Post Game Thread- Pats beat the Chiefs

[Deus Irae]

I've see this phrased two ways: that a beer was thrown on him, and that some beer was sprayed on him. Which is it? Was there a heavy object involved, or just some foam and watery liquid? To me, that makes a difference. Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does.

I didn't see any object when I watched the replay (though I wasn't looking for one), and I haven't heard of any object but the beer itself.

 

[MainePatsFan26]

Are there any teams that trust their defense anymore? The Eagles won the SB while allowing 500 yards and 3 TDs, 0 INTs to Brady. That's the problem...the entire league is just an offensive fireworks fest. An NFL defense is kind of equivalent now to the batting tee in tee-ball.

Great point with the defense being just kind of there in the current NFL. It begs the question whether the path to success is loading the offense with talent and filling the defense with a random assortment of animal crackers.

In other words, put Ben & Jerry's flavors on offense and staff the defense with any stale animal crackers lying around. Tom Brady is Americone Dream, Gronk is chunky monkey, and the McCourty twins are a pair of sad seals who wish they could still balance a ball on their nose.

 

[PatsDeb]

Actually, you're incorrect. They will notify whatever Ticket Agencies they work with and their own box office and they'll automatically decline any attempt by him to purchase tickets for Gillette Stadium in the future. They can also set it up that if any tickets are bought with that last name, they'll be flagged and they can ask for ID after they've scanned the ticket. Then they can decline entry based on the ID.

Also, if that person was a season ticket holder, they can rescind the ticket at any time, making that person persona non grata.

Perhaps, but if you bought him a ticket to next week's game and went through the gate with him, how are they going to know?

 

[Kontradiction]

I don't know what SOFF means, but I have a little suggestion for Hill & Rosenhaus:

Do NOT walk over to less than arm's length of the opposing fans WITH THE EXPRESS FECKIN PURPOSE OF TAUNTING THEM and NOT expect to have retaliation brought upon you.

If that happened in the 1970s-80s, that feckin gutless feckin scumbag would've been lucky to have left with all of his gold teeth intact.

It means soft.



And yeah, I said the same thing in another thread. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[bresna]

My old man took me there in the early 80s as well.

I grew up thinking brawls at football games was normal

Brawls? I once saw a Bills fan get tossed over the side of the stadium section during a Bills blowout. He came back to the section all bloodied and started pointing out the tossers and that's when my Dad said, "Time to go".

 

[RobertWeathers]

Brawls? I once saw a Bills fan get tossed over the side of the stadium section during a Bills blowout. He came back to the section all bloodied and started pointing out the tossers and that's when my Dad said, "Time to go".

Awful. I think it was in 83 the Pats were getting killed by the Brownies and we left early and these four guys were curb stomping a Browns fan. Blood all over the place.

Awful.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Awful. I think it was in 83 the Pats were getting killed by the Brownies and we left early and these four guys were curb stomping a Browns fan. Blood all over the place.

Awful.

Did you step in to do something about it, or were you too young?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Did you step in to do something about it, or were you too young?

I was 12.

 

[Fatmancryin]

I was 12.

That’s old enough to throw a beat down on those fools Homie.

 

[Kontradiction]

That’s old enough to throw a beat down on those fools Homie.

I would have said, "Hey guys, cut the malarkey! That's not right. We're all human beings with the same purpose in life!"

 

[jah]

I would have said, "Hey guys, cut the malarkey! That's not right. We're all human beings with the same purpose in life!"

This, but I'd also extend for a handshake and ask "Friends?"

 

[DaBruinz]

Not what I'm referring to. It is the integrity of hiring processes. I'm an organizational consultant. I know that when any hiring process is corrupted by anything other than "best person in the world who wants the job, gets the job", the organization suffers. There's simply no way that one of Belichick's sons was the best possible candidate. So it will never sit comfortably with me.

I'm not naive. I'm certainly not upset about it. Just not comfortable. Call it a professional handicap.

Really? So you know for CERTAIN that Steven wasn't the best possible candidate for the Coaching Assistant position? You got to see the resumes of all the other candidates that were interviewed at the same time that Steven applied? Have you actually talked to Steven to know what his level of football acumen is and what his attention to detail is in regards to being a coaching assistant?

The reality is that you don't have the first clue as to whether or not Steven Belichick was or wasn't the best possible candidate for the job of coaching assistant. So for you to say that there is "simply no way he was the best possible candidate" is you talking out your rear-end.

So, to not be comfortable with it, imho, is the height of arrogance on your part because of your professional bias.

