Folks. You just witnessed the biggest upset in Super Bowl history - with the possible exception of the New York Jets toppling the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III.
My greatest disappointment is that we'll have to listen to the line put out by the 1972 Dolphins who are still going to claim they're the greatest team ever to play the game just for going 17-0. They're not. That squad isn't in the top ten. Heck, they're not even in the top thirty. The Dolphins only faced two teams with winning records during the season.
The 1985 Chicago Bears or 1984 San Francisco 49ers teams probably deserve the nod.
It looks like both the Manning brothers now have the can't-win-the-big-game monkey off their backs.
Patriots Coach Bill Belichick will be portrayed as one of the biggest villains in the game too. Not just for the incidents earlier in the season taping play calls. And not just for being cold and aloof towards the press. But for running off the field, overcome with emotion now doubt, before the final play was recorded.
In the future NFL quarterbacks would be best advised to not publicly date extremely attractive supermodels or celebrity girlfriends. Tom Brady had his worst game of the season after being filmed bringing flowers to Gisele Bundchen. Of course it could also have been that nagging ankle injury and lack of pass protection that caused the Super Bowl MVP to underthrow his passes all day. As Burgess Meredith once said, "Women make the legs weak".
Commercials: Fortunately, once again, this crop of overhyped Super Bowl commercials turned out to be a dud. Kind of nice to have an event where the game is better than the ads. Thank you NFL parity.
There were a couple funny ha-ha moments. The Bud Light Caveman ad was good. Wheel suck! Bottle opener suck! Little known is the fact that the ad was originally based on the transportation decision making process used by officials from Sound Transit...
Audi's homage to "The Godfather" was clever and it was refreshing to have a commercial that relied on the intelligence of the audience in order to get the punchline.
Stealing the show however was "Cletus" the Fox Football robot and his three-part battle with the Terminator T-101.
Update: Sports columnists are so predictable. As I noted a couple minutes after the Super Bowl ended - and a couple minutes and two game seconds after Belichick left the field early - newspaper columnists are already jumping over Belichick for being a poor sport.
Chicago Sun-Times: It's down, out for Belichick
AOL Sports: Belichick should have stayed on the field
NBC Sports: Belichick pulled a Randy Moss...
ESPN: Belichick left the building...a second early
Similar takes are coming out on the wires every hour.
Over the next week, Belichick's decision to hit the lockers while his defense was forced back onto the field to suffer through one more humiliating kneel-down play is going to be the fodder for columnists and every sports talk show host with a mike in front of his mouth. Nice to be one of the first to point out the obvious...
Pats O-line performance just offensive: Football games are won and lost in the trenches. You can almost hear the late John Facenda utter this immutable fact. The Patriots line completely failed their quarterback. Brady was sacked five times and knocked him down nine more; season highs.
What should be noted is that New York was able to bring pressure on Brady with a pretty vanilla scheme led by just their front four. Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo threw a few safety and linebacker blitzes into the game plan. But for the most part it was simply Michael Strahan, Osi Umenyiora, Jay Alford and Justin Tuck that made hamburger meat out of the Patriots line. The quartet combined for fifteen tackles and four sacks.
Posted by DonWard at February 03, 2008 07:18 PM | Email ThisThere is an arrogance about New Englanders that doesn't make me feel that bad about them missing the perfect season, not quite as bad as for the NY Yankees or the LA Lakers.
Posted by: KS on February 3, 2008 08:32 PMAs someone who really would have been happy either way, though did put a little money on the Giants, I was happy.
Posted by: Giffy on February 3, 2008 09:36 PMAs for the commercials, I have to disagree. There were a few good ones this year. I really liked the Audi ad, Cars.com ads were pretty good. FedEx was pretty good. (Check out the FedEx Golf ad online, hilarious) Bud Light ads were the usual, somewhat funny. Life Water's lizard Thriller ad was elaborate, not that great, but definitely memorable. Dorito's mousetrap ad was pretty funny.
We always expect perfection from Superbowl ads. We don't get that, but it's an interesting moment of Americana. Always worth noting.
But I'm glad we can now get on to March Madness!!!
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 3, 2008 10:35 PMNo. Not even close. EVERYONE knew the Giants were a good team and had a good chance if they played their top game (which they did), unlike in Super Bowl XXXI, where almost ALMOST NO ONE gave the Patriots any chance, EVEN IF they played their top game.
This may have been a big upset according to the spread, but I was not surprised by the outcome. Disappointed, but not surprised. No one who has been watching the Patriots all season -- I have watched every Patriots game that Tom Brady has ever played -- would have been surprised by the game overall. Maybe surprised by a few plays here and there, but nothing shocking, nothing we haven't seen before.
I will say that Eli Manning for MVP could be one of the biggest upsets ever. Are you kidding me? The work that defense did, and Manning is MVP because he got completely lucky throwing blindly into triple coverage on third-and-five?
Patriots Coach Bill Belichick will be portrayed as one of the biggest villains in the game too probably.
Not by anyone who is, you know, sane.
But for running off the field, overcome with emotion now doubt, before the final play was recorded.
What's he supposed to do? Stand there on the sidelines for 10 minutes while they try to run the final second off the clock? Nonsense.
Tom Brady had his worst game of the season after being filmed bringing flowers to Gisele Bundchen.
No, he didn't, Don. That flowers deal happened AFTER his worst game of the season, which was against the Chargers in the AFC Championship, where he threw three INTs.
Of course it could also have been that nagging ankle injury
There was no nagging ankle injury. If it was nagging, it would have been on the injury report.
and lack of pass protection that caused the Super Bowl MVP to underthrow his passes all day
Well, close. It was the Giants pash rush that didn't give him time, early in the game, to find open receivers (and some of his passes were over- and under-thrown), and poor play calling that had them trying to go down the field instead of looking for screens and slants (not to mention the poor play calling that led to leaving 2.5 minutes on the clock for the Giants at the end of the game). When they finally did that at the end of the game, they drove for a TD.
Also, you forgot to mention the fact that it was the best halftime show ever.
No, there isn't. You either don't understand New Englanders, or you don't know many of them. New Englanders are really the inverse of arrogant. Arrogance is thinking highly of yourself. The opposite would be thinking highly of others, or lowly of yourself. New Englanders try to see the world as it is, and don't think highly of ANYONE, including themselves.
I'm just going to chalk your comment up to the fact that your team just lost a heartrending game. Dude, you're wrong on every single one of your points.
Oh, and Tom Petty at halftime was totally awesome. The Stones were better.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 3, 2008 11:51 PMWhat the hell does this have to do with Sound POLITICS? Your analysis of politics is bad enough, but now you think you are frickin Howard Cosell.
Posted by: pbj on February 4, 2008 01:15 AMYou are sooo right Pudge, the rules don't apply to him.
Posted by: GWL on February 4, 2008 06:52 AMKind of reminds me of the Isaiher Thomas Piston walking off the court without shaking the hands of the Celtics after they got beat.
It really ranks up there.
Guess the guy isn't that much of a genius if he doesn't have film of the offensive plays the other team is going to run.
Posted by: swatter on February 4, 2008 07:53 AMThe Giants on the other hand were confident and knew if they executed their plays they had a chance. The Giants took nothing for granted.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 4, 2008 08:23 AMFalse.
Oh, and Tom Petty at halftime was totally awesome. The Stones were better.
Also false. Mind-blowingly false.
Shank: Pudge, for you to claim that this wasn't a huge upset proves that you're in complete denial.
Um. Huh? For me to claim it wasn't a huge upset means that I considered the Giants a team that could beat the Patriots. And in fact, they beat the Patriots. I don't think you know what "denial" means.
GWL: You are sooo right Pudge, the rules don't apply to him.
Dude. THE CLOCK SAID ZERO TIME LEFT. It clicked down to zero. He went out and congratulated the opposing coach, Tom Coughlin. Gave him a hug. Then he left the field. In the meantime, they put more time on the scoreboard. He probably didn't even NOTICE that there was time left. Once that clock hits zero, he has only two thoughts: congratulate Coughlin and get to the locker room.
swatter: yeah, giving Coach Coughlin a hug means he is a "poor sport." Riiiiiiiight.
