If they don't want to substitute first (i.e. before the Pats) I would say a reasonable response might be to continually all out blitz on pass plays. It's not illegal, and if I'm the Pats, I don't like my QB in that danger unnecessarily. Who says it's incumbent upon the team getting beat to substitute first? I'm involved in football to this day, and have never heard that one.
Well, if you want to use that line of reasoning, why is incumbent on the Pats to substitute first - or at all?
The talking points on this subject have shifted in the past week from the inane "hurt feelings" argument to the banal "avoidance of injuries" panacea. Neither one is really a believable argument, let alone a strong one.
Injuries happen in the first quarter, second quarter, and third quarter as well as the fourth quarter. So it's not a question of timing.
If you're arguing from a point of risk, then don't bother. It's a violent game populated by monster men trying to bash each other's brains out on every play. Not only are they paid well for their efforts, they're applauded for it.
If you're concerned about vulnerability, yes, that's sometimes an issue, but it's also sometimes irrelevant. Just last week, Matt Schaub got his clock cleaned during a play he was nowhere near. 2 years ago or so (I don't remember exactly when) Vinnie Testaverde ruptured his Achilles tendon when there was no one around him. It happens.
All these guys on the field are paid ungodly sums of money to play the game. Most all of them are there most willingly, men who in another time doubtless would have been known as gladiators or some such thing, They're all warriors, they all want to play, and they all understand and accept the risks inherent in their chosen profession.
That being said, the sole arbiter of who plays when, and for how long, is the head coach - in this instance, the estimable Bill Belichick. He is not wont to be swayed by "hurt feelings" resulting from the efforts of the team he coaches, and he certainly understands that injuries are an issue in the game, but he will not make a game decision on the basis of a phantom injury threat.
It's been extolled and repeated elsewhere that this is a team on a mission, or perhaps even a date with destiny. Most people look at what's gone down so far this season and instinctively realize this season has the very real potential to be Bill Belichick's legacy season. The talent level is immense, and great things are possible. There are records they want, and can realistically achieve, and to do that, they have to play long enough into each game to realize them. Everyone, at some level, desires a shot at immortality, and for these guys, this season is that shot.
You have to understand - it's not just winning a Super Bowl here, although that is important, but a very real shot at being remembered as one of the greatest teams of all time, if not the greatest. How many guys, how many teams, get a chance to deal with that?
If I'm one of them, I think it's a chance worth taking risks for, more than one normally would under different circumstances.
Like you, I haven't heard too much about the losing team substituting when getting their asses handed to them. However, whining and crying like we've seen in recent weeks only highlights the discrepancy between the Pats and their opponents, who are increasingly sounding like the sore losers their pedestrian outings have shown them to be. They need to stop whining, for the simple reason that if the shoe were on the other foot, they more likely than not would be crowing rather than crying.
Regardless of the "argument" put forth, I'm less than impressed.
Thank God Patton didn't listen to his critics!