 

[bresna]

The Chiefs fans are up in arms about a hold on Kelce. They really do have a point here.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Chiefs fans are up in arms about a hold on Kelce. They really do have a point here.

Chiefs fans can kiss my ass about holding calls.

Go look at the hold, and block in the back, against Slater on the long return. Then go look at how the OPI call that ended up being offset happened, as it was the receiver trying to break free from an arm bar.

 

[Wordsmyth]

I'm sure the Chiefs got away with some stuff too.

 

[Love The Drake]

The Chiefs fans are up in arms about a hold on Kelce. They really do have a point here.

I saw this at home and screamed because I thought damn thats defensive holding at its not close.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Not what I'm referring to. It is the integrity of hiring processes. I'm an organizational consultant. I know that when any hiring process is corrupted by anything other than "best person in the world who wants the job, gets the job", the organization suffers. There's simply no way that one of Belichick's sons was the best possible candidate. So it will never sit comfortably with me.

I'm not naive. I'm certainly not upset about it. Just not comfortable. Call it a professional handicap.

Sure glad that no one complained about Bill's start. That was nepotism at work, too. He turned into the greatest coach of all time, but he had a lot of grooming for that role. I don't have a bit of a problem with him hiring his sons and teaching them the family trade.

Considering all the finds Bill has made in terms of coaching assistants (for example, Patricia, whose hire was about as off the grid as they come for someone trying to get into pro coaching), I'm surprised that people dislike that he's training the next generation. And, honestly, "the best person in the world" isn't always the best organizational or philosophical fit. At least here we can rest assured that Steven knows how his father thinks and works.

More sons should learn their father's trade. It used to be the norm. While I love having choice and freedom, I've always enjoyed working with my family on the few occasions that I've had that privilege. I worked some free lance with my parents for a while, and my brother and I started a business together, too. Great times.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

The Chiefs fans are up in arms about a hold on Kelce. They really do have a point here.

must have been that even the refs knew Kelce was taken out of the game and didn't bother giving him any looks

 

[BTTA]

Sure glad that no one complained about Bill's start. That was nepotism at work, too. He turned into the greatest coach of all time, but he had a lot of grooming for that role. I don't have a bit of a problem with him hiring his sons and teaching them the family trade.

Considering all the finds Bill has made in terms of coaching assistants (for example, Patricia, whose hire was about as off the grid as they come for someone trying to get into pro coaching), I'm surprised that people dislike that he's training the next generation. And, honestly, "the best person in the world" isn't always the best organizational or philosophical fit. At least here we can rest assured that Steven knows how his father thinks and works.

More sons should learn their father's trade. It used to be the norm. While I love having choice and freedom, I've always enjoyed working with my family on the few occasions that I've had that privilege. I worked some free lance with my parents for a while, and my brother and I started a business together, too. Great times.

You are fully aware that we are talking about two entirely different things - family businesses vs. the responsibility of large institutions. C'mon.
I'm talking about being uncomfortable with something. It isn't a complaint, or a criticism, it is a self observation.

 

[BTTA]

Really? So you know for CERTAIN that Steven wasn't the best possible candidate for the Coaching Assistant position? You got to see the resumes of all the other candidates that were interviewed at the same time that Steven applied? Have you actually talked to Steven to know what his level of football acumen is and what his attention to detail is in regards to being a coaching assistant?

The reality is that you don't have the first clue as to whether or not Steven Belichick was or wasn't the best possible candidate for the job of coaching assistant. So for you to say that there is "simply no way he was the best possible candidate" is you talking out your rear-end.

So, to not be comfortable with it, imho, is the height of arrogance on your part because of your professional bias.

Wow, get triggered easily? I'm simply providing a self observation about a discomfort, and explaining the principle on which it is based.

And this is the perfect example of why family hires in large institutions create problems, because they always create the suspicion of an uneven playing field.

I use the surgical ward analogy to make the case: would you want your local hospital hiring the surgeon's relative to operate on your family member? Regardless of that person's qualifications, it raises questions - questions that you as a customer shouldn't have to endure even entering your mind. And if that person is that good, and that qualified, why not get a job elsewhere, to remove the suspicion?

People in leadership roles have a trust bestowed on them to hire the best people, in as objective a manner as possible. Do I really care what happens inside a football team? Of course not, because it doesn't really matter to us as a society. The principle is deadly important when it comes to organizations on which our present and future health, safety, and prosperity rely. And that's been a good deal of my professional training.