Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Spread And Ready
Tom Brady is probably the dullest star quarterback the NFL has ever produced, and as a lifelong anti-Beantowner I'd be rooting against the Patriots under any circumstances. But like most Americans, I expect the Eagles are going to be crushed on Sunday.
So I'm surprised that the Eagles are only getting 6.5 to 7 points. The Philly Daily News speculates (reg. req.) that oddsmakers are trying to avoid "middling." Go figure.
|2.4.05 @ 9:41PM|#
See, I like Tom Brady exactly because he is so dull. He doesn't
need to throw 2343293284234 touchdowns to get it done. He just
does. That's what makes him the man.
Like Dave Roberts stealing second base in game four of the
ALCS.
|2.4.05 @ 9:52PM|#
mtc,
That may be so, but the Montana comparisons are a bit much. His
longest postseason game winning drive is what, 40 yards, tops.
Montana won games by getting in the endzone, Brady handed the game
to the real hero of the Patriots, Adam Vinatieri.
|2.4.05 @ 9:58PM|#
I'd like to see the Patriots lose. But then again, I'm not
watching the Super Bowl, so, I really don't give a shit.
Note that the Rams were supposed to plaster the Patriots in 2001;
so people's perceptions may be wrong. Indeed, I'd like to know how
often the bookmakers are when it comes to predicting SP
winners.
|2.4.05 @ 10:07PM|#
If Kearse has a big game, expect the Eagles to win.
The Dolphins and the Steelers showed that Brady can be forced to
make bone-headed plays from time to time. If Kearse is able to
successfully harass Brady and the Eagles "Pro-Bowl" secondary can
take advantage of that, the game is over and McNabb and crew will
be hoisting the trophy. Plus that will make Corey Dillon a
non-factor, as a couple (2-3) of interceptions by brady will force
New England into a full out air attack.
|2.4.05 @ 10:30PM|#
Part of me feels that the game will be like the 49ers-Broncos
Super Bowl. And part of me feels that it'll be like the
Packers-Broncos Super Bowl. Either way, I'm expecting the Eagles to
play the role of a team out of Denver, with the vintage making all
the difference.
The Eagles' pass-rush should be one of the deciding factors. I
think the other will have to be the ability of McNabb and Westbrook
to thwart Belichick's defensive scheming by stepping out of their
primary roles. If Owens makes himself a presence, then this
obviously becomes easier.
The last time a Philly team won a pro title, I was 18 months old.
The last time one played in a championship-deciding game, I was
finishing up Kindergarten. Though I don't give the Eagles more than
a 35% chance of winning this one, I feel as if the Sports Gods owe
it to me.
Semolina|2.4.05 @ 10:33PM|#
I feel like I'm a pretty smart guy. I go about my days generally
confident in my intelligence.
Then I'll read something about gambling, and realize that I am
actually a stupid human being. Because it seems I am the only
living creature who does not instinctively understand the
ins-and-outs of betting, odds, "bookies," etc. (And I'm even a
big-time sports fan!)
Now, I can cope with my ignorance. What I cannot endure is my
curiosity, as in WHERE IN THE HELL DOES EVERYBODY LEARN ALL THIS
STUFF? Is it taught at the knees of one's father? Was "Gambling"
part of the standard curriculum in every high school but
mine?
I read even a simple newspaper piece like the one linked above, and
my eyes immediately go wobbly upon sighting the phrase "points
spread." I surf by an ESPN poker game, and sit amazed that this is
now among the most popular mainstream TV phenomena. I walk through
a casino and stare in disbelief at the scrappy dudes and drunk
bimbos crowded around one of those tables painted with numbers and
the guy gathering dice with that stick thing, and wonder, "Why are
all these people smarter than me??"
If anyone could explain, I'd appreciate it.
|2.4.05 @ 10:57PM|#
Seminola
Spread - The amount of points a team is favored by for an "even"
bet. Patriots giving 6.5 means that if you bet on the Patriots,
they need to win by more than 6.5 points (i.e. 7+ points) for you
to win. This would be denoted by Patriots -6.5 or Eagles +6.5. In
other words you're picking who has the highest score after doing
all the points math. The point of setting a spread is not to
accurately estimate the game's outcome, but to get both sides of
the bet to bring in approximately equal number of gamblers. That
way one side pays off the other side and the casino/bookie profits
off the vig (commision).
