NFL Playoffs Conference Championship Week: Can we have a controversy free weekend, please?

[Red Tiger]

Holy shit, what a rant

[Rockroi]

Pretty good, right?

I understand what kal had an issue with- and I should have been less verbose about my defense - its when I said "The Patriots continue to define the game" and that was an overreach, but only because no team- really, not even the Seahawks "define" the game. I mean, right now the thing being discussed more than anything else are "the rules"; - what constitutes a "catch" and just how confusing can you get on the line of scrimmage?

And, just to point out, the Pats contributed a lot to that discussion because of their actions Saturday Night.

If I could go back and do one thing it would be to change that sentence to say "The Patriots continue to be - after such a long period of time- one of the most relevant teams in the NFL" which would absolutely be true. However, I DID mean to reach just a little further insofar as the Patriots- through offensive "scheming" - created an innovation in the game that could have large, far-reaching ramifications in how other teams play this game. However, it seems more likely that the NFL will have a meeting - where the real excitement happens - and redo the rules so that what the Pats did cannot happen again (this making it seem like the Pats did something wrong, which is not true), and stiffing innovation.

What I do not like is that football- among the major sports- is the least likely to have in-game innovations; football is so standardized, so regulated; such a prisoner to "order" that even the most modest of changes is seen as both an abomination and an opportunity. Teams are quick to imitate the innovation,. but rarely does it stick. The Wildcat was a gigantic change, but was brief; a transient change that was immediately stifled, not by the rules, but by the talent in the NFL. While creating a scramble-ready QB seems like a great idea when its Russel Wilson, coaches and GMs know that he is one bad hit away from having that ability reduced, if not eliminated (such as with RGIII, or shortening a players career like with Steve Young).

But Belichick's "innovation" seems like it would be... interesting. At the same time, its likely to be DOA; if there is one thing the NFL does not need is more advantages for the offense- the 2003 Colts and 2012 Broncos saw to that with reducing the ability of defenses to actually cover wide receivers. BUt it shows how Belichick thinks.

Again, to sort of move this discussion, if there is one thing Belichick does its try to get that small, incremental advantage within the system. It does NOT always work out- Spygate was the result of Belichick's 1) desire to gain a competitive advantage over the competition and 2) his belief that the rules were vague enough that what he was trying to do was legit (it was not). Same was true in 2013 when Belichick thought he knew how to beat the "no block field goals" system by not pushing from the "second level." But in other areas? He is constantly trying to find ways to gain that advantage - hiring McDaniels during the playoffs so that McDaniels could assist in playing the team he had just been fired from; in rearranging players as "ineligible" to utterly baffle the opponents; and dozens of smaller, subtler and no less sneaky maneuvers. Belichick is a huge advocate of expanding coach's abilities to use challenges on more plays; he wants to make make extra-points harder; more exiting. He even wants to put a dedicated camera on the goal line.

That was what I was a trying to say; that what Belichick is doing is moving the needle in the NFL and is a great example of coaching an innovation. The sad part is it has two immediate consequences: it gives yahoos the ammunition to prop up their misguided and untrue beliefs that the Pats are cheating and 2) (and more importantly) its going to spur the NFL to "close the 'loophole'" before the innovation has a chance to thrive in the game. To me, that is a missed opportunity.

In that sense... yeah... to that extent the Pats are really, truly "defining" the game insofar as any team could. At the same time, I recognize that in a sense its an overreach to say they are defining the game because of their talent or winning or dominance (which ... I never said but I can see how somebody could think that). I think that Seattle is a more dominant presence in the NFL, but I do think the Patriots are a team that for a myriad of reasons - competitiveness, relevance, ingenuity, animosity from other fan bases, rivalries, coaching etc - does continue to define the game and remains one of its more valuable and relevant franchises.

[Reny of Storms End]

People still say the greatest dynasty in the NFL ever only happened because of steroids.

ETA: There's just no way the ineligible receiver play has large far-reaching ramifications. It's a gimmick, and only worked because the Ravens were extremely stupid. As every Pats fan here has stated the players were clearly announce ineligible long before the play was snapped. Any other defense probably just lays it's ears back and takes advantage of a four person line.

[aceluby]

If the pats are 'defining the game', they are doing a pretty shitty job at it from the standpoint of someone who doesn't care about the pats. Nothing about what they have done or continue to do has any impact on anything any other football team is doing.

[James Arryn]

People still say the greatest dynasty in the NFL ever only happened because of steroids.

ETA: There's just no way the ineligible receiver play has large far-reaching ramifications. It's a gimmick, and only worked because the Ravens were extremely stupid. As every Pats fan here has stated the players were clearly announce ineligible long before the play was snapped. Any other defense probably just lays it's ears back and takes advantage of a four person line.

Who was on steroids, Joe Montana?

[DanteGabriel]

People still say the greatest dynasty in the NFL ever only happened because of steroids.

