2016-2017 NFL Gameday Thread

[DM72]

This is the NFL, not pee wee. If you can't handle a team running up the score, that's on you. Give me a coach like Belichick who will keep his foot on the gas as opposed to a coach that once they get a lead, go into cruise control. 

[RemoveSnyder]

30 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Actually, leaving your starters in shows you respect your opponent.

Put another way, if a coach pulled his starting QB and put in the team mascot to take his place, would that be considered "showing your opponent respect"?

 

To a certain point in the game, to a certain score, Yes. There's context and etiquette to everything.

 

You can have your starters in there and run conservative with a comfortable lead, late. You can purposefully not rub it in while still going 100% full speed. If it's a laugher and you're still pushing to set records, or get another score, that's different. It's pretty recognizable to anyone when you see it, since it's a universal thing to all sports and we've had 100+ years of trials to sort-of set the boundaries. 

 

If your back-ups come in and run a standard I-Formation 26 Belly and blow open the hole for a 30 yard run and TD score late against their 1st stringers, it's not intentional. That's just your guys still going 100% and running a bread and butter play. 

 

Your hypothetical was an attempt at humor? Lol. So, Jeff Rutledge was the mascot?

No, the insult would be going to a fake punt razzle-dazzle when up 30+ points late in the 4th quarter. The mascot coming in to take the snap would just be odd. 

 

Having your starters do a Harlem Globetrotters bounce pass off your opponents face to an alley-oop 360 jam when up by 30 points with under a minute is what, then? Hustle? Killer instincts? Heart of a champion? 

 

The final game of the season, you're leading, game well in hand, and Coach subs in the benchwarmer Seniors so that they can get their recognition. The best players are off the court (you see this in basketball), or the field, they get a standing O. It's a universal thing.

 

 

[Rattlesnake88]

21 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Actually, leaving your starters in shows you respect your opponent.

 

Put another way, if a coach pulled his starting QB and put in the team mascot to take his place, would that be considered "showing your opponent respect"?

I agree. Respect to the game too. If I'm up 30 in the fourth. I'm not pulling anyone. And I'm still passing on third and medium+. Doing something for "respect" to the other team is just ludicrous. We are in contract negotiations with a qb who won't take a hometown discount because that is how business and real life work. Yet we are crying because the big meany Bellichick "ran up the score"  on us 10 years ago. Then on top of it all, the same fans are saying all that won't cry along beside them aren't real Redskins fans. Give me a break...

 

This is pro football played by men. Respect is earned through play and championships. The Patriots are a team that demands respect on the field. I think it's more disrespectful to the game to be so damned unprepared to let a team with the same salary and draft picks(give or take) to beat you by 50. Our redskins at the time were a team that celebrated after a big hit 20 yards down the field on 3rd and 7. I feel no remorse for a team like that when they meet up with a team that celebrates with winning.

[Voice_of_Reason]

11 hours ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

 

52- 7. Leaving Brady in deep into the fourth quarter. Going for two fourth downs up over 30 plus points. Breaking the unwritten rule down to their own ****housery arrogance and disrespect. 

 

I was wavering a for a time there to giving the Patriots props. But then I remember the levels Bellicheat stumped to, to completely humiliate Coach Gibbs ..... Call me bitter but I can never congratulate those ****s after THAT!

 

Hail. 

Yeah, whatever.  Gibbs wasn't irritated by it, I'm not going to be. If you don't want a team to score 52 on you, then go stop them. Interestingly, of all of their transgressions, I care almost nothing about that game.  

 

And I'm not really congratulating them on anything.  I just said that they play close, exciting SBs.  I believe the first three came down to FGs at the buzzer, the 2 losses to the NGY were tight, tight games that were decided in the last few minutes, they beat Seattle at the gun with the INT in the end-zone, and then this one was OT.

 

You can't argue that the games aren't exciting, regardless of who you're rooting for. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Bacon said:

 

One of a couple reasons I was happy to see them beat the Steelers. I knew it would be a game, eventually.

 

Really, really damn sad for Atlanta though (the city, not the team).

For personal reasons, I hate everything about Atlanta.  So, I'm perfectly happy to see them mope around for the next 6 months. 

