Should the Pats be running up the score on everybody in garbage time? - Page 34

d10 · #**331** 10-29-2007, 04:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and Shawn Springs spits on people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I miss something or were you thinking of Sean Taylor?

RunDownHouse · #**332** 10-29-2007, 11:43 AM

Whichever one is the Redskins CB.

kyro · #**333** 10-29-2007, 11:50 AM

The injury argument is at least a valid argument. Brady was probably in there for one possession too many, but it was still early in the 4th quarter, and with a huge game against the Colts looming, I figure Belicheck wanted to keep his offense as prepared as possible.

dknightx · #**334** 10-29-2007, 12:22 PM

i was pretty shocked that they would call a QB sneak/dive on 4 and 2 with a 38 point lead. Why would you risk your QB injuring his hand or something?

RunDownHouse · #**335** 10-29-2007, 12:27 PM

I'm pretty sure Brady can just run that sneak whenever he wants, so who knows if it was him or if it was called in. But, yeah, that was my first thought.

Also, a huge [censored] you to Fox for keeping that game playing at all in the 4th and for at least some time in the third. Switch to the one-point game between TB and Jax? Hell, switch to any other game, just don't make me watch a 50-point thrashing down to the last tick of the clock.

kyro · #**336** 10-29-2007, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Also, a huge [censored] you to Fox for keeping that game playing at all in the 4th and for at least some time in the third. Switch to the one-point game between TB and Jax? Hell, switch to any other game, just don't make me watch a 50-point thrashing down to the last tick of the clock.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression Fox had rights to only two games, and the other game (SF/NO) was as much of a blowout.

cbloom · #**337** 10-29-2007, 12:49 PM

I remember back when the 9'ers were just totally dominant in the NFC West, they would basically never play starters in the second half against the weak opponents. Even with something like a 14 point lead they would just sit on it. I guess they didn't have all the rules protecting the QB and such back then and there were a ton more really dirty players.

Any moral argument about the Pats is retarded but I'm gonna LOL bigtime when Brady goes down in a 42-7 game.

kyro · #**338** 10-29-2007, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I remember back when the 9'ers were just totally dominant in the NFC West, they would basically never play starters in the second half against the weak opponents. Even with something like a 14 point lead they would just sit on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that's pretty stupid.

jh12547 · #**339** 10-29-2007, 01:10 PM

I dislike Brady and the Pats as much as the next guy but i remember SD letting LT score his 3rd or 4th TD in a blowout game late in the 4th Qtr. No one was bitching then. Its the NFL not high school. Either stop them or do what you have to and take him out.

Vagos · #**340** 10-29-2007, 01:16 PM

The main thing I see is that Belichick has already shown a propensity to take unnecessary risks for his team. And I know a lot of Pats fans want to rationalize why Brady is out there in blowouts (to keep the offense sharp, add to the legacy, etc) but I still think it's an unnessary risk. And after the "WTF Why would Belichick do that!?" reaction when they got caught cheating against the lowly Jets, I'd expect the same reaction if Brady went down with an injury in a blowout drive.

It's just a little easier to justify it when everything is going smoothly.