Letters to the Editor
-
WTH
If week 15 comes and the Pats are 14-0, playing the 0-14 Dolphins, you'll have yourself a What-the-Heck Pick of epic proportions.
-
"In baseball, which is much more reasonable about replay -- it has none"
True, but about a week ago 25 of 30 MLB general managers voted for video replay on home runs. We just might have a replay on the next regular season pitch.
The NFL is evil.
-
Ettiquette in Football
you haven't addressed the question about why it is bad
There are several reasons, some strategic, some societal. Generally running up the score violates established societal norms in the society that is the NFL. It is considered "unsportsmanlike". To the extent that it engenders bad feelings amoung opponants it can backfire in the short term in someone on an opposing team making a hit on a player intended to injure or in starting more fights on the field. In the longer term I believe it generally isn't done because teams know the situation may be reversed one day and you don't want the other guy to do the same to you.
The strategic is avoiding injury, resting players, giving backups reps for practice/evaluation in case they're needed if there IS an injury, etc...
could you admit that you actually have NO IDEA why the Pats are doing it?
Sure, all I can do is base my opinion on my observations. That's the same as every other person writing about sports. I watch the games, read the interviews, read the columns about both. What more do any of us have to go on?
I'm saying that it's silly to expect a football team to *stop playing*
I'm saying that traditionally once a team gets up by that amount, they don't stop playing, they play differently. They play to run out the clock and minimize the time the other offense is on the field. They try to rest their star players and protect them from injury. I think much of the offense other teams would take from another team running up the score as opposed to putting in subs or running out the clock is based on this violation of tradition. It is an attempt to make a statement and you're the one being used to make it.
You haven't really addressed why it's okay in a sport with venerable traditions like baseball, but not okay in a sport with venerable traditions like football.
I don't really know. Perhaps it is not part of baseball's tradition the way it is part of football's. I'm not a baseball fan and am not as comfortable speculating there. Maybe a spectacular comeback is easier in baseball, I don't know.
my speculation that after the struggles of last year, the players are giddy
But this isn't up to the players. If the coach calls in a run play and tells the QB not to audible, the QB can't just change the play. If the coach puts in the backup QB, the starter can't refuse to sit.
"Struggles of last year"? They went 12-4 and played in the AFC championship. Those are struggles? Tell that to the Raiders.
And you haven't really explained why it is that very good players should voluntarily start handicapping themselves.
The players don't have to make the decision. It is up to the coach to tell them what to do. As for why? Same reasons as above: Tradition, strategy.
This looks like a diversionary tactic to me.
The entire letter wasn't directly to you. I had some other things to say and didn't want to start a new letter.
As for the people you quoted, of course they say that. Most will and for the same reason you see players saying "This win didn't matter, we have to look to next week". Partly it is what is expected, partly it is because if you don't you look like a whiner. How favorably do people look on people that write books called "Give me the damn ball" and the like. Or TO?
And Madden is insane. I don't even know what he's said about this, either way he's lost his mind a long time ago and it doesn't even send him postcards any more.
-
'skins
Elbuzzard has it right, King. The name of the team is the Washington REDSKINS. Your protest is understandable, but your choice of means makes for clumsy writing--VERY unlike you. At the very least you could refer to the nearest Washington PLAYER, rather than the "nearest Washington". You could refer to Dallas as Dallas throughout to give your labels some balance (besides, the cowboy mystique isn't all sunshine and roses; I'm quite certain it wouldn't even be a team moniker if it weren't for the Wyatt Earps and Doc Holidays of the old west).
Better yet you could parenthetically insert some snide comment about your refusal to utter the name. Although, I don't recall you referring to the baseball Indians simply as "Cleveland" all year long. Why the double standard? (yes I know you said Cleveland should drop it, but you nonetheless referred to the team by its name)
-
Officials Call on Cleveland Field Goal
Just about all the accounts of the Cleveland kick say that the officials ruled the kick no good and then conferred and overturned their call. I have seen a number of replays, and after the ball landed in the end zone, the officials under the goal post made no call at all. They immediately looked at each other and started to discuss where the ball had hit. Did they signal no good sometime after that? If not, then the idea that they "overturned" a call, or that they must have used replay, doesn't make any sense. The refs seemed to see exactly what happened. Still, I'm not sure why it took five minutes to agree that it was good. Is the rule on field goals that confusing?
-
W.E.S.
You can LMAO all you want, but that's how it has traditionally been in the NFL. I don't really see the humor in it, but to each their own. The defense of the other team is still out there trying to stop the offense, though often it is second stringers out there too. Why do you think you see reports in papers that say "Team X Scored a TD in 'garbage time'"?
Then again, given the spammy, "brilliant" observations you usually come up with I'm sure you're all in favor of removing all restraint from the field.