[Redskin4ever]

Well, I guess we should all be butthurt by the Patriots pounding the Redskins 10 years ago. Since they converted 4th downs late and all. I mean, the Redskins would never do something like that. They would never do stuff like call a timeout with a few seconds left and a 28 point lead so they can kick a FG just to run up the score. Nope, not the Redskins. They would never do that. 

 

Its pro football. If you don't like the other team scoring, stop them. Make them pay for leaving their starters in. Don't sit there and expect the other team to just relax and take it easy on you. Stop them. If a team wants to keep their starters in late, the risk is on them, not the team getting pounded. 

[DM72]

We have some weak fans. They're actually some fans that were mad at the Giants for playing to win the last game of this season.

[scruffylookin]

2 hours ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

 

 

Give me a guy with the standards of a Gibbs or Landry leading my franchise over a low life cheating prick like the one leading the Patriots ANY day of the week. And if we win F all compared to him, I'll take that safe in the knowledge I van hold my head held high that we tried to do things the right way. 

 

 

 

Interesting what you choose to remember about those two and how you don't apply the same game "morals" to their actions.

 

Let's go in the wayback machine for a moment. Joe Gibbs' juggernaut in 1991 had a comfortable 35-17 4th quarter lead on Glanville's undermanned (in the secondary) Falcons. This is the regular season game and not the playoff game. The Falcons kept blitzing and what did classy Joe do? He called not one but two bombs. One to Gary and one to Art. Swelling the score to 49-17 and then a defensive score got the Skins to 56-17. Was that not running it up? Was that not "classless"? Or does it matter since it was only against Glanville? I don't recall any soul searching over that.

 

Let's take Tom Landry for a moment. Buddy Ryan was vilified for a fake kneel-down at the end of a game in 1987 against Dallas where he had Cunningham fake kneel and bomb on the last play in a game they had already secured. Buddy was the "jerk" right? But this was done because earlier, in one of the strike games, Landry trotted out Dorsett and Danny White in a blow out win against a completely replacement player filled Eagles team. Isn't that "running it up"? In fact isn't the fact that Tom Landry put out "regular" players like Dorsett, White and Randy White against teams that had nothing but scrubs a form of being "classless"?

 

Bringing it back to that 2007 game you are focused on. You don't like the way Belicheck kept pouring it on, but do you know that the reason why was because he felt the Redskins (Gibbs) had done the same to him in 1991 as Head Coach of the Browns? We can debate the merits of that but if that is what he felt then returning the favor is to be expected.

 

 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The context of those 1991 games and the inherent difference was done over the page scruffy. 

 

Hail. 

[Redskin4ever]

19 minutes ago, DM72 said:

We have some weak fans. They're actually some fans that were mad at the Giants for playing to win the last game of this season.

 

Sadly, you are correct. 

[RemoveSnyder]

20 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

If I'm up 30 in the fourth. I'm not pulling anyone. And I'm still passing on third and medium+.

 

You're over generalizing. There have been specific events cited. And even here in your example you've set limits within the boundary of acceptable behavior. You only go as far as 3rd down. That's fine. You're still playing hard, no disrespect should be inferred. What about 4th down?

 

Up 30, why so little? How about up 70? You're still running Empty-Spread hurry up? 

 

No one is arguing that you lie down and stop playing. 

 

The game clock is 22 seconds, the play clock is 25 seconds. Your opponent has no timeouts. The game clock can run out naturally if you do nothing, you don't have to run a play. You're leading 30 to 0. It's 4th down and you have the ball at your opponents 7 yardline. Do you call a timeout with 2 seconds left in the game in order to attempt a FG? What about a fake field goal attempt in order to score a TD? 

 

Let's suppose I do this to you. Just as people start to mill toward the 50 yardline for the handshake, I call a timeout with 2 seconds left. I know that no matter what happens you won't ever get the ball back, the game clock will run out during the course of the play. I know that no matter what you can't win. I call a fake FG where I throw the ball into the endzone and score a TD. I win 36 to 0. 

 

And if I had the chance, I'd go for a 2-point conversion. Don't think the rules permit it, but let's say I'm able to augment the rules and I attempt a 2-point conversion. I covert it. Now, I've won 38 to 0.