Bill Cruchon: no, they absolutely did not believe they were invincible, nor did they not take the game seriously. You don't know the Patriots at all. They came out and played their game, as they always do, and played their butts off, but the Giants defense shut them down for most of the game. They took this game as seriously as they take every game. To the Patriots, there is always only one game: the one in front of them. And this time, they lost that one.
See, that's the problem with calling this a big upset: it makes it seem like the only way the Giants could win is if the Patriots didn't play well. But that's not what happened. Both teams played well, but the Giants played better, and proved themselves to be the best team in the NFL for 2007.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 08:46 AMI stand by my take on the game. I think the Patriots thought they could beat the Giants standing on their heads.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 4, 2008 09:06 AMTrying to give props to the Pats for class is akin to giving props to Speaker Nancy for her grasp on Iraq.
Posted by: GWL on February 4, 2008 09:09 AMhttp://www.sportsmansdaily.com/Gisele_Bundchen.html (has a picture there that is probably not work safe)
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 4, 2008 09:38 AMThe Giants got into Brady's head as well as all over his back. I never saw him look confident the entire game.
Otherwise, the Patriots played like the Seahawks. They just didn't want it bad enough.
Posted by: deedub on February 4, 2008 12:48 PMHearing Fox commentators stating the obvious at half time, that New England was off their game in the first half left me wondering whether, perhaps for a change, New England was having to react to their opponent's play calls like every other NFL club has had to, and not been able to adjust to recognized formations and plays?
My wife, a lifelong Rams fan, believed since that Super Bowl years ago that New England seemed to know what the Rams were going to do before the Rams did. The recent allegation by the alleged video taper seemed to support her suspicions.
I think there are one heck of a lot of NFL fans, myself included, thankful that this alleged controversy was exposed in advance of this game, and despite the NFL's efforts to destroy evidence and sweep it under the carpet. It clearly gave New York the time they needed to author a winning - and secret - strategy for victory.
How really great would a team and quarterback be if they played every game with knowledge of their opponent's plays? Hmm?
Posted by: Reality on February 4, 2008 01:11 PMAt the Super Bowl party I was at, everyone was shocked by that decision at the time it happened. As good as the decision to challenge the 12 men on the field was, that decision not to kick cost them a chance to win the game.
I'm no fan of the Giants, but I am glad they beat the Patriots. The Patriots cheated. Period. And while that had no bearing on the majority of games this season, they were still caught cheating, and Bellichik should have been suspended for it in addition to the other penalties. The fact that they lost this game was a little bit of football karma.
For some unknown reason (possibly pressure from the NFL), Fox did not talk about the biggest story before the game - the report that the Patriots taped the Rams in their pre-game run through at the last Super Bowl they won. This is the WORST form of cheating. The plays teams run at practice right before the game ARE the plays they are going to use in the game. If that report is true, it definitely taints that Super Bowl win.
Posted by: Palouse on February 4, 2008 01:19 PMTo say so otherwise is like arguing the sky isn't blue just because you have your eyes closed.
They had the NFL MVP who broke touchdown and passing records. They had a receiver who broke the touchdown record. The team has the highest points differential of any team in history beating their opponents in the regular season by 19 points a game. The Patriots are a dynasty (improbable in the era of free agency) having won three previous Super Bowls this decade.
During the regular season they had probably the toughest schedule of opponents and still defeated playoff contenders San Diego, Dallas, Washington, Indianapolis, Pittsburg and the Giants.
The AFC is regarded as a far better league, on the whole, than the NFC. To say that the FIFTH seeded, Wild Card New York Giants beating the 18-0 Patriots is not the greatest upset ever is just absurd. The Giants were in the middle of a coaching and quarterback crisis when the regular season ended with the New York media (being the New York media) speculating that Coach Coughlin and Eli Manning weren't going to return. The Giants (10-6) wouldn't have even been in the playoffs if they hadn't won in freezing Buffalo during Week 16.
To be a good sports fan is about passion and not being rational. So I feel your pain Pudge (and other New England sports fans). But as a Seattle boy, can't say I'm crying too much for a region that has cornered the market on sports championships these past few years.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 4, 2008 01:47 PMBut despite JJ's dismissal, we have no idea what they saw on those tapes prior to that game. The Rams could have been running certain formation and plays they were going to use. Since the evidence is long gone, we'll probably never know. It's still cheating though.
Goodell screwed up by destroying those tapes of the most recent cheating episodes.
Posted by: Palouse on February 4, 2008 01:50 PMI'd like to see that happen. That's the only way we'll ever get to the bottom of it, because apparently the NFL would rather just sweep this under the rug. I think this issue speaks to "integrity of the game" type of problem, much like the steroids in baseball. Given that the NFL is the beneficiary of billions of dollars in public money over the years with many of the stadiums built, the NFL owes the public a proper vetting of this issue.
Posted by: Palouse on February 4, 2008 02:51 PMI stand by my take on the game. I think the Patriots thought they could beat the Giants standing on their heads.
Shrug, think what you want. That clearly is false, to anyone who follows the Patriots closely. If nothing else, we know that they just beat the Giants only a month before, and it took them scoring 22 straight points in 15 minutes to do it.
GWL: 21. Pudge so the coach pushing the ref, that was trying to explain the situation, out of the way that way ( fine inbound) was a good idea as well?
Who cares? I like Mike Carey a lot -- he is my favorite ref -- but if I think the game is over, I am not going to care what he has to say, and I won't be listening to him.
Trying to give props to the Pats for class is akin to giving props to Speaker Nancy for her grasp on Iraq.
GWL: you're both an idiot AND an asshole.
JDH: yes, the Patriots are fully funded, staidum included, with private money. Owner Bob Kraft, like his entire organization, is top class.
Reality: come back to reality. As Jimmy Johnson said: "I coached for 40 years, and they could have taped every one of my walkthroughs and my record would have been exactly the same." Not only is there NO EVIDENCE supporting this allegation, it is a stupid allegation. You can't learn anything of significance from a walkthrough, and you EXPECT there are people watching you, because it is in the stadium and there's always lots of people around.
Palouse: As good as the decision to challenge the 12 men on the field was, that decision not to kick cost them a chance to win the game.
I'm no fan of the Giants, but I am glad they beat the Patriots. The Patriots cheated. Period.
Wait a minute. After talking about how the Giants cheated by putting 12 men on the field, you are saying you wanted the Giants to win because the Patriots cheated? Palouse, you are making no sense.
For some unknown reason (possibly pressure from the NFL), Fox did not talk about the biggest story before the game - the report that the Patriots taped the Rams in their pre-game run through at the last Super Bowl they won.
Wow. You mean they didn't report on a story that has ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE backing it up, that comes from an ANONYMOUS SOURCE? And you think that is BAD?! (And yes, they talked about it, but they shouldn't have.)
You are using completely unfounded innuendo and assumption to condemn a team that never does anything except goes out and tries to win. You're like a Democrat going after Wal-Mart or Halliburton.
Since the Patiots lost the SB, I'm thinkin the 'good ol boys of D.C. might now think that they have been punisher enough and will not pursue?
I hope so: then they will be exposed unequivocally as only trying to get a team they don't like in favor of a team they do, abusing their positions as elected officials for personal gain.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 03:46 PMDon, if you look at point spreads, sure. That is the only "statistic" that matters here. Which is why I said, "This may have been a big upset according to the spread ..." in my first post.
But to any student of the game who had watched both teams, especially each game since Christmas, no, this was not a big upset, because it was quite clear that the teams were evenly matched.
All of the other stats you mention don't matter. Those are affected by many factors completely external to this game, including the fact that the Patriots were in the worst division in football, and that the Giants and Patriots were going in opposite directions in December.
Take away the six divisional games, and the Pats only have a differential of 15 points, instead of 20, and Brady has only 2.1 TDs per game instead of 3.1. And further, after Thanksgiving, the production of the team dropped WAY down, to a differential of only 10 (both including, and excluding, the two playoff games, which were decided by 11 and 9 points) and 2.0 TDs (back up to 2.1 incl. playoffs).
Those numbers are all good, but not the dominating numbers you get when you look at the season as a whole.
And then, of course, there's the fact that the Giants ALMOST BEAT the Patriots on the last game of the season.
Yes, if you just look at the overall season stats, it is a huge upset. But if you look at the last two months, when the Patriots stopped dominating teams, and the Giants went on a tear at the end of the season, beating playoff contenders Chicago, Tampa Bay, Dallas, Green Bay, and ALMOST beating the Patriots ... no. It's not.
