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

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
If that's the case, then the Redskins should have just taken a knee when they got the ball back. You can't have it both ways.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?? I can blitz and try and put a lick on Brady, and I can try to score when we have the ball. What's the problem?


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't want the Pats to try to score on offense, but something tells me you wouldn't be too happy with the Redskins giving up when they got the ball.

[Salva135]

[ QUOTE ]

chance of star player getting injured >>> chance of team coming back from one of those 30 point leads against the patriots

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a different point. It's one thing to say the Pats are being "immoral" or "evil" or bad sports by running up the score, and that they should somehow let up at some arbitrarily defined point in order to "respect" their opponents more. This is a baseless argument designed by Pats-haters this year, because they have nothing else to criticize right now. It's basically a bunch of C-students in high school getting pissed off at the kid in class who gets straight As and is ruining their curve. Pure pettiness.

It's another thing to argue that they're being idiots by exposing their stars to the risk of injury by unnecessarily leaving them out there. There's a balance of objectives between keeping players healthy and putting the game away, and Belichick must feel confident enough at the moment that he's struck the right balance. If someone gets hurt, they're going to have to deal it and accept it as a result of the decisions they made. But it's not my job or yours to make those judgements.

If the argument against Brady staying in is only because he might get hurt, would anyone have problems with Cassel coming out in a 4-wide shotgun formation in the red zone with a 40-point lead and 5 minutes left?

[kyro]

salva,

I agree. The "big bad belicheck" running up the score argument is dreck. The issue should be whether or not Belicheck is risking too much by keeping his stars out there.

[kyro]

Also, I doubt Belicheck would have Brady in there 38-0 in the fourth quarter if they hadn't won 3 SBs together. I think they're trying to do something remarkable, (as if 3 SBs in 4 years isn't remarkable enough)

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't want the Pats to try to score on offense, but something tells me you wouldn't be too happy with the Redskins giving up when they got the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the game has reached a point when it is unequivocally over, then yeah, I think the Patriots should at least take their starting QB out, if they feel the need to keep throwing.

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

chance of star player getting injured >>> chance of team coming back from one of those 30 point leads against the patriots

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a different point. It's one thing to say the Pats are being "immoral" or "evil" or bad sports by running up the score, and that they should somehow let up at some arbitrarily defined point in order to "respect" their opponents more. This is a baseless argument designed by Pats-haters this year, because they have nothing else to criticize right now. It's basically a bunch of C-students in high school getting pissed off at the kid in class who gets straight As and is ruining their curve. Pure pettiness.

It's another thing to argue that they're being idiots by exposing their stars to the risk of injury by unnecessarily leaving them out there. There's a balance of objectives between keeping players healthy and putting the game away, and Belichick must feel confident enough at the moment that he's struck the right balance. If someone gets hurt, they're going to have to deal it and accept it as a result of the decisions they made. But it's not my job or yours to make those judgements.

If the argument against Brady staying in is only because he might get hurt, would anyone have problems with Cassel coming out in a 4-wide shotgun formation in the red zone with a 40-point lead and 5 minutes left?

[/ QUOTE ]
why would i? i don't have a problem with brady staying in either, like it doesn't offend me or anything like that, but i do think its retarded. the patriots have a chance to accomplish something really special here and if the whole ship comes crashing down because belichick wants to stick it to every team and win by 50 instead of 25 the colts will laugh all the way to the super bowl. one thing i do have a problem with are patriot fans who have denied and continue to deny that the patriots are trying to run up the score, while its been obvious to some of us for weeks now and is becoming more obvious to others as these games play out.

one thing, i loved the theory by one of simmons's readers that belichick is doing this because he is betting on every game and wants to make sure he covers every time. thats why he brought brady back in against miami. hilarious.

[NoChance]

Shall we ask Miami whether it was a good idea or not to keep Ronnie Brown in the game when it was already out of hand?

There are reasons starters don't play the entire game the final game of the pre-season.

As I Steeler fan, I beg BB to continue playing his star players all the way to the final snap every game. I honestly can't believe Patriot fans are defending this risk.

Risk vs Reward

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't want the Pats to try to score on offense, but something tells me you wouldn't be too happy with the Redskins giving up when they got the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the game has reached a point when it is unequivocally over, then yeah, I think the Patriots should at least take their starting QB out, if they feel the need to keep throwing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you take your starters on defense out, first.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
You can argue about when a game is out of reach all you want, but eventually you reach the point where it becomes subjective, and the idea of letting up earlier in a game when it's not 100% locked up in order to keep a game arbitrarily close challenges the very premise of competition itself. Belichick has alluded to this many times in his recent press conferences, pointing out that this is the NFL, anything can happen, and it's not his job to judge how nicely or respectfully he should beat a team. He has every right to flip out on reports essentially criticizing him for doing his job so much better than everyone else. It's truly unbelievable.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the largest comeback in NFL history is from 32 down, and the largest in the 4th quarter is 25 down, and you're the undefeated New England Patriots at home shutting a team out 38-0 in the 4th quarter, it's not "unbelievable" to suggest that they maybe they should pull up the reins a little bit, make a substitution or two and/or start trying to run the clock. The chances of a comeback were way past "very unlikely".

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
Shall we ask Miami whether it was a good idea or not to keep Ronnie Brown in the game when it was already out of hand?

There are reasons starters don't play the entire game the final game of the pre-season.

As I Steeler fan, I beg BB to continue playing his star players all the way to the final snap every game. I honestly can't believe Patriot fans are defending this risk.

Risk vs Reward

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the reward? Another *yawn* Super Bowl?

That comment sounds super elitist, but my point is the SB is less important than it was in 2001, or 2003, or 2004.