 

What do you say to me when I go to meet you at the 50 yardline? 

 

Let's suppose as I'm walking out to the 50 yardline I have my special teams unit lineup and do an on-sides kick into your coaching staff and I come running full speed to top it off and I'm gunning right for your knees? Am I a champion enough for you? 

[Rattlesnake88]

16 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

 

What do you say to me when I go to meet you at the 50 yardline? 

 

Let's suppose as I'm walking out to the 50 yardline I have my special teams unit lineup and do an on-sides kick into your coaching staff and I come running full speed to top it off and I'm gunning right for your knees? Am I a champion enough for you? 

Going on it on fourth is greasy. I'll give you that, but if you stop them and score they won't try that again. Empty spread hurry up, up 70? No. That would be wreckless. I don't believe anything wreckless happened that day in foxboro.

 

if someone did that (fake fg td throw). That would certainly be a dick move. And if they actually connected it would certainly piss me off. I would say however the odds of completion and the cons severally out weighing the pros of such play make this hypothetical void. As well as your other one where the team attempts to injure the others on kickoff.

 

[RemoveSnyder]

57 minutes ago, DM72 said:

We have some weak fans. 

 

Bull****.

Some of us have played and coached. I'd love a chance to test your theory, on the football field of course.

 

Quote

They're actually some fans that were mad at the Giants for playing to win the last game of this season.

 

Another mislabeling. "Fans who want other teams to give us a freebie win so we can get into the playoffs are weak wristed, unrealistic, and therefore those same fans when leading late in games act like pansies and stop playing and allow 2nd half collapses like the Falcons last night." That's your argument. And it's bull****. Probably because it doesn't exist. 

 

Giants actually gave up in the 2nd half. Which game were you watching? They just ran the ball, abandoned the pass. They didn't have an overwhelming, impossible, lead, they easily could have lost. Despite it, Skins still couldn't win. In that context it was as dismissive and insulting as they could have been to the Redskins. There is no equivalence between that and some of the specific examples provided here.

 

What's more, I find it insulting you're inferring so much of my philosophy when I haven't even stated my stance on Belichick here within the context of this argument, but morso, because I've actually posted my stance on Belichick (generally) in this very thread.

 

I actually started a thread in this forum about the culture of NE and Belichick. I actually respect the hell out of what he's done. And given a choice between "cutthroat" or "passive," if I gave into the extreme nonsensical arguments here, I'd embrace the coach willing to go overboard rather than one unwilling. 

 

But, I don't think it's ever that clear cut. To make it seem that way is just hyperbole on your part. Likewise, I was the one to tell you, prior to the SuperBowl, that I was picking Belichick and his defense over the "new greatest show on turf," what you called the Falcons O. I guess you don't remember that exchange. It was in this very thread. 

 

And regardless, whoever those mystery fans were wishing the Giants to lie down, it wasn't myself. So, once again you're misappropriating that with the context of this discussion which entail what you do in very specific circumstances, as a coach.

 

But I can tell you from personal experience, that I've played in games where the other team ran it up in order to set a record, despite the contest well over. And I've coached, albeit youth league, where I was very cognizant of not taunting or otherwise trying to run it up in games where the outcome was already decided. Not games where it was a large lead and the opponent was unlikely to come back, but literally where there just was not enough time, couldn't mathematically get the possessions to get anywhere near coming back, even if everything went their way. The blowouts have a clear feel and context. 

 

Yeah, it's loose formula. But you kind of know it from historical precedent.  It's a fine line. But to be as dismissive as you are here is insulting. Seriously, what the hell do you know about me anyway? 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

Your hypothetical was an attempt at humor? Lol. So, Jeff Rutledge was the mascot?

 

Not meant as humor in the least. It was me attaching your logic/reasoning to a slightly different scenario to show it's flaws.

 

You made the claim that pulling your starters and putting in backups in a blowout shows respect to your "overmatched" opponent. Nonsense. If that were the case then putting in the team mascot to replace your staring QB in a blowout would really show that you know your opponent was overmatched, wouldn't it?

