I watched a bit of the Patriots' demolition of the Redskins on Sunday, the latest in a series of dismemberments by Bill Belichick and his crew. I can't say that I was surprised, as the Redskins still look like they are a year or two away from being legitimate contenders. Nor can I say that I am quite as riled up as a lot of the sports world seems to be
about the Patriots' continuing efforts to give the scoreboard operator an aneurysm, long after the game's outcome had been decided. Was it poor sportsmanship? Of course. In everyday life, we have an expression for the kind of person who does this: we call him an
He is the guywho tells homeless people to "get a job." He is the one who can't shut up about how much money he makes, what kind of car he drives, how important he is He is the person for whom success is not enough - to fully realize that success requires him also to make others acknowledge just how superior he is. This is usually the hallmark of a deeply insecure and arguably sociopathic person (Bill in his Unabomber outfits certainly seems to be dressing the part).
But this is professional sports, you say - the entire point is in proving your superiority to the other team. You are completely correct. That first five touchdowns probably proved that. If not, then the sixth must have provided another, less subtle hint:
But after that, what is the point in more points? The Redskins were a beaten team, the Patriots had proven their superiority in every facet of the game, so we could just take a knee and go home, right? Well, Bill had other ideas.
So now I've spent a lot of time talking about what a dingleberry Belichick is, right after saying I wasn't that riled up about it. Oh well, I suppose I have to get back to what was going to be my original point, which is this:
It's not just that he's a jerk, it's that he's a bad coach.
Yes, you read that correctly. Oh, he does X's and O's as well as anyone has the last few decades. But he's letting his man-with-a-small-wiener syndrome make him do things that a good coach doesn't do. Like leave his stars exposed to injury, long after games have been decided. Like build up incentive for other teams to take New England down. Like deprive his backups of useful game experience. Has everyone here forgotten that the Pats' backup QB, Matt Cassel, has never taken a meaningful snap in an NFL game? Does anyone remember that he never took one in college, either? Give Belichick credit for at least putting him on the field in the closing minutes of the Redskins game. But to have Brady on the field with the score 38-0 just doesn't make any sense. He's getting a pass on this from all of the sports commentators out there at the moment, but what do you think will happen if Tom Terrific separates his shoulder or blows out his knee on a meaningless fourth-quarter drive in a rout? What if a frustrated team decides to make a dive for Moss's knees instead of just making a tackle? I don't want this to happen - I don't like the Patriots, but I like watching these guys play, because they do it well. I'm just stating the obvious, which is that Belichick is taking a needless risk, in the name of I don't know what, and eventually it's going to get one of his key players hurt. Do you think the pundits, or the New England homers who currently defend him, will call Belichick a "genius" then?
Funny thing, karma. Your actions tend to pack a bigger wallop when they double back on you.
There wasn't much risk in getting Brady hurt. He bumped into his own men more times than he was touched by the Skins.
How do you take a knee for thirty minutes?
When it was 38-0 the Pats could have taken a chip shot field goal and made it 41-0. But no! Instead of taking sure points, they gave the skins the opportunity to get the ball back on downs. They failed.
I played HS and college football. As hard as I try I cannot remember any drills at practice that taught me how "lay down" when things got out of hand. You were taught to go full out on every snap until a whistle blew.
I, unfortunately, had to spend about five months of Tennessee's national championship year in Nashville. I can't recall one game when the Vols took it easy on their opponents.
Can you remember who the Colt's back-up was last year, or the year before, or the one before that? I can't. I neever saw him play. Did you know who the back-up QB was for the Pats when Bledsoe went down in 2001? I didn't. I never saw him play. The point is when your QB is a star the back-up never plays.
What's the use. The only point you had when you wrote this drivel was to vent without having to pay a price for it.
"Take a knee" was a figure of speech. I suppose I meant it as shorthand for "run out the clock." Something we always did when we had a big lead in my playing days. I don't fault the players for going all-out - doing otherwise just gets you hurt. But the playcalling was completely unnecessary - the idea is to win the game, and the game was already won. When you're leading 38-0, you can go one of two directions: either gear your play-calling toward ending the game more quickly (and allowing a beaten opponent a bit of dignity), or you can try to score as many points as possible. One way is called "sportsmanship," the other is called sociopathy.
As for your other points, college football is a very different world - when your postseason destination depends on impressing voters, there's more of an incentive to run the score up.
As for Manning, yes he played just about every snap of 2006. But check the scores of Indy's games last year; there were only a couple of games that they won by more than two scores. And they certainly weren't throwing deep at the end of those games.
What's the use? The only reason you and other Patriots fans would defend such a lack of class is that it's your guy doing it. If Manning were doing it to the Pats, I don't doubt that you would be one of those screaming about it the loudest.
free counter
I grew up in Tennessee and bleed big orange (bleeding a lot lately) with the Volunteers, then later moved south to New Orleans for school and found my true home. I had no choice but to become a Saints fan, which led to many years of abuse from fans of teams that actually win games, so 2006 was a nice break. I mainly follow college and pro football, as well as some college basketball. I have a particular dislike for televised baseball (live games are a good excuse to sit in the sun and drink beer), except as a means for napping. Someone once told me that people who complain that baseball is boring are the same ones who think that five minutes is too long for sex. That might explain why my wife spends so much time "shopping," but it still isn't going to make me like baseball.
