(Mod Edited Title) Warner on SB 36: Pats' Hitting Receivers/Faulk Pushed the Envelope

[NEP4Life]

Obviously Warner didn't bring this topic up unsolicited, but when a mediot asks, one can always decline to comment.

It Is What It Is » Kurt Warner believes Patriots-Rams Super Bowl might have been different if played today

...what they did then I don’t know if it was, quote-unquote, legal from the standpoint of the rulebook.

4 days.

 

[DefenseRules]

What is this about? NEVERMIND, I read that nonesense. Hey Warner, cry me a river.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Obviously Warner didn't bring this up unsolicited, but when a mediot asks, one can always decline to comment.

It Is What It Is » Kurt Warner believes Patriots-Rams Super Bowl might have been different if played today

This is probably the best part of the entire non-story that unfolded six years after that game: the Patriots did not even violate any rules even if they had videotaped the Rams practice. It's like the stories of teams sending in guys to dig through the garbage at hotels looking for playbooks: perhaps it makes you draw your jaw, but it's gamesmanship.

 

[Fixit]

Obviously Warner didn't bring this up unsolicited, but when a mediot asks, one can always decline to comment.

It Is What It Is » Kurt Warner believes Patriots-Rams Super Bowl might have been different if played today

You know what else didn't help the Rams? The person spying on the Patriots practice with a telescope, as witnessed by league officials.

F*** you, Kurt.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Well, he is right. Under the current rules/points of emphasis, NE could never have played that defense.

Too bad for him that those weren't the rules/emphasis back then. Suck it, Kurt.

 

[Wolfpack]

Obviously Warner didn't bring this up unsolicited, but when a mediot asks, one can always decline to comment.

It Is What It Is » Kurt Warner believes Patriots-Rams Super Bowl might have been different if played today

You're doing the exact same thing the New York media did earlier this week, taking a quote and twisting it ridiculously out of context. The entire quote, which I note you didn't present here, is as follows (and is not exactly the egregious, insulting thing you seem to suggest):

"With the rules now … I say no, but, again, it would have come down to the officials having to make the calls. But even with what they did then I don’t know if it was, quote-unquote, legal from the standpoint of the rulebook. But they were pushing the envelope, but, again, I give them credit because you knew if you were going to beat us that’s what you had to do, you had to push the envelope. You had to say, ‘We’re going to beat them until somebody tells us it’s illegal and throws a flag and if they don’t, keep doing it.’

 

[Uncle Rico]

Honestly, I think the title of this thread leaves the impression he's calling up "Spygate" again and it's not that at all.

I really don't have much argument with most of what he said (and I'm no Kurt Warner fan). It's no secret the rules have been emphasized much differently since then. It's also no secret that refs are less likely to call a penalty in the playoffs (someone else on this board recently pointed out, maybe this is one reason why "defense wins championships.")

A sample quote:

“I think it would have been more difficult because there’s more emphasis on that part of things. I look at plays now and I say, ‘Really? That’s pass interference?’ It still surprises me when a guy gets banged, or a little hand on him here. But that’s the nature of where the game has come. I think it would have been much more difficult in this day and age to play that way, or play that way as long as they did. But, again, I give them because it was the right plan against us and it worked in their favor.”

 

[robbomango]

He's just being honest, not calling BB a cheat or anything at least I don't see it that way. One of my favorite QB's, definitely doesn't hold a grudge, great guy. Gutted when he lost to Armpitt in the SB.

 

[NEP4Life]

For those who take issue with the title, please suggest a suitable alternative.

Make it catchy.

 

[stcjones]

It is amazing that so many of these ex-Rams, eagles, steelers etc are still so sore ***ed from getting beaten by the Patriots. They keep looking for something....anything as a reason WHY they could NOT beat the Patriots. It is really pathetic watching these guys go with the "cheating" card....even though deep in their hearts they KNOW that the pats did NOTHING wrong or "illegal". They keep trying to find EXCUSES for themselves and why THEY could not get it done. Shameful and pathetic.

Obviously Warner didn't bring this topic up unsolicited, but when a mediot asks, one can always decline to comment.

It Is What It Is » Kurt Warner believes Patriots-Rams Super Bowl might have been different if played today



4 days.

 

[Rob0729]

Who cares? Guys like Warner, Faulk, Joey Porter, etc. are just bitter ex-players who would rather blame their playoff losses to the Pats on some conspiracy theory than admit the Pats just were the better team that day.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

For those who take issue with the title, please suggest a suitable alternative.

Make it catchy.

The article is more benign than the title admits.

However, Kurt should also note that the new wide open rules were only initiated as a direct result of the past Patriots defenses.

What he should be asking is way Revis has his own set of rules.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

For those who take issue with the title, please suggest a suitable alternative.

Make it catchy.

Warner says Pats barely legal, overly physical D in SB 36 wouldn't be allowed today

 

[FortressX]

I see no big deal about this.
The Jets "pushed the envelope" last year with their "injuries".
KW thinks the Pats did something similar with their D strategy.
Whatever.
No need to get worked up about it.

 

[Uncle Rico]

For those who take issue with the title, please suggest a suitable alternative.

Make it catchy.

Since you asked:

"Warner: Pats D plan in SB36 wouldn't pass today"

 

[Deus Irae]

For those who take issue with the title, please suggest a suitable alternative.

Make it catchy.

"O.P. takes harmless quote and attempts to make hay with it"

 

[NEP4Life]

Warner says Pats semi-legal overly physical style of play in Super Bowl 36 wouldn't be allowed today

You really think that's catchy? :bricks:

 

[TriplecHamp]

in after people on this forum getting furious instead of laughing and moving on.

 

[BSR]

I'd disagree with Warner. DBs have been mauling receivers this year. Other than a two to three year stretch around Manning's superbowl, the rules have been called fairly similar. I think maybe where he may have a point is the helpless receiver rules. I remember the Patriots DBs used to absolutely crush people back then, which you can't do today.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

more succinct and catchier:

Warner whines about SB 36 and the Patriots' "barely legal" smashmouth defense

It certainly tells you a whole lot more about what he was saying than does the current thread title, which immediately conjures up thoughts of spygate and the Herald's lies before SB 42.