After Thanksgiving, the Giants had only two losses, besides the one to the Patriots: the game where Manning absolutely sucked against Minnesota, and the great game that foiled playoff contender Washington played in New Jersey in December. And even in that loss, the Giants held the Redskins QB to 8-for-25.
The Giants were in the middle of a coaching and quarterback crisis when the regular season ended with the New York media
The media is irrelevant. There was no crisis.
To be a good sports fan is about passion and not being rational.
I am brimming with both.
So I feel your pain Pudge (and other New England sports fans).
No, you don't, and further, this isn't about pain. It's about the facts. Anyone who thought the Giants had no good chance to win going into this game (the definition of "huge upset") was simply not following along. They absolutely did, as they proved in Week 17.
But as a Seattle boy, can't say I'm crying too much for a region that has cornered the market on sports championships these past few years.
How is giving much-deserved props to a team that showed they were the best in the league "crying"?
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 03:58 PMMost of those people grew up to be liberals.
It was reported in the Boston Herald. That makes it a topic worth talking about, in depth.
After talking about how the Giants cheated by putting 12 men on the field, you are saying you wanted the Giants to win because the Patriots cheated?
This is a non-sequitor. An infraction during game play is not even close to the rules violations that the Patriots committed. Look no further than Roger Goodell's own words:
[the tape represented] ``a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play.''
That Pudge, is a fancy way of saying they cheated. The unprecedented huge fines and loss of draft choice only furthers the case that they cheated.
You can't learn anything of significance from a walkthrough, and you EXPECT there are people watching you, because it is in the stadium and there's always lots of people around.
Oh really?
A member of the National Football League team's video department remained behind after the Patriots worked out and filmed the Rams' final walkthrough of their plays in the Louisiana Superdome the day before New England beat St. Louis 20-17 on a last-second field goal, the Herald reported
Are you seriously suggesting that taping the plays the opposition was going to use the very next day is not cheating? THAT makes no sense. This wasn't pre-game warmups, it was their final practice the day before in preparation for the game.
The fact that Bellichik has already been caught cheating in the now destroyed tapes case only makes this allegation more believable.
And you have posting privileges? Come on, Stefan; you can get someone better and a better rep for the R party.
Then you either misunderstand what I have said, or you don't know what the word "crybabies" means. Nothing I've written here can possibly be construed as "crying." I didn't complain in any way about the outcome of the game, or about ... well, anything, except Arlen Specter's abuse of power. And Manning getting the MVP instead of Strahan.
You asserted that the Patriots thought they could just show up and win. There is no evidence backing up that claim. It is not "crying" to point that out anymore than it is "crying" for you to assert it in the first place.
Palouse: It was reported in the Boston Herald. That makes it a topic worth talking about, in depth.
Oh, come on. So if a newspaper reports that George Bush smoked crack, and has no evidence to back it up, that makes it worth talking about? You're not fooling anyone.
An infraction during game play is not even close to the rules violations [sic] that the Patriots committed.
I didn't say the two (despite your false claim that there was more than one rule violation) incidents were the same.
"[the tape represented] 'a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play.'"
Yep. Just like when Amani Toomer calculatedly and deliberately pushed off the cornerback to make a play on third down.
The unprecedented huge fines and loss of draft choice only furthers the case that they cheated.
No, you're mistaken. Whether or not they cheated is unrelated to the penalty they get. If there was no penalty, because the league said, well, just don't let it happen again, it wouldn't change whether or not it was cheating.
Are you seriously suggesting that taping the plays the opposition was going to use the very next day is not cheating?
Straw man fallacy. I never implied that. If it was a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play, then, as you say, I guess it is cheating, just like when Antonio Pierce calculatedly and deliberately grabbed Ben Watson in the end zone. I merely said you can't learn anything of significance from it. Whether it is cheating is up to the league, not for me to decide.
THAT makes no sense.
Shrug. You apparently know more than Jimmy Johnson. I bow to your superior intellect.
The fact that Bellichik has already been caught cheating in the now destroyed tapes case only makes this allegation more believable.
There is no allegation. For an allegation, you need someone to make it. No one has done so.
You're losing an awful lot of street cred here pudge.
Take some advice from an older man. When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 4, 2008 04:28 PMExcept, I have given nothing but praise to the Giants, except where I was saying Strahan deserved the MVP. Nor have I complained about the play of the Patriots, except to say that they should have run more slants, and kicked the FG attempt. So ... again, no, that makes no sense either.
You're losing an awful lot of street cred here pudge.
Shrug. I couldn't care less. That's what makes me special! :-)
Take some advice from an older man. When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging.
Shrug. If you say something obviously silly like "the Patriots thought they only had to show up," I am going to call you on it. If you don't want to be called on it, don't say it in the first place.
If the Giants had met the Patriots in mid-season I think it's likely the Patriots would have blown them out 35-0.
They were invincible, and played like it.
What often happens to teams that compile winning records is that they become complacent. Don't forget that these teams are made up of very young men with massive egos. I think a lot of the Patriot players began to believe their poop didn't stink. That's why I made the comment "all they felt they had to do was show up". It's the kind of stuff that makes coaches old before their time.
That is my opinion, pudge.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 4, 2008 04:50 PMSeriously though ... when the sports press goes off stupidly about the Patriots, I get bent out of shape. But when the conservative press says my song sucks, I don't even care.
What's up with that?
Go figure.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 04:50 PMAnd the Patriots lost to a 10-6 Giants team that practically backed into the playoffs, that was without its #2 weapon TE Jeremy Shockey and was the fifth seed in the playoffs. And they lost. They lost to a team whose quarterback had a paltry 73 quarterback rating and threw 20 interceptions during the season. Before the playoffs began the Giants were rated by "experts" at ESPN behind non-playoff teams such as Cleveland and even Minnesota.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 4, 2008 04:53 PMThis is laughable. In the NFL, any team can beat any other team on any given day. So by your special definition of the word, there is no such thing as an "upset". It's time to face reality. When the Giants defeated the first team in NFL history to go 18-0, it is a huge upset by anybody's definition (except yours).
Posted by: Shank on February 4, 2008 05:00 PMThey probably would have won by a lot, yes.
What often happens to teams that compile winning records is that they become complacent.
Sure. But that isn't what happened here. What happened is that teams saw the Eagles and Ravens games and figured out how best to attack the Patriots offense.
I think a lot of the Patriot players began to believe their poop didn't stink. That's why I made the comment "all they felt they had to do was show up". ... That is my opinion, pudge.
I understand how one could think that. But I see no evidence of it. This team has been there many times, and the one constant in the Patriots locker room is that you are not special, you are a cog in the wheel, and that in order to succeed, everybody needs to simply Do Your Job. That is how they won 18 in a row, by NOT thinking they are special, and I see no evidence that changed, especially since they freshly remembered just barely beating the Giants a month earlier.
And on the field, I didn't see it. I saw everyone playing their butts off, on both sides of the ball.
Frankly, when people talked about how the Patriots looked like the best team ever, like they couldn't be stopped, I cringed, because I have seen every game Brady has played for the Patriots, and ... I didn't agree. Yes, they found ways to dominate early in the season, and it was one of the best seasons any team has ever had, but they had vulnerabilities. And if I could see their vulnerabilities, you can bet that not only did Belichick see them, but he made sure the players knew what they were too.
Even if the Patriots had gone 19-0 -- and isn't it odd that we make grand conclusions about whether the Patriots were great or not based on whether Manning makes that blind throw in the fourth quarter? -- I wouldn't be saying the Patriots were the best ever. I'd be saying they had the best season ever. And again, if I, a humble but crazy fan, is not even drinking the Best Ever Kool-Aid, I don't see how a significant number of players would be, when they have Belichick reminding them every day that they aren't.
Heh, and write after I wrote that, I read Don saying, "Had the Patriots won they would have been regarded as the greatest team ever to play the game." Not me, nope.
Also, Don, I disagree with "breaking every offensive record (save rushing) worth having." The only record that matters to me is winning. The others are nice, but I really don't care.
They lost to a team whose quarterback had a paltry 73 quarterback rating and threw 20 interceptions during the season.