The worry of the oddsmaker in this case is that after initially
setting the spread to 6 that bhettors that picked the Patriots -6
would be if they moved the odds to Patriots -7.5 or more, many
bettors would hedge their initial bets by putting money on Eagles
+7.5. Then If the Patriots won by precisely 7 points the bettors
who picked Eagles +7.5 and the Patriots -6.5 would win all of their
bets. There was a Super Bowl a few years ago that this happened in,
I can't remember which, and the casinos and bookies lost a
bundle.
How did I learn this? Social circles, I guess. I learned real poker
in college and learned craps at the casino night parties we would
throw occasionally. Working on in equity trading didn't hurt. Same
basic principles, same number play, differentbets. Roulette is
pretty straightforward, bet on a color or range of numbers (from
1-16 #s at a time, in powers of 2) and you make money if you guess
correctly.
|2.4.05 @ 10:59PM|#
Oh, and craps, the game with the dice, the colored mat and the stick is a tad complicated to explain on a post, but it's the place in the casino where you can get the best odds.
|2.4.05 @ 11:09PM|#
Eric,
Find out who Stram picked and you will have your answer. I have the
same feeling as you, if it's in the ballpark of the spread, Eagles
win. Most likely, Pats blowout. I think the Eagles' run defense is
the key here, if they can contain Dillon, they have the secondary
to defense the Pats. On offense, McNabb will have to move in the
pocket and try to beat New England with the deep ball. Greg Lewis
is covered by Hank Poteat, they need to do what Indy and Pittsburg
failed to do and try to challenge new England's secondary
deep.
Wesbrook will be deadly in the slot and going no huddle will reduce
the Belicheck coaching factor (their 12th player). Eagles need to
play perfect football to win, but they have a chance. Most likely
it'll be New England by 3 scores.
|2.4.05 @ 11:30PM|#
I am fortunate enough to live about 2 miles from Gillette
Stadium, home of the world championship N.E. Patriots. (Oh yeah,
just down the road from Fenway Park, the home of...well, you
know)
The Eagles wouldn't be in the top 3 or 4 teams if they were in the
A.F.C.
It may be a blowout, or Adam Vinitieri may win another at the last
second with a 48 yarder. It matters not, welcome to the
dynasty.
|2.4.05 @ 11:31PM|#
You know, pointing out the Pats' broken down secondary is
getting old. They've been playing with a duct-tape defense for, oh,
the past ten games, and they've lost only one--the one game they
obviously were complacent about, the Dolphins game. They smothered
the best offense in the league and then consistently picked off the
Steelers' passing game (Rothlisberger was lucky there weren't more
interceptions).
Oh, and taunting Rodney Harrison was definitely tempting fate. The
Pats love bulletin board fodder.
|2.4.05 @ 11:45PM|#
Hey, a weakness is a weakness, it may not be a fatal weakness,
but you take what you can get. The bulletin board thing is so
overrated in sports. Let's see I'm playing the biggest game of my
life, a great performance is worth millions of dollars in
endorsements, but I'm only gonna play my hardest if some idiot with
bad hair insults me. Huh!?!
That's one fricken long road between Foxboro and Fenway. Well, I'm
off for the night.
|2.4.05 @ 11:50PM|#
cdunlea,
Most of the comments here haven't been about the Patriot's
secondary.
Furthermore, most of the commentators here have stated outright
that they think that the Patriots will win or are more likely to
win.
mojoe,
They have to win the game first of course. :)
|2.4.05 @ 11:53PM|#
Mo,
One could argue just as persuasively that the Eagles are the most
motivated team on the field; they haven't recently won the Super
Bowl after all. :)
Anyway, this conversation merely points out how useless arguing
about how a game will turn out really is.
fyodor|2.5.05 @ 12:16AM|#
Anyway, this conversation merely points out how useless
arguing about how a game will turn out really is.
What use would anyone expect such a conversation to serve other
than fun?
|2.5.05 @ 2:11AM|#
FWIW, the Inquirer ran a column
about a guy who's gotten 13 out of the last 17 Super Bowls right by
running a computer simulation thousands of times over. He's
prredicting a 31-24 Pats win. A few clips for the
unregistered:
Without Owens, the Eagles won only 30 percent of 10,000
simulated games. Olson said once a team like New England got an
advantage of 60 percent or more, a blowout could be in order.
But with a healthy Owens, the Eagles lost to the Patriots in only
54 percent of 10,000 games, which makes an upset very possible,
Olson said.
snip
Statistically, the Eagles "are outweighed on all the other
categories," Holt said, "but if David is going to beat Goliath,
he's got to use his slingshot - the pass rush."
And if the simulations prove right, Eagles defensive end Jevon
Kearse will have his way with Brady. In the Eagles' simulated
victories, Kearse typically got two or three sacks.