 

The ONLY reason anyone pulls starters in a game is because the coach doesn't want their best players getting injured in a game where the outcome is guaranteed. It has zero to do with wanting to show respect. And I guarantee no opposing player or head coach will walk out of the game feeling like they were shown respect because you pulled your starters. Hell, even high school sports it wasn't seen as respectful for the Varsity team to go up against JV players in a loss. It was embarrassing, if anything.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

This has certainly been an eye opener. 

 

And not a good one at that. 

 

Hail. 

[DM72]

3 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

Bull****.

Some of us have played and coached. I'd love a chance to test your theory, on the football field of course.

 

 

 

 

Another mislabeling. "Fans who want other teams to give us a freebie win so we can get into the playoffs are weak wristed, unrealistic, and therefore those same fans when leading late in games act like pansies and stop playing and allow 2nd half collapses like the Falcons last night." That's your argument. And it's bull****. Probably because it doesn't exist. 

 

Giants actually gave up in the 2nd half. Which game were you watching? They just ran the ball, abandoned the pass. They didn't have a lead, they easily could have lost. Despite it, Skins still couldn't win. In that context it was as dismissive and insulting as they could have been to the Redskins. There is no equivalence between that and some the specific examples provided here.

 

What's more, I find it insulting you're inferring so much of my philosophy when I haven't even stated my stance on Belichick in this thread. I actually started a thread in this forum about the culture of NE and Belichick. I actually respect the hell out of what he's done. And given a choice between "cutthroat" or "passive," if I gave into the extreme nonsensical arguments here, I'd embrace the coach willing to go overboard rather than one unwilling. 

 

But, I don't it's ever that clear cut. To make it seem that way is just hyperbole on your part. Likewise, I was the one to tell you, prior to the SuperBowl, that I was picking Belichick and his defense over the "new greatest show on turf," what you called the Falcons O. I guess you don't remember that exchange. It was in this very thread. 

 

And regardless, whoever those mystery fans were wishing the Giants to lie down, it wasn't myself. So, once again you're misappropriating that with the context of this discussion which entail what you do in very specific circumstances, as a coach. I actually haven't even provide my opinion one way or the other concerning Belichick that's actually someone else's thing here in this thread.

 

But I can tell you from personal experience, that I've played in games where the other team ran it up in order to set a record, despite the contest well over. And I've coached, albeit youth league, where I was very cognizant of not taunting or otherwise trying to run it up in games where the outcome was already decided. Not games where it was a large lead and the opponent was unlikely to come back, but literally where there just was not enough time to get anywhere near coming back, even if everything went their way. 

 

Yeah, it's loose formula. But you kind of know it from historical precedent.  It's a fine line. But to be as dismissive as you are here is insulting. Seriously, what the hell do you know about me anyway? 

 

There were many that were pissed that the Giants played their starters for the entire game. They wanted an easy path to the playoffs and the Giants didn't give it to them.

 

Now we have fans complaining about running up the score? 

 

That's being weak IMO.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Yup. A very sad eye opener. 

 

Hail. 

[RemoveSnyder]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Not meant as humor in the least. It was me attaching your logic/reasoning to a slightly different scenario to show it's flaws.

 

Fine. Where do you coach? I'd love to come and see your team operate. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

Fine. Where do you coach? I'd love to come and see your team operate. 

 

Not sure what being a coach has to do with whether or not your logic was flawed.

[DM72]

1 minute ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

Fine. Where do you coach? I'd love to come and see your team operate. 

 

So now you can't comment unless you're a coach? You're not shutting anyone up with that nonsense.

[RemoveSnyder]

9 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

The ONLY reason anyone pulls starters in a game is because the coach doesn't want their best players getting injured in a game where the outcome is guaranteed.

 

That's clearly an element. So, you agree that it is possible one can deterime when the outcome of a game is guaranteed? 

That's good, because having that awareness seems to be a main tenet of knowing the limits to which you push things against an opponent.

 

On the injury subject, I'd imagine the likelihood for your best players to become injured would increase the more your opponent felt slighted. If you actually did engage in running it up, perhaps not in that exact game you are playing but in subsequent ones you might run the risk of reprisal.

