That's not what I said at all. Dimitroff is clearly upset about the Super Bowl. I am not disputing that. What you, and many in this topic, are doing is making a logical leap, and saying that the only reason Dimitroff wants the rules changed is because his team lost. Yes, that is absolutely coming up with a narrative and "confirming" it circumstantially.
Generally-speaking, one of the following situations is true:
1) Dimitroff originally was okay with the overtime rules, but now, suddenly, he's humming a different tune because he's a sore loser, or,
2) Dimitroff has not been satisfied with the overtime rules -- even pre-dating the SB -- and seeing his team lose irks him and reinforces the belief that he already had.
This is one of those really lame arguments. Yes, none of us can ever truly know what goes on in the hearts or minds of another. Goodell might love Brady so much he invented Deflategate as a way to get to spend lots of time with Tom. You don't know he didn't for sure! See how stupid this game gets?
Only Dimitroff knows with any certainty. But just as you think it's knee-jerk for me to think the way I do, I feel likewise for your response that he may have felt this way for a while. You don't know it's not sour grapes.
And as you said, we are making a LOGICAL leap and saying that the only reason Dimitroff wants the rules changed is because his team lost (your first situation)
. The illogical leap would be the second situation you outlined. Really though, as you said, you don't know, and neither do I. But I'm good with being on the logical side than the illogical one.
GodBrady said:
If you listen to the interview (which I'm sure you didn't, you probably just read a one-line, quote-mined snippet from it)
Hold the **** UP. First off, I actually did listen to the interview. To quote some random guy on the forum,
Yes, that is absolutely coming up with a narrative and "confirming" it circumstantially.
And I love the hypocrisy of trying to attack me for not listening in when it's clear from reading your posts you didn't either.
The article makes it sound like Dimitroff issued a press release demanding change. In reality, someone probably asked him about it and he responded with a topical answer.
Probably?
If you listen to the interview (which I'm sure you didn't, you probably just read a one-line, quote-mined snippet from it)...
Chances are he was interviewed, was asked a topical question ("hey, the Falcons lost the SB in overtime -- on that topic, what's your opinion on the rules?"), and he gave his response.
Chances are?
If you listen to the interview (which I'm sure you didn't, you probably just read a one-line, quote-mined snippet from it)...
GodBrady said:
He then says, "I think a coin flip has too much influence... back when I was a young GM, I won a coin flip to get the #1 pick in the draft and was able to draft Matt Ryan out of it. I understand what it's look to be on both sides of a 'coin flip' decision."
This is a silly example of course. The Falcons did win a coin flip for the right to draft 3rd overall in 2008, but that didn't guarantee them anything, let alone drafting Matt Ryan.
They got Matt Ryan because the Dolphins selected Jake Long 1st overall, and the Rams took Chris Long 2nd overall, and none of the teams behind the Falcons leapt over them with a big offer to take him. In other words, the coin flip alone did not decide everything. Several other factors played into it as well.
GodBrady said:
The fact that you are making grand declarations like "we didn't hear about Dimitroff lobbying for rule changes before, so clearly he didn't support it until now" is preposterous. The only reason we know about Dimitroff's views on OT now is because he was interviewed and asked a very specific, topical question, because the Super Bowl went to overtime and he was general manager of one of the Super Bowl teams. Do you think Mike Florio is going to have Thomas Dimitroff on his radio talk show in 2006 and just randomly bring up overtime rules out of the blue? There are a million things to talk about. Just because we haven't heard Dimitroff's views publicly is hardly proof of anything. Don't be obtuse.
You also wrote:
Come on, dude, this is common sense. If Dimitroff brought this up before it wouldn't have been headline news. Nobody would've bothered reporting on it.
If nothing else, we have to agree that this bit you wrote is incredibly stupid and wrong. Any team can bring forward a proposed rule change for the competition committee to consider, and at least since Dimitroff has been GM, every proposed rule change makes the news and gets reported on. Every single one.
If Dimitroff had a problem with the rule, he could have submitted a change request at any point over the previous 8 seasons, and didn't.
Also, don't forget that Rich McKay, Atlanta's President and CEO, is the head of the competition committee. So if Atlanta really had any objections to anything, it wouldn't have been hard to at least get them heard.
GodBrady said:
And you're right, this has nothing to do with Deflategate. It's called an "analogy".
It's a terrible "analogy." It's so bad it makes me wonder if you even know what the word even means.
One was a straight-up witch hunt with no evidence. The other has a direct quote from the man himself. Whether he wanted to talk about it or not is irrelevant, he obviously answered the question the way he did. He could have easily stepped around it and didn't.
Ultimately it doesn't really matter what you or I think of it. It is what it is. But this isn't some kid out of junior high. Dimitroff had to know how that would play in the media. This isn't his first rodeo. He clearly wanted it on the record. Feel free to believe whatever you want. I prefer to just take a man at his word.
