that’s where you look at the cut-off, when the contact first occurred between the receiver and the defender, has the defender turned around, and is he making a legitimate play on the ball? No, he’s not until after this contact occurs,� explained Pereira, who was illustrating his point for viewers with a replay in front of him.

“He does eventually get his head around, but it’s pass interference, because this initial contact, with Ellis not playing the ball, with Reggie playing the ball, makes it pass interference on Ellis Hobbs and the correct call.�"

So just to clear this up for you, you are plain wrong. All of the Pats ball washing that went on during the Indy/Pats audibles thread was just plain deluded, you really shouldn't allow it to distort your judgment. The refs had a good game, the Pats commited the penalties they were penalised for, deal with it. They still won, what are you whining for?

82
by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 3:47pm

James C (#76 )--

I heard Pereira's explaination, but did not agree with it. Hobbs was reaching for the ball with both hands when he was finally tackled by Wayne. The "initial contact" Pereira refers to sure looks like incidental contact: Wayne's hand hits Hobbs as Wayne is pumping his arms, running, and Hobbs is already turning his head for the ball at that point.

Pereira seems to be a good guy and all, but also seems to go to great lengths to justify calls made. This one was bad. More spin from him or vituperation from you won't make it good.

83
by RickD (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 5:44pm

Way to go James.

I complain that there have been 40+ messages rehashing the video issue that has been done to death on these message boards, and you call me a "demented troll".

Way to go keeping the standards up.

I'm amazed that you simultaneously accuse me of being a troll while accusing me of whining and generally indulging your passion for ad hominem arguments.

How...special.

1) "Pats ball washing". A phrase that lowers the standards of this website.

2) "demented little troll". A phrase that lowers the standards of this website.

For the logically impaired, if the refs call 146 yards worth of penalties on the Pats and 45 yards of penalties on the Colts, and if, furthermore, several of the calls against the Pats were at best dubious while there were egregious non-calls favoring the Colts, it is at least a _reasonable_ statement to make that the officiating helped the Colts.

It certainly didn't hurt them, did it?

Moreover, it is entirely possible that a person has problems with the officiating as a whole, and not with any particular play. Wasting a paragraph defending a call one one play, when the other person wasn't questioning the call on that particular play, is an example of a wasted argument. Good job burning a strawman, James.

My point wasn't "whining" about calls. My point was that there are some people here who just cannot stop complaining about the video. And I get the sense that some of them are Colts fans.

Because they say they are Colts fans.

And I get the sense that they are complaining about the video because they have nothing to say about Sunday's game. But they are still angry about the loss, so they are harping on about other things.

It's exactly like the endless rants about the Pats "running up the score". There are people mad at the Pats for whatever reason they have. But they feel that they cannot complain about the video thing, because the penalty was laid down by the NFL, and it's an old topic.

So, for about five weeks, we had to hear these people _every week_ complaining about the Pats scoring second-half TDs, as if the Pats were the only team to win a football game by 30 or more points in the history of the NFL.

It gets tiresome after a while.

So, because there isn't even a glimmer of hope of beating the "running up the score" drum _this week_, these same people are riding the "spygate" hobby horse.

Yet again.

My complaint?

I am tired of it all. I would like to be able to read the message boards at FO without having every single fucking thread degenerate into a Pats-related morass.

And you know what?

Your little self-righteous ad hominem bit didn't help things any. Calling me "demented"? Calling me a "troll"?

And just what was that bit about "Pats ball washing"? I was posting live during the Pats-Colts game. I made my position clear then as now: I thought the PI calls were a bit ticky-tack, but I wasn't going to argue them.

But thanks for picking a fight with me.

84
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 6:31pm

Re: #81

You forgot to mention that on the screen as Pereira was saying that, you could see Hobbes turn around before any contact was made, whereupon he was illegally tackled by Wayne.

85
by Daniel (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 6:48pm

Why point out how many penalties were called, and for how much yardage? Just because the Patriots were called for more penalties and more yards, doesn't mean that the officiating was biased. Unless you believe that the calls were incorrect. To me it looked like the Colts were controlling the game through much of the first 3 quarters. They were setting the tempo on offense and their pass rush was putting a lot of pressure on Brady. Therefore you can expect that they will draw a lot of pass interference, false starts, and holding. The refs called more penalties on the Patriots because they committed more penalties. When they adjusted their gameplan they then had the advantages and they dictated the tempo and cranked up their pass rush and won the game. To me the biggest blunder by the refs was a noncall on holding against the Patriots that should have negated Brady's 19 yard scramble for an important first down.

86
by Fat Tony (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 7:29pm

re: 85 The Colts dominated but got screwed by the refs? Really?