 

So, it's impossible to separate the aversion to injury ... just happen stance versus over doing it against and opponent who takes it personally and retaliates with an attempt at injury. I think Cincy and Pittsburgh could be an example of that. 

 

Seems the injury concern and awareness of sportsmanship work hand in glove in some respects. 

11 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Not sure what being a coach has to do with whether or not your logic was flawed.

 

I wanted to come and see your team's mascot taking snaps. That sounds like something I should see. 

12 minutes ago, DM72 said:

So now you can't comment unless you're a coach? You're not shutting anyone up with that nonsense.

 

Who's stopping you from commenting. You're commenting up a storm out your ass. 

 

I'd like to see the actualization of you hardasses in work. I'd like to see you run a double reverse flea-flicking with the team's mascot, while up 70 points in the 4th quarter as you're on the stadium PA telling people to stop being such pussies. 

 

I'd pay good money to see that.  

[abdcskins]

When are they going to reshow that game? I hope NFL Network reairs it soon.

[hail2skins]

Think you can make the argument that Gibbs was running it up on Falcons in 1991. Heck, in 2007, BB pulled Brady around the same time as Gibbs pulled Ryp.

 

Im not as bothered by the 2007 game because the Pats were trying to do that to everyone...,remember they scored late against the Cowboys.

 

And I love you GHH, but for you it's more that it happened to Gibbs. If BB had ran it up on Jim Zorn, you wouldn't have cared.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

30 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

.....

And I love you GHH, but for you it's more that it happened to Gibbs. If BB had ran it up on Jim Zorn, you wouldn't have cared.

 

Then whatever I've written over the years to make you love me obviously hasn't transcended into making you know me through hose words at all if you seriously believe that. 

 

I just don't share certain posters selective use of what's right and what's wrong. 

 

Thank you regardless.

 

Hail. 

[DM72]

14 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

That's clearly an element. So, you agree that it is possible one can deterime when the outcome of a game is guaranteed? 

That's good, because having that awareness seems to be a main tenet of knowing the limits to which you push things against an opponent.

 

On the injury subject, I'd imagine the likelihood for your best players to become injured would increase the more your opponent felt slighted. If you actually did engage in running it up, perhaps not in that exact game you are playing but in subsequent ones you might run the risk of reprisal.

 

So, it's impossible to separate the aversion to injury ... just happen stance versus over doing it against and opponent who takes it personally and retaliates with an attempt at injury. I think Cincy and Pittsburgh could be an example of that. 

 

Seems the injury concern and awareness of sportsmanship work hand in glove in some respects. 

 

I wanted to come and see your team's mascot taking snaps. That sounds like something I should see. 

 

Who's stopping you from commenting. You're commenting up a storm out your ass. 

 

I'd like to see the actualization of you hardasses in work. I'd like to see you run a double reverse flea-flicking with the team's mascot, while up 70 points in the 4th quarter as you're on the stadium PA telling people to stop being such pussies. 

 

I'd pay good money to see that.  

 

Nobody said nothing about running flee flickers up 70 points. So who's talking out their ass?

 

But I can tell you one thing, I'm not gone stop scoring just because we're up by a few TD's going into the 4th quarter. 

[RemoveSnyder]

27 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

You made the claim that pulling your starters and putting in backups in a blowout shows respect to your "overmatched" opponent. Nonsense.

 

No, I actually didn't make a claim. Someone cited the Falcons game from '91, I responded by quoting an article summarizing the game and I drew a conclusion from that, saying in that context, with X number of variables, that Gibbs showed respect in not having his best players out there to continue to pile it on.

 

That's really it. I've experienced games where the starters are pulled in laughers. Was injury prevention part of that equation? Yeah, I'll concede that. But you can't separate the sportsmanship quotient either. Because if we run with your example that one can determine the outcome of a game before it's over, unfortunately you will be judged on how you decided to play it out.

 

You can keep the starters out there and still play hard but if you continue to call plays like you are behind and need a score when you have the game in hand, or you're trying to set a record against a team with a bunch of 1st year sophomores, no one is going to buy your superior logic, no matter how solid you think it is intellectually. 

 

I didn't just flat out say, basely, pulling starters = respect to opponent. Because there's no context to that.