But who in the playoffs was, IIRC, rated over 100, with no interceptions (until the one yesterday, which wasn't even his fault).
Before the playoffs began the Giants were rated by "experts" at ESPN behind non-playoff teams such as Cleveland and even Minnesota.
As I routinely outpick such experts, I couldn't care less what they think.
Shank: For me to claim it wasn't a huge upset means that I considered the Giants a team that could beat the Patriots. And in fact, they beat the Patriots. I don't think you know what "denial" means.
This is laughable. In the NFL, any team can beat any other team on any given day. So by your special definition of the word, there is no such thing as an "upset".
No, you misunderstand. I worded it poorly there, but elsewhere I talked about the chances the Giants would win. I was clearly making the point that the Giants had a good chance to win, because they matched up well, regardless of what happened in the regular season. Frankly, I think the Patriots had a good chance because they matched up well against the Rams in 2001, too, although that too is considered a big upset. But I just don't agree: you look at the matchups.
On the other hand, if the Patriots had beaten the Bears in '86, that would have been a huge upset, because they simply didn't match up very well. The Pats did have a good defense, but their offense was merely average, especially compared to the Bears much better defense.
You can only measure upsets by probability. And there are two ways to measure it: by analyzing the teams closely, or by looking at the spread. According to the spread, it was a huge upset. I ignore spreads.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 05:13 PMYou seriously think that the Giants were trying to cheat when their guy was unable to scramble off the field in time before the snap? Your arguments are some of the saddest and most unhinged I've ever seen from a sports fan after their team lost. And this is exactly the sort of high comedy I was hoping to find on the internet after the Patriots' upset loss.
Posted by: Shank on February 4, 2008 05:19 PMPudge being a good (and pessimistic) sports fan comes back with a "nope, I don't think so" argument.
Enough self-flagellation my friend. I was hoping the Patriots would win too. (See paragraph two). They didn't. Biggest NFL upset ever. Had New England lost to Dallas or Green Bay the defeat might have been understandable. But to a scrappy Giants team that has had their back against the wall for three months (longer). Inexcusable.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 4, 2008 05:45 PMSigh. I am, obviously, using rhetoric to try to question the notion that some rules violations are "cheating," and others are not. I don't have all the answers, I don't know whether we should call that cheating, but I think most people would say there has to be some intent. So fine, then we look at whether obviously intentional defensive PI in the end zone, or obviously intentional offensive PI on third down, is cheating.
I am not trying to cast any doubt on the Giants' win whatsoever. I stated clearly: the Giants are the best team. They played great, they won. I am merely using a few examples from the game to draw attention to some questionable reasoning: that the Patriots, through violating a rule, are somehow cheaters who deserve to lose.
You are not only socially inept, as your domain name implies, but rhetorically inept, as well!
Don: Every one of my arguments I've backed up with stats and historical background.
Pudge being a good (and pessimistic) sports fan comes back with a "nope, I don't think so" argument.
Nope. First of all, I backed up everything I said with stats, too. Please don't misrepresent me that way. I gave you breakdowns of point differentials and TDs per game in non-divisional games, and in the last six/eight games. The stats I provided, in fact, represented a far more in-depth analysis than those you provided.
Second, an upset can only be determined by probabilities. Obviously. There are only two ways to measure probabilities in this case. One is blindly looking at the raw data, and there is only one piece of raw data that corresponds directly to the situation: the point spread. And as I already said, by the point spread, yes, it is one of the biggest upsets ever. I said that in my first post.
The other way to determine whether something is an upset is by evaluating the matchups individually: looking at what they have done over the season, what they have done recently, and so on. This is what both of us did. You looked at the full season stats and concluded the Giants would be very unlikely to win. I looked at the full season stats, but primarily looked at the last couple of months, and concluded they had a very good chance (though less than even) of winning.
And -- obviously -- my view that they had a good chance of winning going into the game was a much better analysis than yours, since they, you know, won.
Had New England lost to Dallas or Green Bay the defeat might have been understandable. But to a scrappy Giants team that has had their back against the wall for three months (longer). Inexcusable.
You are acting like it was the Patriots' game to lose. That could not be further from the truth.
Yes, there is no excuse: the Giants were the better team. Pure and simple.
All were upsets. But none are of the historic nature that just took place Sunday night. Especially considering it will be decades before another 18-0 team loses to a wild card team in the big game again.
Case closed.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 4, 2008 06:16 PMWow, that's kinda snotty. But if you're going to try to revise history, maybe you should go delete your Super Bowl prediction from your blog. Here's what you wrote about the Patriots' chances in the Super Bowl: "I think the team is poised to break out the stomping boots. They'll generally control the Giants, who will have a few successful drives, but the day will belong to the Pats, 34-17."
But yeah, I guess that's the same as saying the Giants had a good chance at winning the game.
Posted by: Shank on February 4, 2008 06:24 PMWell, but now you are just doing what I did. Earlier you were complaining that I couldn't argue that this wasn't a big upset because of "the statistics," even though I used statistics. Well, now you are arguing against "the statistics," by using other statistics, as well as personal observations NOT backed up by statistics. So how can you do that, but I can't?
If you want to argue that you think it is a big upset, fine. But for you to claim I am somehow being unreasonable, and then you go and do the same ... that's just nonsense.
And frankly, Super Bowl XXXVI is WHY I thought the Giants had a good chance: because the Patriots live and die off the passing game, just like the Rams did, and if you can get to Brady and knock around the receivers, you have a shot, just like the Ravens did. Which, of course, is exactly what the Giants did.
Shank: Wow, that's kinda snotty.
So? Isn't it absolutely true? (Yes, it is.)
But if you're going to try to revise history, maybe you should go delete your Super Bowl prediction from your blog.
Wow, that's kinda snotty. And worse, it's not remotely true.
First, I do not have a "blog." Second, my prediction never implied or claimed or stated in any way that the Giants didn't have a good chance. I predicted the Patriots would win, but that only means that I think the Patriots had a better than even chance of winning, which is what I said here, too. Note that I even stated that if my prediction were to hold true, it would only be because the Patriots were going to perform BETTER than they had been doing recently.
So, you're wrong on both counts.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 06:54 PMUm...ok. I didn't realize that your detachment from reality extended to how you describe your website; but I'll call it whatever you want me to.
Second, my prediction never implied or claimed or stated in any way that the Giants didn't have a good chance. I predicted the Patriots would win, but that only means that I think the Patriots had a better than even chance of winning...
...and blah blah blah. Look, anybody can read through these comments, and go look at your "not-blog" and see for themselves that you made a confident prediction that the Patriots would win, and now you're here trying to retroactively change your analysis of the likelihood of that happening, as if you can take the sting out of the loss if you convince yourself it is what you expected all along. I was just as surprised as everyone else when the Giants won, not that I didn't think it was possible (any given Sunday), but because for the love of Mike, they were going up against the first 18-0 team in history.
So, you're wrong on both counts.
Ok, you win.
Posted by: Shank on February 4, 2008 07:19 PMFine, then I will say that you are a flurbazzle. If you disagree with me, you are detached from reality. I can make up words too!
Shrug.
Look, anybody can read through these comments, and go look at your "not-blog" and see for themselves that you made a confident prediction that the Patriots would win
I never denied I thought they would win. But I don't get how you call it "confident," since it was couched in a big IF: "if they play better than they have been playing."
Shrug.
and now you're here trying to retroactively change your analysis of the likelihood of that happening
Nope.
as if you can take the sting out of the loss if you convince yourself it is what you expected all along
It wasn't what I expected. It's what I knew was a strong possibility.
I was just as surprised as everyone else when the Giants won, not that I didn't think it was possible (any given Sunday), but because for the love of Mike, they were going up against the first 18-0 team in history.
Exactly. You were far more surprised than I was, because you thought "18-0" meant something.
Did I make up a word? This is even more interesting than your various Super Bowl denials. You are saying that "blog" isn't a real word, with real meaning? Your insistence that your blog isn't a blog brings to mind the Trekkies that indignantly insist that the correct term is "Trekker".
Posted by: Shank on February 4, 2008 07:49 PMTurns out, he has actually educated himself on football and television advertising.
Pat yourself on the back, Don Ward!
Can't wait to get back reading your space cadet public policy musings.
