there must be some kind of unsporting conduct penalty that the officials can impose to avoid a situation like that.
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:25 (twelve years ago) link
i am referring to iatee's idea obv
cf dudes playing madden online who are losing and run offside on the last play over and over so the game doesn't end
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:26 (twelve years ago) link
Putting more than 13 men on the field would probably qualify as a "palpably unfair" act, which the refs have significant latitude to punish. The lesson here, as always, is to have plausible deniability.
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:27 (twelve years ago) link
that's very interesting
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:28 (twelve years ago) link
that's from the end of the grantland story, which discusses the origins of the strategy as well: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7545771/the-patriots-giants-super-bowl-rematch-disappoint
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:29 (twelve years ago) link
also a lot of things that are 'palpably unfair' are just things that haven't been accepted as 'acceptable strategies' (like icing the kicker, etc.) bradshaw stopping at the 1 yd line could also be palpably unfair.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:30 (twelve years ago) link
xp oh aye, that is where i read about it. did not see the footnote tho. fuck you grantland footnotes.
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:31 (twelve years ago) link
fuck you grantland footnotes.
― am0n, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:42 (twelve years ago) link
if i was a pats fan i'd be pretty broken up about this cuz really that brady to welker play should be all but automatic...
otoh, not to get all bill barnwell in this bitch, BUT the giants did recover three fumbles that legit bounced on the ground for like 2 seconds at a time... and that can't really be blamed on the pats
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:02 (twelve years ago) link
but yeah, brady should've closed it out
the welker miss, the branch miss (altho i thought kenny phillips tipped this?) and the awful hail mary were pretty big flubs
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:03 (twelve years ago) link
it's not like the Giants lucked into a win, you guys
when opportunity presented itself, the Giants executed more often than New England, ergo they won the game
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:25 (twelve years ago) link
they didn't really play better or worse than the pats overall and teh score was close enough that you can argue that they 'lucked into a win'. footballs bounce pretty unpredictably, one small thing here or there woulda turned the score around.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:28 (twelve years ago) link
teh score
that doesn't mean they didn't 'deserve' the win, they played well against a good team. sorta like the niners game. but yeah, luck generally does play a huge role in close games. sorta ruins the narrative to accept that, but I think it's hard to argue w/.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:33 (twelve years ago) link
IMO if the Giants got lucky with anything, it was Brady gifting them 2 points right at the beginning of the game. That wasn't the winning margin but I think it gave them momentum/belief that sustained them throughout the game, even after the Pats went up 8 points on them.
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:38 (twelve years ago) link
that rulebook article was v v interesting.i'm shocked that welker missed that pass. blame the mustache.
― ELI OWNS YOUR HUSBAND (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:38 (twelve years ago) link
I don't think that safety has anything to do with luck! that was a decision made by brady and a play made by the giants. whereas the ball not bouncing into gronk's hands on the last play of the game = there is an element of luck here.
xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:39 (twelve years ago) link
"lucky" should have been in quotes; I pretty much agree with that was a decision made by brady and a play made by the giants
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:40 (twelve years ago) link
a lot of those onion predictions basically came true!
― ELI OWNS YOUR HUSBAND (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:41 (twelve years ago) link
yeah also the nyg offense is not motivated or influenced by the safety at all, except maybe on the ensuing free kick a little. it was just a quirky lil thing. when the pats had scored 17 str8 pts the giants were not thinking, but we had that safety!
― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:42 (twelve years ago) link
1. Dropped passes by Welker, Hernandez, Branch2. 3 failed fumble recoveries3. Brady safety and INT
If any instance of any of these had gone the other way, I think the Pats have a good shot to win. By that reasoning, I have to call this a Patriots failure rather than great play by Giants. Pats needed to step it up and they didn't.