Randy|2.5.05 @ 3:27AM|#
Seminola--
I know how you feel. I came to NYC from NoDak and initially, when
I'd go to the bar to watch the Vikings play I could not believe the
fanaticism of the other viewers at the bar.
I mean, one or two guys were following every game and most other
people were excited about a couple or three different games. Then I
overheard some gambling slang and it dawned on me why everybody was
so into it. They all had money riding on various match-ups.
I think this is an East Coast thing. Or a finance thing. Or an
affluence thing. Same diff. Did we not hear it from the horses
mouth: "Working on in equity trading didn't hurt,"?
In defense of the gamblers, Pascal was a gambler and very
interested in probability theory. It is an immanently useful skill
to have.
|2.5.05 @ 4:26AM|#
Rodney was a thug in San Diego,was glad to be rid of him.Seems to have cleaned up and he's always been a solid player.Questions about the Patriot secondary are old...and haven't been answered by the Colts or the Steelers.If McNabb has a chance to find out,the wizards curtain is pulled and Brady has a panic attack. 27-17 Eagles
|2.5.05 @ 9:15AM|#
Tom Brady is probably the dullest star quarterback the NFL
has ever produced
What, you never heard of Peyton
Manning?
You are a source of deep embarassment to the Garden State.
|2.5.05 @ 9:41AM|#
Mr. Cavanaugh,
Since you've devoted an item to attacking Rob Schnieder's
demonstrable lack of class I feel it is my duty to point out that
it may be slightly uncouth to publicly bad-mouth a man two days
after his grandmother died.
Sincerely,
Eryk Boston
|2.5.05 @ 9:52AM|#
P.S. They're the New England Patriots, not the Boston Patriots so I'm not sure how your anti-Boston bigotry matters here. Those of us whose soul resides more in New Hampshire will still be rooting for what is arguably the best team the NFL has ever had.
|2.5.05 @ 10:47AM|#
arguably the best team the NFL has ever had.
Normally, H&R posters aren't actually in the process of huffing
as they post.
Semolina|2.5.05 @ 11:06AM|#
Mo: Thanks for the patient explanations.
Randy: Thanks for the commiseration.
R C Dean: I know that the game of poker is not itself a form of
gambling, but it is predominantly accompanied by gambling when it
is played. (Mostly, though, I just needed a third piece of imagery
for that paragraph, adhering to the old journalism dictum of
"providing examples in threes.").
|2.5.05 @ 11:18AM|#
21 consecutive NFL wins. Almost a season and a half. That would
work out to over 200 consecutive MLB wins.
Huff huff, there's a good case to be made that this is the best
team the NFL has ever produced.
Semolina|2.5.05 @ 11:27AM|#
Huff huff, there's a good case to be made that this is the
best team the NFL has ever produced.
Actually, the "good case" that can be made from your statistic is
that it's the most dominant team the NFL has ever produced.
Twenty-one consecutive wins simply shows that the Patriots were
superior to its contemporaries for a longer time than any other
team had ever been superior to its contemporaries.
|2.5.05 @ 11:36AM|#
"They're the New England Patriots, not the Boston Patriots so
I'm not sure how your anti-Boston bigotry matters here."
The Pats' sphere of influence coincides pretty neatly with that of
the "official" Boston teams. I'm in Southwestern Connecticut, and
this area is still primarily Giants territory. Just as it's also
primarily Yankees territory. On the flip side, does anyone suggest
that New Hampshire, Vermont, et al. don't belong to the Red Sox,
Bruins, and Celtics?
|2.5.05 @ 11:36AM|#
Don't forget breaking the record for scoring first in the most
consecutive games. And the best postseason record for the QB and
coach. And, after they win on Sunday, 3 Superbowl wins in 4 years
and a coach who will have surpassed Lombardi's record. Perhaps
they'll have to rename the Superbowl trophy.
You can name a better record? I'm listening.
There is much about living in MA that makes me want to rip out my
hair but we do have two of the best teams ever. And yes, you will
hear us brag about it for a long time. God knows the rest of the
country fed us a steady diet of grief over the Sox for generations
so we've earned it.
BTW, by "you" I do include the H&R posters who so smugly
predicted the Sox would get wasted by the birdbrains.
|2.5.05 @ 11:40AM|#
"21 consecutive NFL wins. Almost a season and a half. That would
work out to over 200 consecutive MLB wins."
Not a valid analogy. Good NFL teams routinely pull off 7-8 game win
streaks. Yet no one suggests that they're comparable to a 70-80
game win streak by an MLB team. Still an impressive feat,
though.