Eh? I had not heard that criticism leveled at the Montana-Young 49ers. ;)

ETA: Ninjaed by James!

ETA: There's just no way the ineligible receiver play has large far-reaching ramifications. It's a gimmick, and only worked because the Ravens were extremely stupid. As every Pats fan here has stated the players were clearly announce ineligible long before the play was snapped. Any other defense probably just lays it's ears back and takes advantage of a four person line.

I heard from sports talk radio that this week's edition of NFL Turning Point will feature audio from mic-ed up players and sideline mikes from Pats-Ravens. Captures some of the confusion and jawing between sidelines. Also I hear that Turning Point will reveal that this same ploy was used a handful of times in other NFL games this season.

Choke on a scabby peen, Harbaugh.

If the pats are 'defining the game', they are doing a pretty shitty job at it from the standpoint of someone who doesn't care about the pats. Nothing about what they have done or continue to do has any impact on anything any other football team is doing.

This post as well as that nonsensical and ill-informed post about how Belichick would be sub-.500 without Brady is an excellent way of demonstrating you don't care about the Pats.

[Reny of Storms End]

I heard from sports talk radio that this week's edition of NFL Turning Point will feature audio from mic-ed up players and sideline mikes from Pats-Ravens. Captures some of the confusion and jawing between sidelines. Also I hear that Turning Point will reveal that this same ploy was used a handful of times in other NFL games this season.

Choke on a scabby peen, Harbaugh.

I gotta tune in for that. If there's one thing I love it's watching the Ravens lose, and then act like six year olds afterwards.

James,

I was thinking of a different Joe.

[James Arryn]

I gotta tune in for that. If there's one thing I love it's watching the Ravens lose, and then act like six year olds afterwards.

James,

I was thinking of a different Joe.

Theisman? Namath? Green?

[grozeng]

Worth noting again that its just a gigantic coincidence that in 2013 Manning threw for 55 touchdowns and in 2014 the NFL began testing for HGH and then, suddenly, Manning's decline went into free fall.

Again I used the words "gigantic coincidence."

His decline went into free fall in 2014? If his stats went into decline in 2014 then so did Brady's since Manning had more TDs and more yards and a higher rating then Brady. Now if you said 2015 maybe you have a point. But his stats were still pretty good in 2014. Just not as other-worldly as they were in 2013. 2014 was very similar to 2012.

[DanteGabriel]

I gotta tune in for that. If there's one thing I love it's watching the Ravens lose, and then act like six year olds afterwards.

It warms my heart that Pats and Steelers fans can be united by mutual loathing for those shitbird Cravens.

[Rockroi]

I gotta tune in for that. If there's one thing I love it's watching the Ravens lose, and then act like six year olds afterwards.

Its practically Hands Across America.

[Reny of Storms End]

It warms my heart that Pats and Steelers fans can be united by mutual loathing for those shitbird Cravens.

We've come so far together Dante, cheers! You too Rock.

James,

Theisman and Namath? Come on now, quit pulling my leg.

[James Arryn]

Ok, so it's apparently confirmed: 49ers fired every single coach except Rathman. Tomsula and Rathman were 2 longest serving 49ers coaches on team, and very popular with ownership. Everyone else was told (by Baalke, on phone) that 'coach Tomsula is going in another direction.'

Even aside from all the great coaches we're gutting, it's a bit weird that Tomsula doesn't want to work with any of his colleagues from the resurgence years. It also kinda makes the whole 'continuity hire' a bit academic.

[Jaime L]

Worth noting again that its just a gigantic coincidence that in 2013 Manning threw for 55 touchdowns and in 2014 the NFL began testing for HGH and then, suddenly, Manning's decline went into free fall.

Again I used the words "gigantic coincidence."

Are we sure Rock is Bill Simmons and not Skip Bayless?

If Peyton Manning was taking HGH in 2013, dude needs a refund. I would describe his overall level of athleticism as Mickelsonian.

Ok, so it's apparently confirmed: 49ers fired every single coach except Rathman. Tomsula and Rathman were 2 longest serving 49ers coaches on team, and very popular with ownership. Everyone else was told (by Baalke, on phone) that 'coach Tomsula is going in another direction.'

Even aside from all the great coaches we're gutting, it's a bit weird that Tomsula doesn't want to work with any of his colleagues from the resurgence years. It also kinda makes the whole 'continuity hire' a bit academic.

Why the heck did the 49ers deny the Redskins a chance to interview Vic Fangio if they were just going to fire him?

For sticking us with a Joe Barry you've made a powerful enemy this day.

[Jace, Extat]

:kiss:

:kiss:

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Patriots will have 7 offensive linemen formations and not run the ball a single time on Sunday. Everyone and their mother is talking about how the Colts need to gear up to stop the run, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Brady put the ball in the air +75 times.

[DanteGabriel]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Patriots will have 7 offensive linemen formations and not run the ball a single time on Sunday. Everyone and their mother is talking about how the Colts need to gear up to stop the run, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Brady put the ball in the air +75 times.