Right wing echo chamber trolls argue football trivia while Rome burns, and while the bottom falls out of their atrophied 'movement.'
How frigging appropriate.
Posted by: Blake on February 4, 2008 09:29 PMContrary to your inferences, the newspaper didn't just make this up. There's someone who actually taped, and the Boston Herald (a hometown paper of the Pats) is not going to print a story like that without a reliable source.
I didn't say the two (despite your false claim that there was more than one rule violation) incidents were the same.
Indeed. They're not. One is cheating. One is just a penalty that is part of game play.
Just like when Amani Toomer calculatedly and deliberately pushed off the cornerback to make a play on third down.
Again attempting to equate a penalty in game play to cheating. They are not equal. By this comparison, cheating would not exist at all. Everything would just be a "violation of rules". Well, when you violate rules that compromise fair game play, that's called cheating. Sorry, but it's true. Infractions like pass interference are PART of the game. Taping another team for the purposes of gaining a competitive advantage is not.
You apparently know more than Jimmy Johnson. I bow to your superior intellect.
Jimmy was apparently misinformed. Did he know that the article said the Pats taped actual plays in the practice prior to the Super Bowl?
No reasonable person would say that doesn't give a team a competitive advantage. Otherwise, why would the Pats do it? Does Bellichik just likes wasting time watching film that doesn't help him win games? Of course not. He was trying to gain an advantage and was caught cheating.
Posted by: Palouse on February 4, 2008 09:33 PM
Check out one of the dozens of other political threads there genius.
How frigging appropriate.
Piss off.
No, but you used a made-up word. And a really stupid one.
You are saying that "blog" isn't a real word, with real meaning?
No, I am saying no such thing. "Flurbazzle" also is a real word with real meaning. That doesn't mean it isn't stupid.
Your insistence that your blog isn't a blog
I said no such thing. I said *I* personally have no "blog." Which is a true fact.
Palouse: Contrary to your inferences, the newspaper didn't just make this up
You don't know that. You can only guess. There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND that this person you speak of exists, or did what they said.
the Boston Herald (a hometown paper of the Pats) is not going to print a story like that without a reliable source.
OK, you obviously know almost nothing about Boston media, especially Boston sports media. They are notoriously one of the worst in the country. No sports fan from Boston would think the Herald printing something like this without a good source is the LEAST BIT implausible.
Again attempting to equate a penalty in game play to cheating.
But it exactly meets the definition from Goodell that YOU said equates to cheating.
They are not equal.
I never said they were. I said they both meet the definition from Goodell that YOU said equates to cheating. That doesn't mean they are equal.
Well, when you violate rules that compromise fair game play, that's called cheating
Pass interference does precisely that: it violates a rule that compromises fair game play.
Jimmy was apparently misinformed. Did he know that the article said the Pats taped actual plays in the practice prior to the Super Bowl?
No, he was not misinformed. He knows more about it than you, on every level. He actually talked to someone who was at that specific walkthrough event (and he actually named his source live on the air, unlike the Herald, though I'd never heard the name and I can't recall it), who said it was just people standing around and talking and occasionally going through the motions.
Further, again, Johnson himself has been through 40 years worth of walkthroughs, including at least a few Super Bowls, so he knows what goes on there. So for you to say he is misinformed about these walkthroughs, as though you know better than him, is pretty incredible.
Otherwise, why would the Pats do it?
There is no evidence of any kind that they did it. And that's a fact.
One thing we can all agree on, guys: Blake's a moron. ;-)
Pudge, your dizzying obfuscation of the facts in this thread, and your refusal to acknowledge saying any of the things you have clearly said, would make Clinton proud. Now these aren't important issues we're talking about. I don't care enough about the Super Bowl to keep prattling on about it, nor am I really all that curious about why you take offense at the use of the word "blog" to refer to your, well, blog.
But the net sum of it all is that you're a liar. The contorted logic that you use to try to deny the clear meaning of so many of your statements is typically only encountered when dealing with A) Leprechauns or B) Bill Clinton.
I will read your future posts with a huge grain of salt.
Posted by: Shank on February 4, 2008 10:51 PMYou're the one lying. I absolutely acknowledge everything I said, without qualification.
The problem is, you pretend that I am saying things I didn't actually say. Well, in fairness, you might not be lying, you might be ignorant. You might really think that a prediction that the Patriots will win is somehow a statement that the Giants don't have a good chance to win. That level of ignorance is possible, but it doesn't make you look any better.
I will read your future posts with a huge grain of salt.
Yawn.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 11:01 PMThat's rich! You've been throwing out qualifications to revise the meaning of your words throughout this thread.
At any rate, your posts speak for themselves if anyone else cares to wade through them. I refer you again to my post #67.
Have a good night.
Posted by: Shank on February 4, 2008 11:07 PMNo, Shank, you are incorrect again. You have been injecting meaning into my words that was never there, and I have been telling you that it isn't there. That is not qualifying my words, it is noting the fact that I didn't say what you said I said.
I can play this game too. Shank, you just said that you think Jimmy Carter is the best President in history. That's what you meant when you said Blake's criticism of the GOP is dumb.
I am not sure what appeal you see in putting words in people's mouths like that, though.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 11:17 PMSo in order for us to believe this is true, it means that there is a "vast anti-Patriot conspiracy" in the BOSTON MEDIA. It means that the Boston Herald made up sources, who made up stories about the Patriots cheating, when in fact they had already been caught cheating in another instance. That does sound very Clintonish.
But it exactly meets the definition from Goodell that YOU said equates to cheating.
No, it doesn't. Infractions are part of game play, and their penalties are clearly defined. What the Patriots (Bellichik) did was blatant disregard of the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage (cheating), and are absolutely NOT part of the game. In baseball, this would be the equivalent of equating something like a balk to corking a bat.
He actually talked to someone who was at that specific walkthrough event (and he actually named his source live on the air, unlike the Herald, though I'd never heard the name and I can't recall it), who said it was just people standing around and talking and occasionally going through the motions.
That person should come forward and talk about it publicly then. But we don't know for certain what the Patriots saw on those tapes. Even if they saw some formations beforehand, it's still cheating. The Herald article says they taped actual plays. Regardless of the actual value of the taping, the very fact they did it constitutes cheating.
There is no evidence of any kind that they did it.
But we do know they cheated in the destroyed tapes case, and that establishes the fact that they are cheaters. This lends credibility to the Herald story as well.
And the fact that the team that cheated lost that game, ruining a perfect season, is a nice bit of karma.
Posted by: Palouse on February 5, 2008 07:42 AMNope. It could be that they simply are sloppy and didn't do their homework, so there's no conspiracy, just stupidity (which is most likely); or if there is a conspiracy (which is unlikely), it could be that there's only a few people in on it: no need for it to be vast.
No, it doesn't.
Yes. Word for word, exactly.
What the Patriots (Bellichik) did was blatant disregard of the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage
Which is exactly what Toomer did when he pushed off the cornerback on the sideline catch.
But we don't know for certain what the Patriots saw on those tapes.
We have no reason whatsoever to believe there WERE any tapes.
the very fact they did it
It is not, in fact, a fact.
But we do know they cheated in the destroyed tapes case, and that establishes the fact that they are cheaters.
Sure. Just like the Giants cheated in the Super Bowl. According to the definition from Goodell that you offered.
This lends credibility to the Herald story as well.
No, in fact, it does not. That isn't rational. One has nothing to do with the other. The only thing that can lend credibility to the Herald story is actual evidence, of which there is exactly none.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 07:57 AMPerhaps you don't. But the Herald has a source who said he taped the practice. Whether that tape still exists or not is not known.
Which is exactly what Toomer did when he pushed off the cornerback on the sideline catch.
See baseball corked bat analogy. A penalty during game play is not cheating. Taping to gain an unfair advantage, is.
According to the definition from Goodell that you offered.
Goodell's words were not the end-all definition of cheating. They merely provided context. Penalties in game play does not equate to cheating.
No, in fact, it does not. That isn't rational.
Sure it does. The most recent cheating case establishes a pattern of behavior, something that is done in many criminal prosecutions.
The only thing that can lend credibility to the Herald story is actual evidence
There's a source who did the actual taping. Unless we believe the Clinton conspiracy theory, that source exists.