"Huff huff, there's a good case to be made that this is the best
team the NFL has ever produced."
The '85 Bears, the '89 49ers, or the '92 Cowboys would lay waste to
the 2004 Patriots, as might several other historical squads. The
democratizing effect of the salary cap changes everything.
|2.5.05 @ 12:13PM|#
To be fair, the hard part about comparing teams over time is to
consider rule changes. 20 years ago a DB could beat on a reciever
at will. Pass interference, roughing the passer/kicker, taunting
(grrr). The Patriots may well owe one championship game to a
technical change in the definition of a fumble. The elements of a
good team today are simply not the same as they once were.
Nevertheless, one thing that never changes is that a good team is
one that can adapt and the Pats have without question done that as
well or better than any team.
So, let's be individualists about this (though I'm sure he'd object
to it). Belechik is the best coach ever.
|2.5.05 @ 12:37PM|#
Eryk Boston,
I would have to say that the Redsox need to win some consecutive
titles before they can be called one of the best teams ever; until
that time, they are just they are just another version of the
Atlanta Braves.
God knows the rest of the country fed us a steady diet of grief
over the Sox for generations so we've earned it.
I remember it mostly as incessant whining from Boston fans that the
Redsox could never win the big one. Then there is 1986 to contend
with; probably the biggest choke in MLB history. Anyway, whatever
problems the Redsox had were entirely their own fault; trying to
keep the team lily-white after the color-barrier was broken is one
example of this.
And, after they win on Sunday, 3 Superbowl wins in 4 years and
a coach who will have surpassed Lombardi's record. Perhaps they'll
have to rename the Superbowl trophy.
Be careful, don't want to piss off the "woof gods." :)
http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/Woof.html
|2.5.05 @ 12:43PM|#
Eric II,
The problem with such comparisons is that they are invariably
subjective; you simply don't have one mark which differentiates one
team from all others after all. Its not like the 100 metres in
other words.
The Patriots are a great team; whether they are the "greatest ever"
is likely unknowable with any certainty.
|2.5.05 @ 1:09PM|#
"The problem with such comparisons is that they are invariably
subjective; you simply don't have one mark which differentiates one
team from all others after all."
Perhaps. Though if you stack them up based on talent at different
positions, several highly successful teams from the past appear to
easily come out ahead. Of course, Belichick has done a great job of
getting many of his players to overachieve.
|2.5.05 @ 2:34PM|#
Lombardi's record is 5 NFL/World Championships in 7 seasons.
[Note: while I live in WI, I am not a Cheese and Mold fanatic. I
was raised back East on the faded glory of the New York Football
Giants, a team whose defensive prowess in its two Super Bowl
victories owed quite a bit to Bill Belichick.*] This is not to
diminish what the Pats have done and might yet do. Changes in
player acquisition rules - free agency, salary cap - make keeping
the core of a "dynasty" more difficult than it was in the 90's,
when top teams had it tougher than in the 80's, and so on.
That NE is among the best NFL teams ever is laughable. The parity
engendered by current rules makes the difference between the
league's top tier and its dregs much narrower than it was in past
decades. That loss to Flipper is a mark of this.
All this said, when one is counting rings, they don't ask you
whether you crushed your opponenst, or beat them by whiskers. W's
are W's, except to the action-junkies. Is there anything lamer than
the dope who is crying in his beer, because his favorite squad "won
by too many", and he lost his bet that they wouldn't cover?
arguably the best team the NFL has ever had.
What are you talking about? The Pats are in the AFL. :)
Kevin
*I am conflicted on who to root for. As an NFC fan, I should back
the Iggles, but that will be a hard pill to swallow for a Jints
devotee. There is much to be said for the classy competence of the
Pats, but a reintroduction to the natural order by the Sporting
Ghods is a it overdue for Bahstahn and its hinterlands.
SteveInClearwater|2.5.05 @ 4:08PM|#
MAHONEY, drop me an email at manny_lovitto@yahoo.com and I'll
point you to a couple of reliable offshore sportsbooks that will
happily pay you if you win and also happily keep your money if you
lose.
Steve
|2.5.05 @ 4:18PM|#
Kevin,
I do know people who don't feel that their team has won a proper
victory unless its a blowout.
_______________________
BTW, why are they holding the Super Bowl in a shitpile of a place
like Jacksonville?
|2.5.05 @ 5:46PM|#
. The parity engendered by current rules makes the difference
between the league's top tier and its dregs much narrower than it
was in past decades."
