Quote:
Originally Posted by Triggerfish
 Are you serious?! You're comparing baseball to football? I've posted in other threads on this topic of "running up the score", which I believe is what you're getting at here. My point is and always has been this....run up the score all you want! If you can beat a team 142-0, go for it! HOWEVER, once the game is clearly in hand, you take your studs out! Why risk injury (accidental or "cheap shot")??! Do you not want your best guys healthy and on the field come playoff time? Put in your 2nd stringers, hell 3rd stringers if you want, and if they can keep piling on the points, cheers to ya! I think that's REALLY the point the media and everyone else is trying to make. I don't see how anyone could cry about Joe-Shmoe 3rd string RB punching one into the end zone. The point is that, especially in this past weeks game, Brady and probably a lot of other "studs" shouldn't have even been on the field when it's 38-0 in the 4th quarter. |
Well, do the other guys still have their "studs" in? That's a telling feature as to whether or not the other team thinks we're going nuclear on them.
As I recall, there was a brouhaha about Kyle Eckel scoring a TD in the 4th quarter of a recent game.
So, no, I don't think that's the REAL point the media and everyone else is trying to make.
They're complaining about running up the
score, not so much who's doing the running up.
When the other guys keep their "studs" in, call time out with 2:25 left, despite being down by a gazillion points, and try onside kicks under the same scenario, who's dissing who with all these "complaints"?
Here. Let's look at it this way.
Pats are up by, say, 28 with maybe 7 minutes to go or so. They're playing the Hoboken Zephyrs, OK?
Due to intense public scrutiny, and not-so-subtle leaning-on from the Commissioners office, Belichick removes most all the starters (indeed, all the "studs") and inserts backups.
Everyone's happy, OK?
Except for maybe Belichick.
Hoboken star RB Joe Shlabotnik is sprung for a long run, behind 2 holds that never get a whistle at the line, that results in a touchdown.
7 points.
Zephyrs try an onside kick, which the not only recover, but that they return for a TD.
Another 7 points.
Rather than go for the onside kick again, the Zephyrs do a normal kick off, which Hobbs returns to the 23.
Starters are back in despite protests from everyone in the stadium, and assorted world leaders.
6 plays later, Brady is blindsided by a safety blitz that was the result of an offside non-call that was missed. (Hey, stranger things have happened!) The result is a fumble, which the Zephyrs recover on their own 32. First and 10.
A little over 3 minutes remains now.
The Zephyrs, not having much luck running the ball, are utilizing short passes over the flat, sideline patterns good for 6 - 8 yards a pop that keep them moving.
Less than 2 minutes now, and the Zephs are just inside their opponent's 30. There's another sideline pass that Samuel goes for, but he's half a step behind the play, misses it, and the WR goes down the sideline for a score.
Another 7 points, and it's now a 7 point game.
Everyone on the planet now expects another onside kick which is indeed what happens. Of course, the Zephyrs recover. In a strange sequence of plays that somehow result in a touchdown, we now have a 1 point game, and Marlon Brando, the Zephers' coach, decides this is when he's going to show Belichick, the league and the world the size of his gonads. He goes for 2 on a fake double reverse that has the Zephers' QB, Merle Haggard, scamper in on a keeper as time expires.
After the game, Patriot fans everywhere, expecting the team to be lauded for the "class" their team showed, are instead treated to a litany of comments from both the Zephyrs and pundits around the country exclaiming, "I can't believe the Patriots were that stupid!"
While this is obviously fantasy, and rather unlikely to pass into the realm of reality, it does illustrate the other side of the "run up the score" coin.
This "running up the score" brouhaha is a straw man at best, and a complete zero at worst. It's the most infantile argument possible in a game whose object is to score points, more points than your opponent, enough points to win. And until the game is over, how do you determine what that quantity is?
They're the ones with the talent sufficient to dictate what that number is, so they, and not their opponents, and most certainly not a gaggle of sportswriters and commentators, get to define and determine that.
When their opponent signals defeat by beginning substitutions, then the game is over, the outcome is decided, and with the JV in to gain valuable experience for both clubs, "hurt feelings", whether real or perceived, are laid to rest.
Trust me. That's how it should be done.
Anybody know the length of Sunday's game?
I do agree with some points you made though, believe it or not. Really, the Skins knew that game was over too, and probably should have considered pulling their starters as well to avoid injury. HOWEVER, the losing team has to be the ones playing out of desperation, against all odds. At some point, I agree that even they needed to realize that this game was out of reach. But, I still believe that the Pats (or the winning team in whatever scenario you choose) is the team with more to LOSE from keeping their starters in. The biggest of those concerns, of course being injury to one of their stars. The BEST case scenario for the losing team is they make a miraculous comeback, as depicted in your story. What is the BEST case scenario for the winning team? Scoring a bunch more points? Who cares?! And, as UNLIKELY as your story seems, if by some sort of divine intervention the other team DOES start to make a comeback, there's always the option of re-inserting your starters. 
Linear Mode