You really, in your heart of hearts, think Ellis Hobbs and Randy Moss committed PI but Gary Brackett didn't? You really think it unremarkable that the Pats had to waste a challenge on Moorehead's non-catch?

The only reason the lousy officiating wasn't a huge topic this week is because the Patriots won the game.

87
by Roscoe (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 7:36pm

#75 A cop needs "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed to arrest. However, with "reasonable suspicion" (a lesser standard) a cop can engage in a brief investigatory detention. If the person stopped refuses to comply, he is "resisting arrest" even though the cop didn't actually have cause to make an actual arrest.

88
by Longsufferer (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 8:08pm

re 84: you must have seen the Pats homer replay. The one I saw had Hobbs cut off the route and make contact, and then quickly whip his head around to make it look like he was looking for the ball. The official did a good job not falling for his act.

On an unrelated note, anybody heard any follow up to the Chris Henry incident? I know the guy's no angel, but he has also been the target of at least two false reports in recent memory (failed a drug test - authorities confirmed he had not, and was involved in an assault in Cincy during the offseason - turns out he wasn't in town at the time.)

The story just seems to have died suspiciously quickly and quietly.

Final comment: according to a friend of mine, "resisting arrest" can be used for failing to comply with any request from an officer, so technically you don't have to be getting arrested to resist arrest, just be ignoring an officer's command. The phrase doesn't really make sense in that context, but apparently that's how it is frequently applied.

89
by Karl Cuba (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 9:27pm

Re: The Hobbs PI- I have noticed that Pats defensive backs seem to do this all the time (I can only assume they're being coached that way). On a deep pass they cut off the reciever from the ball, make no real effort to play the ball but turn their heads in the direction of the ball in order to give the impression that they are. Just because they're looking for ball doesn't mean thay're trying to catch it. For example, they did it to Berrian repeatedly last year and Hobbs was doing exactly that. They get away with it most of the time though so it's probably a good idea and is no worse than giving up a deep pass. (A cynic would say that it's another example of gamesmanship by the Pats though.)

90
by terryh (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 9:51pm

#87: OK, but the initial question remains, what was he "reasonably suspected" of doing? Whatever it was, its lack of inclusion in the final charge could lead one to assume that the suspicion may not have been entirely reasonable.

91
by slo-mo-joe (not verified) :: Fri, 11/09/2007 - 11:58pm

#89
Of course, in order to cut off someone who's runny parallel to you, you need to be a step ahead of them. If a defender is a step ahead of a receiver while running for the ball, they have the right to the ball.

The "initial contact" of the arms that Pereira claimed was a foul occurs on essentially every similar play and is never called, because it is normally considered ininfluential - the players didn't tangle, and there was no push. If they called those, every single long pass would result in PI.

Just think, if Hobbs had been the receiver and Wayne the defender, would there be any doubt this was PI? A beaten defender taking down a receiver after they had been smoked to the ball?

As for making excuses, I really don't think it's necessary: everyone knows the Colts have a good fighting chance if they happen to meet the Pats again, wherever that will be. But if Colts fans think that just recovering Harrison and Ugoh will do it, they are in for a rough landing. What the Colts really need Clark to produce on those underneath routes, instead of being shutdown by Harrison. Then they won't need freakish 73-yard catches and gift-wrapped first-and-goals to go the length of the field.

92
by Purds (not verified) :: Sat, 11/10/2007 - 10:15am

Re #91 and #83

I am one of the Colts fans, but I have no anger about the loss at all. The Colts made fewer big plays than the Pats. But, I do think you two have some odd logic:

1) Regarding penalty yardage. You call it 147-46, but if Moss doesn't catch the 55-yarder while being mauled by the Colts, NE accepts that penalty that the refs called, and the numbers look more even, 147-101. If Moss had not caught that pass while being fouled, would that mean the refs had a much better day calling the game? Obviously not. This number comparion is a silly one.

2) No Colt fan should think the addition of Ugoh and Harrison guarantees a win. But, if Ugoh is out there and does not need constant help in pass blocking, and Harrison is out there taking up deep safety help, you don't think Clark might find a bit more room over the top if Rodney continues to play him underneath?

Let me outline the potential (remember, this is only potential) Colt lineup in a way a NE fan can understand: if all 4 starters and Gonzales, who was injured on the first play of the game, come back helthy in a playoff rematch, it's like if NE had played the first game without Stalworth, Welker, Light, Bruschi and Vrabel, and then the second time with those guys. Would that guarantee a win? Of course not. Would I like my chances, even on the road? Of course.

It's not a problem that the Colts lost, nor can you blame it on injuries, as they are a reality and may never improve this year. However, history need not repeat itself in the playoffs, and if you're a Colt fan, the potential return of 5 starters is something to be hopeful about.