Posted by: Palouse on February 5, 2008 08:08 AMWith a name like that I hope you never ask me to play golf with you.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 09:00 AMObjection, your honor, assumes facts not in evidence. I think you meant to say the Herald says it has a source who says he taped the practice.
See baseball corked bat analogy. A penalty during game play is not cheating. Taping to gain an unfair advantage, is.
Says who? All I know is that the Goodell did not say the Patriots were cheating, YOU said that his stated explanation of what the Patriots did showed why what Belichick did was "cheating," and that explanation also fits perfectly with what Toomer and Pierce did during the game.
The most recent cheating case establishes a pattern of behavior, something that is done in many criminal prosecutions.
Well, except that in a criminal prosecution you need evidence of a crime. There is none. There's no witness, no tape, no admissable evidence of any kind. The league has inevestigated this exact allegation, and found nothing.
There's a source who did the actual taping. Unless we believe the Clinton conspiracy theory, that source exists.
No offense, but this is the reason why the press gets away with all the irresponsible things they do. I hope you never, ever, complain about a newspaper using anonymous sources -- even if they turn out to be false -- or printing fake stories, because you, my friend, are an enabler.
I NEVER EVER believe ANY news story without actual evidence being given. The press has proven it is not trustworthy, whether it is Jayson Blair completely inventing stories, or CBS and Dan Rather using known unreliable sources. Without knowing the full picture, the press neither deserves, nor receives, my trust. Anything less encourages them to continue being irresponsible.
This is a big deal of mine: the use of anonymous sources. I categorically reject what any anonymous source says. Period. Not that I say it is wrong, just that I refuse to consider whether it is right or wrong. And this has nothing to do with the Patriots; I do this in all cases.
The only responsible use of an anonymous source by a journalist is on background, to use that information to try to get actual verifiable facts. And by definition, as far as I am concerned, printing unsourced claims without such verification is de facto evidence that the journalist and editor are irresponsible, which gives me even LESS reason to believe it, even if I was inclined to believe it before, which I wasn't.
Sure. And unless you believe the Boston Herald made up this source, he exists. Given that the Pats have already been caught cheating, I highly doubt this source is fabricated.
I hope you never, ever, complain about a newspaper using anonymous sources
Until I see evidence to suggest this source doesn't exist, I believe the Herald. They are not going to risk the integrity of their paper (regardless of how little you value it already) over something like this.
YOU said that his stated explanation of what the Patriots did showed why what Belichick did was "cheating,"
You are framing your argument only in terms of Goodell's remarks. Did I state anywhere that this was the definition of cheating? No. Cheating involves some element of fraudulent behavior. Taping an opponent for the purposes of gaining unfair advantage had a fraudulent element. Pass interference doesn't. It's silly to even suggest it.
Corking a bat has an element of fraud. A balk doesn't. Get it?
Posted by: Palouse on February 5, 2008 09:47 AMI am dealing in facts. We don't know whether he exists.
Given that the Pats have already been caught cheating, I highly doubt this source is fabricated.
Shrug. That the Patriots have already been penalized for similar acts, that also increases the liklihood that it is all made up.
Until I see evidence to suggest this source doesn't exist, I believe the Herald.
That is utterly backward.
They are not going to risk the integrity of their paper (regardless of how little you value it already) over something like this.
That is utterly naive.
You are framing your argument only in terms of Goodell's remarks.
No. I am framing my argument on the terms YOU provided.
Did I state anywhere that this was the definition of cheating?
Nope. But you didn't give any other definition, except for your own question-begging claim that one is cheating, and one is not, which doesn't count.
Cheating involves some element of fraudulent behavior.
Exactly, like interfering with a pass in a way that you try not to get caught, as Amani Toomer did on the sideline.
Corking a bat has an element of fraud. A balk doesn't. Get it?
Nonsense. A balk IS fraud. That is WHY it is illegal in baseball, because you are trying to fraudulently convince the batter or runner you are doing something you aren't doing.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 03:05 PMOnly in your conspiracy theory view.
That the Patriots have already been penalized for similar acts, that also increases the liklihood that it is all made up.
Wrong. The fact that they have already been caught cheating for a similar act makes this instance more likely, not less.
That is utterly naive.
Shrug. It's naive to think otherwise. Let's see millions of dollars and dozens (hundreds?) of jobs risked by making up a source for what? To make a hometown team and coach look bad? Highly unlikely.
I am framing my argument on the terms YOU provided.
I posted Goodell's remarks, which provide context for the Patriots' cheating. That is all.
But you didn't give any other definition
Sure I did. It involves some act of fraud, deliberate intent and unfair advantage. Not an on-field penalty.
like interfering with a pass in a way that you try not to get caught, as Amani Toomer did on the sideline.
Again, not fraud. That is part of the game. Think of it like bluffing in poker. Is bluffing deceitful? Yes. Is it part of the game? Yes. That's the equivalent to pass interference. Cheating is dealing from the bottom of the deck to give yourself or partner a better starting hand they would otherwise get randomly. That has a fraudulent element to gain an unfair advantage. It's deliberate, and against the rules. THAT is what the Patriots did.
A balk IS fraud.
Nope, just a simple procedural infraction. Not deliberate. Not intended to gain an unfair advantage. A corked bat has these elements - deliberate, against the rules, intent to gain an unfair advantage = cheating. The Patriots taping has all of those elements.
Posted by: Palouse on February 5, 2008 03:25 PMWe don't know whether he exists.
Only in your conspiracy theory view.
No. It's a fact. We do not know. It is utterly irrational to claim otherwise, unless you have inside information.
It's naive to think otherwise. Let's see millions of dollars and dozens (hundreds?) of jobs risked by making up a source for what? To make a hometown team and coach look bad? Highly unlikely.
They make stuff up ALL THE TIME. Dude. You have no idea what you are talking about. The Northeast sports press is completely unreliable. This makes as much sense as you claiming that Jimmy Johnson doesn't know how walkthroughs work.
It involves some act of fraud, deliberate intent and unfair advantage
Yes, just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Not an on-field penalty.
So using corked bats is NOT cheating? Make up your mind.
Again, not fraud. That is part of the game. Think of it like bluffing in poker. Is bluffing deceitful? Yes. Is it part of the game? Yes. That's the equivalent to pass interference.
Um, except that pass interference is a violation of the rules, and bluffing is not.
Cheating is dealing from the bottom of the deck to give yourself or partner a better starting hand they would otherwise get randomly.
Right, and is no different from intentional pass interference.
That has a fraudulent element to gain an unfair advantage. It's deliberate, and against the rules. THAT is what the Patriots did.
Also, what Amani Toomer did.
A corked bat has these elements - deliberate, against the rules, intent to gain an unfair advantage = cheating. The Patriots taping has all of those elements.
As does Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 03:45 PMTo believe he doesn't exist is to believe in irrational conspiracy theories about the Boston media. I don't. Obviously, you do.
This makes as much sense as you claiming that Jimmy Johnson doesn't know how walkthroughs work.
I never made this claim. Besides, JJ's walkthroughs might have been vastly different from Vermeil's.
By the way, Dick Vermeil has said that they went through the scripted plays that start the game in their walk throughs. Seeing those plays beforehand obviously gives a team a competitive advantage.
Yes, just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Pass interference is not fraud. Not even close.
So using corked bats is NOT cheating? Make up your mind.
Corked bat is cheating. Players caught doing it are suspended and fined. That's because they are actually committing a fraud on the game. The punishment is severe (like what the Patriots received) because it's CHEATING. Pass interference is nothing more than a simple procedural infraction, and the penalty is just yardage and a first down. Cheating has an additional fraudulent element in order to gain an unfair advantage, thus the penalty for it is much steeper. Your trying to make a moving violation the equivalent of felony murder.
Right, and is no different from intentional pass interference.
Nope, pass interference doesn't meet the fraud standard, and very often, there's no intent either. It's pretty easy to accidentally commit pass interference. Cheating has no such accidental equivalent, unless you believe the liars who said they didn't know they were getting injected with steroids. Cheating is deliberate, and intentional and fraudulent.
Posted by: Palouse on February 5, 2008 04:07 PMPlease do not misrepresent me out of intent or carelessness. I was quite clear, and I said no such thing. I said I do not believe he exists, which is entirely different from saying I believe he doesn't exist.
Pass interference is not fraud. Not even close.