With Stork out, I am not sure the Patriots have 7 offensive linemen. With Stork out, I know they don't have 5 OLs that I want to see on the field.

[James Arryn]

Are we sure Rock is Bill Simmons and not Skip Bayless?

If Peyton Manning was taking HGH in 2013, dude needs a refund. I would describe his overall level of athleticism as Mickelsonian.

Why the heck did the 49ers deny the Redskins a chance to interview Vic Fangio if they were just going to fire him?

For sticking us with a Joe Barry you've made a powerful enemy this day.

I think Fangio was going to leave of his own accord. I'd like to think they'd keep him otherwise, but they appear to be getting rid of any Harbaugh people, so who knows. As to why they denied the interview, I don't get much sense of a real plan at work here.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

You are downplaying what Harbaugh was doing; he was bitter at Belichick for out-coaching him and decided to hit him in the "popularity" spot; just dredge up the appearance of cheating.

The Pats continued to be the scary bugaboo (your word) after Spygate- especially that 2007 season. Brady got hurt and there was a correction, butt hey are still the Gold Standad in the AFC and one of the best 3 franchises around. So...

There is a chance- small one - that more teams will try what Belichick did on Saturday. I'm not saying they will be good at it (and the NFL may overhaul the rule ... because innovation = bad) . And yeah, that all happened Saturday, not 10 or 13 years ago.

And the Pats have killed Manning two of the last three times they played him. You are right they lost a crappy AFC Championship game last season. /shrug. Not sure what that has to do with anything but it does seem to make you feel better, I hope you feel better. Do... do you feel better, kal?

True... which is ... why I mentioned them...

Well... you are definitely talking about Chip Kelly. Others may be... or not depending on if he can improve the Eagles after this season's slump.

Well, no. I mean, again, the Pats are not just "doing well" They are probably going to the Superbowl for the third time in 7 years. Most teams are trying to emulate the Seahawks? I ... I don't know where I said otherwise or that other teams were trying to emulate the Pats. I will say, again, that I would not be surprised if other teams looked at that ineligible receiver thing and tried it out. They may, they may not. But I certainly was not saying that its the next "wildcat" (which lasted about half a season).

I doubt that anyone will successfully run the ineligible receiver formation again, even if NFL doesn't revise the rules. It relies on confusion; without confusion, you just have a grossly undersized offensive tackle.

That said, I've always advocated getting completely rid of the restrictions on offensive formations. All players eligible, anyone can line up anywhere. The only restriction is somebody has to snap the ball from the line of scrimmage. The rules on ineligible receivers at the line of scrimmage was originally put in place as a safety measure to prevent teams from running a flying wedge and I don't think that's much of a risk of that now. If your worried about it, then just require like 7 players to be within 5 yards of the line.

It would be complete chaos as teams try to see how few linemen they can get away with and put 8 receivers out. There'd be an offensive explosion for a few years until defense figure things out. In college, at least. In the NFL things will probably stay exactly the same for a decade except for Belichick and Kelly occasionally sending an offensive tackle on a wheel route.

It would not only increase scoring, but also help with player safety and long term health by encouraging smaller players. I think that in such a system, offensive tackles would look more like Jason Witten than DJ Fluker.

[Kalbear]

Said.. the guy who is up at like 3AM arguing with me over the Patriots.

See, this is the bullshit I'm talking about, Rock. Everything revolves around you. Other time zones? They just don't exist.

:)

Also, it's funny that you bring up things 3 years ago as a point against me when I'm saying you're talking about things from years ago. That IBM link? 2011. Heh.

As to the rest - this is the problem that you rightly pointed out. You way overreached.

So, yeah... other than the gleeful, schadenfreude stories of the demise of the Pats coming from ESPN, Bleacher Report, Yahoo Sports ... other than all of those... NAH! Nobody cares! Now, you are correct that they were going to win the AFC East, but that was because- as another USA Today story said " The Patriots are bad; the AFC East is worse" - you can find that here: http://ftw.usatoday....ffalo-bills-win .

Right - right after that bad loss, people were talking about the Pats.

Just like right after the Denver loss and Manning looking bad there were countless articles about Manning's demise, and the boards were dominated by talking about Manning. It doesn't mean that the Pats are the most relevant. It meant that right this week, the Pats are newsworthy. And I guess it's cool that unlike earlier this year the Pats are newsworthy for being creative, instead of being newsworthy like the Pats were for losing. That's cool.

It is a bit funny to say 'see, you're talking about the Pats too!' when I'm talking with you, Rock, and disagreeing. It's very Skip Bayless of you. Say something outrageous and then be all 'see, everyone's talking about this outrageous thing I made up!' Well, yeah. That's what is commonly called trolling.

[Jace, Extat]

Colts linebacker Josh McNary has been charged with rape.

God fucking dammit. This scumbag better not be on the field on Sunday, or I'm writing letters to 31 30 teams asking who wants a new fan.