93
by Jimmy (not verified) :: Sat, 11/10/2007 - 2:04pm

Rick D

You complain that I was 'ad hominem' in my post to you. Your post was an attack on almost every post on the thread, calling us sore and claiming we are obsessed with trying to sully the Patriots. I am not a Colts fan, and I didn't bring this up, Don Shula did.

For the logically impaired, if the refs call 146 yards worth of penalties on the Pats and 45 yards of penalties on the Colts, and if, furthermore, several of the calls against the Pats were at best dubious while there were egregious non-calls favoring the Colts, it is at least a _reasonable_ statement to make that the officiating helped the Colts

You made most of that up, it is just your opinion, writing 'logically' near the start of it doesn't make it so. Using words like egregious when in defense of the Pats and dubious about the Colts also doesn't help matters. The yardage totals of both teams penalties are also unimportant, the Pats got penalised for penalties they commmited. The officials had a good game.

I will admit to going off the deep end, but your initial post was inflamatory. There was no need to accuse various people of having snide agendas and being bitter. You conflated this by claiming the Pats were also stiffed by the refs, which isn't true, and if you have a look at the audibles thread you will see that discussion on the topic was prevented by the very same 'demented Pats trolls' of which I spoke. People who think the Pats were stiffed on the PI calls don't understand the rules.

I am tired of it all. I would like to be able to read the message boards at FO without having every single fucking thread degenerate into a Pats-related morass.

I suspect that most people are tired of it, but claiming that everyone else is bitter and has sour grapes won't improve matters.

94
by Slo-mo-joe (not verified) :: Sat, 11/10/2007 - 3:07pm

#92:
I agree that the return of the 5 Colts starters may improve things, but I think their impact has been largely overstated, with the exception of Ugoh's. Certainly it is not even remotely comparable to the Pats losing Stallworth, Welker, Light, Bruschi and Vrabel, 3 of whom can be considered reasonable Pro-Bowl candidates at this point of the season, where none of the missing Colts is (well, possibly Ugoh again, with some rookie affirmative action).

I also don't think Marvin Harrison's play so far (or even before his injury) warrants more than basic deep coverage, and the benefit to Clark from his presence would likely be limited. On the other hand, Clark is the Colt receiver who is more likely to benefit from New England winter conditions, so he will probably have more impact in a playoff game there regardless.

Anyway, here's to hoping the two teams will play again with a full, healthy roster in January (and good refs). That ought to be fun for sure.

95
by Karl Cuba (not verified) :: Sat, 11/10/2007 - 3:09pm

slo-mo-joe: "Just think, if Hobbs had been the receiver and Wayne the defender, would there be any doubt this was PI? A beaten defender taking down a receiver after they had been smoked to the ball?" -But Hobbs would have been making an effort to catch the ball and would have easily been able to make it. He never even made an attempt, that's why it was PI.

96
by Matt Weiner (not verified) :: Sat, 11/10/2007 - 3:53pm

Justin Durant story in link -- Durant was parked on an exit ramp, asleep behind the wheel, and was cited for an open container as well as for resisting arrest. He took a field sobriety test and did not meet the criteria for DUI.

97
by gnomonclature (not verified) :: Sat, 11/10/2007 - 4:02pm

#95 Hobbs did make an attempt to catch the ball. That's why his reaches forward with palms facing up (after being taken down from behind). Good way to try to catch the ball, bad way to protect himself while falling forward.

98
by Longsufferer (not verified) :: Sat, 11/10/2007 - 4:46pm

re 97: I don't know where you see this. Hobbs had absolutely no idea where the ball was. The pass was thrown inside of Wayne, which is why he was cutting infield when Hobbs cut him off.

Hobbs was taking completely the wrong angle for somebody who was interested in catching the ball.

Anyways, there's enough people on here who thought it was the correct call, that even if Pats fans still disagree, it's certainly not getting screwed by the refs or anything like that.

99
by slo-mo-joe (not verified) :: Sat, 11/10/2007 - 8:34pm

Hobbs had absolutely no idea where the ball was. The pass was thrown inside of Wayne, which is why he was cutting infield when Hobbs cut him off.

Hobbs was taking completely the wrong angle for somebody who was interested in catching the ball.
Cute. So if, according to you, it was Wayne who changed his path to move inside, onto the path where Hobbs already was running one step ahead of Wayne, it was Hobbs who committed PI by cutting off Wayne? And the reason is that, according to the judgment of people who have never played football at professional level, Hobbs' angle was off, even though a) he was inside, where the ball was going, and b) he was ahead of Waybe by a full step? Seriously now.