When you try to hide it, it is. And he did. Successfully.
Corked bat is cheating. Players caught doing it are suspended and fined. That's because they are actually committing a fraud on the game. The punishment is severe (like what the Patriots received) because it's CHEATING. Pass interference is nothing more than a simple procedural infraction, and the penalty is just yardage and a first down.
But then it is PERCEPTION that defines cheating. The heavier penalty is just a sign that someone THINKS that one thing is cheating and another isn't; it doesn't tell us WHY they think that. By this standard, if they decided to give a heavier penalty for pass interference, it therefore would be, to you, cheating.
Cheating has an additional fraudulent element in order to gain an unfair advantage
Just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Nope, pass interference doesn't meet the fraud standard
Not always, sure. That is why I kept repeating Toomer's, and not Pierce's, because with Pierce's there was no attempt to hide his actions.
Cheating is deliberate, and intentional and fraudulent.
Just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 06:33 PMBut then it is PERCEPTION that defines cheating. The heavier penalty is just a sign that someone THINKS that one thing is cheating and another isn't
Geez, Pudge. Now cheating is in the eye of the beholder? The fact that a Patriots fan has to argue in the manner you do in order to defend them is further evidence of their guilt.
Posted by: Shank on February 5, 2008 07:53 PMWhat difference? No one has been able to enumerate it.
Now cheating is in the eye of the beholder?
According to Palouse, apparently, since that is the argument he is giving: "well, the league thinks it is more severe by virtue of having a stiffer penalty, so that means it is cheating."
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 11:07 PMThe only possible way this person cannot exist is if there is a conspiracy at the Boston Herald to make up sources. If that's true, you should be able to provide lots of other instances of this occurring. I await your results.
When you try to hide it, it is.
Not even close. Pass interference is inherently not fraud, it's part of the game. In fact, it is often a good play to commit pass interference, whether he tries to hide it or not, in order to prevent a player from scoring a touchdown. And that's perfectly within the rules. CHEATING in the form the Patriots did it, is NEVER within the rules.
The heavier penalty is just a sign that someone THINKS that one thing is cheating and another isn't
I did not make this argument. However, cheating is treated with a harsher penalty, yes, because it involves a fraud on the game.
That is why I kept repeating Toomer's, and not Pierce's, because with Pierce's there was no attempt to hide his actions.
Cheating is much more than just an attempt to hide your action. By this standard, insider trading would not be cheating if you did it without covering your tracks, but would be if you attempt to hide it. That makes no sense. The act itself is either cheating (like dealing from the bottom of deck) or it's not. Any infraction that is part of game play cannot be considered cheating, especially when committing such an infraction is often a good play or unintentional.
"well, the league thinks it is more severe by virtue of having a stiffer penalty, so that means it is cheating."
Please do not misrepresent my argument. I never made this claim. Cheating is committing a fraud on the game, is deliberate, intentional, and against the rules. Infractions like pass interference are not cheating because they are not a fraud on the game, they are part of it.
The penalties however do reflect the fact that cheating is a fraud on the game. Much like my example of a moving violation versus felony murder. Are both "against the rules"? Sure. Are they equivalent? Not even close. It's silly to even try and equate them. That's what you are doing with pass interence and the Patriots' cheating.
Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2008 08:25 AMThe only possible way this person cannot exist is if there is a conspiracy at the Boston Herald to make up sources. If that's true, you should be able to provide lots of other instances of this occurring. I await your results.
Sigh. Again, I am not saying he doesn't exist. What part of that do you not get? You do not know he exists. I do not know he exists. These are self-evident facts.
Pass interference is inherently not fraud
False, self-evidently.
it's part of the game
Yes, an illegal part of the game, like a corked bat.
In fact, it is often a good play to commit pass interference, whether he tries to hide it or not, in order to prevent a player from scoring a touchdown. And that's perfectly within the rules.
No, it is not. It VIOLATES the rules. You are completely, totally, 100%, incorrect.
CHEATING in the form the Patriots did it, is NEVER within the rules.
Neither is pass interference.
Cheating is much more than just an attempt to hide your action. By this standard, insider trading would not be cheating if you did it without covering your tracks, but would be if you attempt to hide it. That makes no sense.
Shrug. You're the one who brought it up. Fine, you make no sense then, according to you.
The act itself is either cheating (like dealing from the bottom of deck) or it's not.
And yet you are incapable of describing a usable way to determine whether something is cheating.
Any infraction that is part of game play cannot be considered cheating
OK. Corked bats are not cheating. According to you.
Cheating is committing a fraud on the game, is deliberate, intentional, and against the rules
Just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
It's silly to even try and equate them. That's what you are doing with pass interence and the Patriots' cheating.
Blame yourself. You are the one making definitions for "cheating" that necessarily include Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Posted by: pudge on February 6, 2008 01:51 PMWhatever. Believe your unsubstantiated conspiracy theories if you like.
Yes, an illegal part of the game, like a corked bat.
Illegal, yes, a fraud on the game, no.
Neither is pass interference.
Pass interference is part of the game. It is a simple infraction, not cheating. See moving violation, felony murder comparison.
You're the one who brought it up. Fine, you make no sense then, according to you.
That was by your standard, not mine.
And yet you are incapable of describing a usable way to determine whether something is cheating.
I have done that. It is not my fault you cannot see the difference.
OK. Corked bats are not cheating.
100% incorrect. Corked bats are not part of game play, not by any means. Cork a bat and you are immediately ejected from the game and suspended, because it's cheating. Commit an infraction like pass interference, move the ball to that spot and next play. Both are "against the rules" but only one is cheating. See moving violation/felony murder comparison.
Just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Still not fraud.
You are the one making definitions for "cheating" that necessarily include Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Nope, there's a pretty common definition of cheating, and it almost certainly contains some type of fraud and unfair advantage.
Again, moving violations and murder are both "against the rules". That doesn't mean they are the same thing. They are in completely different categories. So is cheating and pass interference.
You're lying again, deceitfully misrepresenting me as believing he does not exist.
Pass interference is part of the game
Just like corked bats.
It is a simple infraction, not cheating
According to YOU, not the rules.
Corked bats are not part of game play
Fine. Then neither is pass interference. Make up your mind.
Cork a bat and you are immediately ejected from the game and suspended
So we are back to defining whether something is cheating by how severe the penalty is, which you said before you weren't doing, but you clearly are doing.
It's hard to keep up with you when you keep disagreeing with yourself.
Just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Still not fraud.
False. It absolutely is.
Nope, there's a pretty common definition of cheating, and it almost certainly contains some type of fraud and unfair advantage.
Right. Just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Posted by: pudge on February 6, 2008 10:39 PMNope, just following your arguments as you've made them.
Just like corked bats.
Corked bats = cheating = not part of the game.
According to YOU, not the rules.
PI is an infraction, not cheating. You can find it in the rules of football. Please show me where illegally videotaping an opponent for the purposes of gaining an unfair advantage exists in the rulebook. You won't find it because it's not part of the game. Never has been, never will be.
So we are back to defining whether something is cheating by how severe the penalty is
Nope, the penalty is only reflective of the fact that you've cheated. It doesn't define the cheating - the act itself does. Corked bat = cheating = ejection and suspension.
False. It absolutely is.
Please show one citation, ANYWHERE, that defines pass interference as fraud. I await your results.
Just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
You're equating a moving violation with murder again.
Posted by: Palouse on February 7, 2008 07:49 AMNo, you are, in fact, lying. You repeatedly accuse me of believing a "conspiracy theory," when, in fact, what I repeatedly stated is that I do not believe anything either way.
Corked bats = cheating = not part of the game.
What's sad is that you don't understand that you are giving a textbook question-begging fallacy. Why isn't it part of the game? Because it's cheating! By why is it cheating? Because it isn't part of the game!
PI is an infraction, not cheating. You can find it in the rules of football. Please show me where illegally videotaping an opponent for the purposes of gaining an unfair advantage exists in the rulebook. You won't find it because it's not part of the game. Never has been, never will be.
More arguing against yourself. Now you are saying if it is in the rulebook, it is not cheating, it is part of the game ... but corked bats are in the rulebook. Rule 6.06(d).
Please show one citation, ANYWHERE, that defines pass interference as fraud. I await your results.
More arguing against yourself: show me one citation, ANYWHERE, that defines either what Belichick did, or corked bats, as fraud. I await your results.