― Moodles, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:44 (twelve years ago) link
basically any game decided by one score that coulda been changed by a single turnover or catch or bounce = yeah tons of luck. giants beat niners = lots of luck. giants beat pats = decent amount of luck. giants beat packers = pretty decisive win
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:44 (twelve years ago) link
lotta sour grapes itt
― max, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:46 (twelve years ago) link
idk I would be bummed if I were a giants fan w/ that knowledge that robot football historians will judge their wins for their statistical improbability
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:00 (twelve years ago) link
you can't get too carried away with the luck involved in 2 fumbles not being turnover. the other one was a penalty on the pats, so hang that on them. the brady safety comes from him having to throw under pressure out of his end zone - let's give the giants a little bit of credit for engineering that. you can compare the bad throw to welker to the great throw to manningham, i guess, and say NY just made the play better on that one. but there's no point isolating these pieces from the rest of the game. the giants devised the right game plan, executed it while making hardly any mistakes, and put themselves in the best position to win the game.
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:06 (twelve years ago) link
http://gothamist.com/2012/02/07/chris_christie_celebrating_the_new.php
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:08 (twelve years ago) link
Naughty by Nature will be there!
― ┌∩┐. I . A . (Aerosol), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:11 (twelve years ago) link
the question that remains is how NE could have approached game differently. i know i hated seeing them drain time off the clock in their second-last drive, erring on the side of assuming a successful drive. i feel like they needed to make it a faster game, ratchet the tempo and make it a shootout. that is 3 close, tight games in a row lost to the giants. a shootout has to give NE the edge. throw the fuckin house at eli every other down and pass the ball 50 times. the actual NE gameplan seemed to be 1. hope we can keep scoring on them 2. hope eli regresses five years and fucks up
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:15 (twelve years ago) link
guess i am ready for stage 2, anger
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:16 (twelve years ago) link
the pats were 'lucky' that billy cundiff blew a v. makeable fg attempt in the afc championship. it evens out.
it was a close game and the giants took better advantage of their opportunities than the pats did. that's all.
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:19 (twelve years ago) link
bingo
the giants devised the right game plan, executed it while making hardly any mistakes, and put themselves in the best position to win the game.
bingo #2
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:23 (twelve years ago) link
there is a key difference between "took advantage of their opportunities" and "made better opportunities to take advantage of" is what i am trying to say
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:24 (twelve years ago) link
idk, I'd think the right game plan would result in more than 15 points by the 4th quarter.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:25 (twelve years ago) link
like they played *well enough* to win but only scoring 15 points in 3 quarters is effectively a mistake
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:26 (twelve years ago) link
I just can't give too much credit to a team that only really had a single (real) td drive the whole game
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:28 (twelve years ago) link
yeah geez guys let's not go nuts here
― call all destroyer, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:29 (twelve years ago) link
xp you noticed that they won, though, right? turns out there's more to do in a football game than score points.
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:29 (twelve years ago) link
My takeaway was that neither of these teams were really that great (
― Xerox of Fate, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:31 (twelve years ago) link
I mean really, if they replayed the playoffs, id think that every team sans denver would have a roughly similar chance at it
― Xerox of Fate, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:33 (twelve years ago) link
:-/
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:33 (twelve years ago) link
right, I think they played well enough to win! looking at the stats, the only thing they really dominated w/ was time of possession, otherwise the game was v. even. but they didn't do much w/ the ball considering how much they had it, and that margin is mostly due to the 1st quarter safety. xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:34 (twelve years ago) link
parity
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:34 (twelve years ago) link
scoring is only one of the desirable things you can do when you have the ball, and sometimes not even the most desirable (eg the bradshaw td). NY made the game shorter and improved their field position on every single drive. those were critical factors in why they won.
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:40 (twelve years ago) link
yet scoring was an even more critical factor and they mostly failed on that front!
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:41 (twelve years ago) link
tho they ultimately failed at scoring less than ne failed at scoring
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
your glass is half empty
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
scoring was not necessarily more critical - if they had scored often fast instead of scoring less often but slowly, they probably would have lost that more expansive game. you are oversimplifying a complex business
the slow consistent possessions were the obvious strategy versus the patriots, the key weakness exploited and the key strength to nullified, and the giants did just that. i really think they were excellent in that game.
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:44 (twelve years ago) link
if u rly think about it pats won the game in a way
discus
― am0n, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:44 (twelve years ago) link
― Xerox of Fate, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:33 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
^^ this
i mean, in order to really judge who was "better" or over/underplayed we'd have to run the same game a bunch of times.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:45 (twelve years ago) link