Listen, we all know bad calls happen all the time. However, when a usually well-disciplined team playing on the road is docked twice as many penalties than usual, for a record amount of yards, by a ref crew that seems to apply rules inconsistently and make questionable when not demonstrably wrong calls in a one-way fashion, then it is reasonable to wonder whether the refereeing was biased for the home team, as it has been known to sometimes happen. I am not talking conspiracy or other nuttiness, but simple bias/incompetence. Thankfully, it did not affect the result, but it clearly could have, and it's well worth pointing out. You know you would too if it had gone the other way.

100
by gnomonclature (not verified) :: Sun, 11/11/2007 - 1:06am

#98 I don't care what the consensus is here because it has nothing to do with what happened on the field that day. I don't care about the one play so much (since the Pats still won the game), but about the implication. A receiver who has been beaten to the ball can tackle a defender as long as that defender's head isn't turned back at the moment the receiver chooses to make contact. All Mike Pereira did with his lame explanation was encourage receivers to tackle defenders when they know they can't make a play. Its no better than soccer players flopping to the ground to get penalty kicks.

101
by Jerry (not verified) :: Sun, 11/11/2007 - 4:57am

I suspect that the prime mover behind getting the Broncos fined for their finacial manouvering was the union.

I think it's ownership. Most owners love the cap, and they don't want to see it exceeded for any reason. Even the owners who'd like to spend more are comfortable with the idea of pocketing several million more instead.

102
by Jimmy (not verified) :: Sun, 11/11/2007 - 11:31am

#101

They didn't give Elway any money he otherwise wouldn't have gotten, they gave him it a year later plus interest. It makes no sense for the owners to be the prime movers behind the penalty. It removes a method of financial manouvering for a large institution which the money men would always be in favor of.

103
by Purds (not verified) :: Sun, 11/11/2007 - 3:20pm

Re: #94 slo-mo:

I hear you when you perhaps rightly argue that the NE players I picked may be better than the Colts equivalents who are injured. However, I picked simly by position, and I would argue that the dropoff to the Colt backups is as much as it would be for NE. For example, Gonzales is not as good as Welker, I grant you. But, if Gonzales goes out, the team drops to Moorehead, or this week Craponso Thorpe. If Welker were out, they would go to Caldwell, right? So, I would argue that going Gonzales down to Thorpe is as much of a loss as going Welker to Caldwell. In other words, I am aguing that the change from starter to backup on each team is the equivalent. Why? In the NE game, the Colts in Q4 had LB's and DB's I had never heard of playing on NE's second TD drive. Don't forget, the Colts have already suffered two season-ending injuries to defensive starters (McFarland and Morris), so they're already thin.

Wait, this sounds like I am complaining about injuries. I don't want to. What I want to argue is that the step up from backup to starter in those 5 areas, 1b WR, 3rd WR, LT, WLB, SLB is an incredible improvement if the Colts can pull it off.

In particular, those are the areas I migh argue a team MOST needs to have solid (other than QB) to beat NE. You need to be able to pass against NE to limit the effect of the NE D line, and you need LBers who can cover or close quickly to limit the check-down throws to Welker and Stalworth. So, if the Colts can improve via health in those 5 slots, I am pretty optimistic.

(PS: Harrison might not have been having an MVP year before injury, but it was solid: 4 for 83 including a 42-yard TD, 6 for 87 with a long of 37, 6 for 53)

104
by Fat Tony (not verified) :: Sun, 11/11/2007 - 4:06pm

re: 103 - Caldwell was cut just before the regular season opener. He's been on the Redskins roster all year, though inactive most weeks. Jabar Gaffney (two huge games in the playoffs last year) is Welker's backup. He's been getting significant PT all year and would probably fill in quite nicely if Welker went down.

105
by Jerry (not verified) :: Mon, 11/12/2007 - 4:28am

They didn’t give Elway any money he otherwise wouldn’t have gotten, they gave him it a year later plus interest. It makes no sense for the owners to be the prime movers behind the penalty. It removes a method of financial manouvering for a large institution which the money men would always be in favor of.

It makes as much sense as the Steelers turning themselves in (and losing a draft pick) when they found that a bonus they'd paid to Will Wolford put them over the cap. My point is that the salary cap is much more valuable to owners than any advantage they might gain by maneuvering around its edges. By penalizing these sorts of trivial transgressions, they discourage those clubs who might consider stronger ways to get around and spend above the cap.

106
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 11/12/2007 - 1:14pm

"But Hobbs would have been making an effort to catch the ball and would have easily been able to make it. He never even made an attempt, that’s why it was PI. "

I'm amazed how he GOT HIS HANDS ON THE BALL not trying to catch it.