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 08:00 AMOK, you obviously know almost nothing about Boston media, especially Boston sports media. They are notoriously one of the worst in the country. No sports fan from Boston would think the Herald printing something like this without a good source is the LEAST BIT implausible.
Is this not you believing they made up the source? Sure sounds alot like it.
What's sad is that you don't understand that you are giving a textbook question-begging fallacy.
Nope. It's cheating because it is a fraud on the game, it's deceptive, intentional and intended to gain an unfair advantage. Something I've stated several times.
Now you are saying if it is in the rulebook, it is not cheating, it is part of the game
Not just in the rulebook, but part of game play. The rules in baseball clearly state that it is not. PI is in the rules of game play, and it is clearly defined. I'm still waiting for you to show me where illegally videotaping for the purposes of gaining unfair advantage is in the rules of play.
Fraud is an intentional deceptive attempt to gain an unfair advantage. Corked bats meet that standard. So does Bellichik's videotaping.
For it to be cheating, it has to undermine the integrity of the game itself. Pass interference is nowhere close. It's a simple infraction, part of the rules of play. Same with a balk. The action is not intentional, runners move up, and the game goes on.
Posted by: Palouse on February 7, 2008 08:22 AMAh, now things become clear: you have no idea what the word "plausible" means.
It's cheating because it is a fraud on the game, it's deceptive, intentional and intended to gain an unfair advantage.
Just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
Not just in the rulebook, but part of game play. The rules in baseball clearly state that it is not.
Nope. It absolutely says no such thing. Indeed, according to MLB rules, a corked bat is no different from batting with one foot outside the batter's box. There is an additional penalty, but that's it. There is no statement whatsoever about it not being a part of game play.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where illegally videotaping for the purposes of gaining unfair advantage is in the rules of play.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where corked bats is not in the rules of play. This "in the rules" thing was something YOU brought up, and now you won't abide by your own standard.
Fraud is an intentional deceptive attempt to gain an unfair advantage. Corked bats meet that standard. So does Bellichik's videotaping.
So does Amani Toomer's pass interference.
For it to be cheating, it has to undermine the integrity of the game itself. Pass interference is nowhere close.
False. That is precisely what Amani Toomer's pass interference was. You keep saying this, but you are, quite clearly, wrong. He committed a fraud -- intentionally deceiving the officials -- in order to gain an unfair advantage, and in the process undermined the game's integrity.
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 08:42 AMSo you're not saying they made the source up? Make up your mind.
Just like Amani Toomer's pass interference.
You're equating a moving violation to murder again.
Indeed, according to MLB rules, a corked bat is no different from batting with one foot outside the batter's box. There is an additional penalty, but that's it. There is no statement whatsoever about it not being a part of game play.
Wrong. Batting with one foot out of the box does not undermine the integrity of the game. It's just an infraction. Batter is out. Game goes on.
Corked bat, the game is stopped. The player is ejected, and then is subjected to suspensions and/or fines. Because that player cheated.
Moving violation - pay your fine, life goes on. Murder, get convicted, your freedom or life is taken away.
This "in the rules" thing was something YOU brought up, and now you won't abide by your own standard.
PI = part of game play, defined in rules of play, ball moved to spot, game continues. Illegal videotaping = not part of game play, fraud on the game, severe punishment.
He committed a fraud -- intentionally deceiving the officials -- in order to gain an unfair advantage, and in the process undermined the game's integrity.
Nope, he committed a simple infraction, much like a moving violation, and it was part of game play. Illegal videotaping is clearly, not. It actually undermined the game's integrity, and that's why the penalty was so severe.
Posted by: Palouse on February 7, 2008 08:56 AMYou're lying. I never said they did.
Wrong. Batting with one foot out of the box does not undermine the integrity of the game.
You said "the rules in baseball clearly state that [corking a bat] is not [part of the game]."
I await your evidence of this false claim.
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 03:06 PMLet me simplify this for you with a simple yes or no question.
Do you believe the Boston Herald made up that source?
You said "the rules in baseball clearly state that [corking a bat] is not [part of the game]."
And I'm still waiting for you to show me where illegally videotaping an opponent for the purpose of gaining unfair advantage is part of game play.
A corked bat is obviously not part of game play because it's cheating - you are committing a fraud on the game and your involvement in the game immediately stops. That's why you are ejected, suspended and fined when you do it. As opposed to infractions, where you are not ejected or subject to any such penalties, because they are just part of game play.
Posted by: Palouse on February 7, 2008 03:32 PMI have already stated, explicitly, many times that I do not believe they did, and I do not believe that they did not, as there is not a single fact in evidence that points either way. I have repeated this over and over. Why are you asking a question I have answered many times?
I'm still waiting for you to show me where illegally videotaping an opponent for the purpose of gaining unfair advantage is part of game play.
Why would it matter? YOU said that something in the rulebook means it is not cheating. I already proved you wrong: either your claim that the rulebook means something is not cheating, or the claim that corking a bat is cheating. Both of your claims cannot be true.
Until you resolve your logical cunundrum, I have no obligation to continue down this error-fraught path.
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 04:02 PMThat is not an answer. What you are actually saying is that you cannot answer a simple yes or no question.
Do you believe they made up the source or not? It's really quite simple.
YOU said that something in the rulebook means it is not cheating.
I didn't say that cheating cannot be mentioned in the rulebook. Indeed, it can, but that doesn't make that act part of game play.
Posted by: Palouse on February 7, 2008 04:10 PMUmmmm. Yes it is.
What you are actually saying is that you cannot answer a simple yes or no question.
Ummmmm. Incorrect. I said No, I do not believe the Herald made up that source.
I added, I also do not believe they didn't. I -- like you -- do not have enough information to believe either way.
Do you believe they made up the source or not? It's really quite simple.
Yes, it is quite simple, and I have stated it explicitly MANY TIMES. You have a serious comprehension problem. What part of "I do not believe they did" do you not understand?
I didn't say that cheating cannot be mentioned in the rulebook.
Yes, in fact, you did say that. That was absolutely the direct implication of "PI is an infraction, not cheating. You can find it in the rules of football. Please show me where illegally videotaping an opponent for the purposes of gaining an unfair advantage exists in the rulebook. You won't find it because it's not part of the game."
So now you are lying about your own argument.
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 09:02 PMIf you do not believe they made it up, and you also do not believe they didn't, then how is it possible to be believe that the source doesn't exist? This logic does not follow.
So now you are lying about your own argument.
No, I'm not. You just misinterpreted that previous statement, which I later clarified. The last part says it's "not part of the game". I'll clarify this further for you since you're having trouble.
Infractions like pass interference are part of a checks and balances system in the game of play. These checks and balances are what make the game play what it is. For example, the passing game as we know it would cease to exist without the pass interference check and balance infraction.
Cheating on the other hand, since it's not part of game play, is not part of this system. There is no check and balance, and when it occurs, that act causes a more drastic reaction - the player is removed from the game, suspended, or the team incurs some other kind of harsh penalty (e.g. game forfeits, loss of draft choices, huge fines, etc). This is because they have committed a fraud on the game, not just a simple infraction.
Um. I NEVER SAID I BELIEVE THAT THE SOURCE DOESN'T EXIST. NEVER. EVER. YOU ARE MAKING THAT UP. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
Cheating on the other hand, since it's not part of game play, is not part of this system.
Except that you arbitrarily decide what is, and is not, a part of that "system" as it suits you.
Posted by: pudge on February 8, 2008 08:42 AMOk, you said you do not belive he exists. The logic still doesn't follow.
Except that you arbitrarily decide what is, and is not, a part of that "system" as it suits you.
Not at all. The rules of game play do. Infractions like pass interference or balks don't result in any kind of suspension of game play, forfeiting games, expulsions, suspensions, fines, etc. There is a balancing action (move the ball to the spot, move up a base), and then the game continues.
Posted by: Palouse on February 8, 2008 10:11 AMThere is nothing to not follow. I have no reason to believe he does, or does not, exist. Therefore I do not believe he does, or does not, exist.
The rules of game play do.
False. The rules do no such thing. There is not a single place where "cheating" is defined. It is your arbitrary definition -- that you have changed many times.
Posted by: pudge on February 8, 2008 03:34 PM