All the more reason to give Kraft/Belichick props for creating the
powerhouse team NE is. After all, with unlimited money anyone can
buy a championship like the '83 Redskins (or like the Yankees'
Steinbrenner, who buys proven stars and expect them to fold into a
"team" concept). With salary caps, the spread between the talent
levels is slimmer and forces coaches to devise better and more
innovative plays, new and better motivators and scout underrated
talent.
Kinda like Adam Smith or Darwin applied to the NFL: teams evolve to
get better, and those teams go deep in the playoffs.
|2.5.05 @ 6:56PM|#
"BTW, why are they holding the Super Bowl in a shitpile of a
place like Jacksonville?"
To reward them for ponying up the dough for the stadium a few years
back. Just to tempt all the other potential markets "see, you don't
have to be one of the top 5 or 10 markets, you just need to buy the
stadium, and we'll not only give you a team, someday we might let
you have the Super Bowl!"
|2.5.05 @ 6:57PM|#
Eryk,
The Patriots are the NFL franchise from Boston, the "New England"
moniker is just marketing.
Like or not I don't see the Eagles beating them tomorrow.
|2.5.05 @ 10:48PM|#
Actually, they play in Foxboro, MA which is a good drive from the city of Boston.
|2.5.05 @ 11:11PM|#
For a while, they were the Bay State Patriots. That lasted until the papers took to referring to them as the "B.S. Patriots" in Sports section headlines.
|2.6.05 @ 12:24AM|#
I agree with cdunlea that the Pats' front office have done an
excellent job of collecting solid players, be they stars or
journeymen. Scott Pioli, their VP in that department, has been
honored as NFL Executive of the year. NE makes smart pickups.
http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=65290
The 49ers great run was similarly due to the canny player moves and
capology of Carmine Policy. The Giants had George Young during
their 80s success.
Jerry Jones has yet to duplicate his success as Cowboys owner/GM,
buckets of cash or no.
Kevin
|2.6.05 @ 4:38AM|#
My super bowl loyalties are largely dictated by the old AFL-NFL
rivalry. I will almost always root for the AFC. Especially if the
AFC team is an original AFL team or franchise, as is New England
(on Sunday they're still the Boston Patriots to me). And, double
especially if the NFC team is an old NFL team or franchise like the
Eagles.
I live in the Denver area and am a Bronco fan going back to like
1961, when I was a little kid, just the 2nd year of the old AFL.
The NFL belittled the AFL-said that they weren't good enough to
compete with them. And when the Packers beat the Chiefs in the
first super bowl, Lombardy sounded about as gracious as a drunk
professional wrestler. It was sweet revenge when the Jets beat the
Colts in Super Bowl III. But up thru the first years of unification
of the two leagues, the NFL gave the ALF only grudging respect at
best.
You can imagine how delighted I was when the Broncos won
their first Super Bowl against the Packers. Of course, the Bronco's
were led by John Elway, one of the few players who deserves to be
nominated for, the most effective quarterback who's ever played the
game.
Here are two other interesting Bronco/football history facts:
The Denver Broncos won the very first regular season AFL game
played when they beat the Boston Patriots in 1960.
The first AFL team to beat an NFL team was the Denver Broncos over
the Detroit Lions 13-7 in a 1967 pre-season game. After the Lion
linebacker, Alex Karas, said, "If these guys beat us, I'll walk
home", he took the plane.
So anyway, Sunday it's Go Patriots and Go AFC (AFL) (I will even
root for the Raiders in the Super Bowl! My fellow Denverite,
fyodor, might think that I'm nuts for doing so.) But, it's that
AFL-NFL thing. And I have the nerve to think that folks should
forget about old religious and ethnic differences and just get
along ;)
|2.6.05 @ 4:45AM|#
BTW, the Patriots have the best team name in sports. To be named after those who led the struggle in the libertarian revolution to establish our republic is sublime. (What a blasphemy it is to have a law that expands government power to spy on Americans named, Patriot!)
|2.6.05 @ 10:51AM|#
...Make that "...the Broncos (not Bronco's) were led by John Elway..." It was 2:30 in the morning. Gimme a break.
Semolina|2.6.05 @ 11:04AM|#
"BTW, the Patriots have the best team name in sports. To be
named after those who led the struggle in the libertarian
revolution to establish our republic is sublime."
I wrote something about this recently. It's a shame that such a
great name gets saddled with a town like Boston, which long ago
gave up any claim as a place where liberty is revered.
Same goes for Philly. Here we have two cities that once led the
world in promoting freedom's values, yet today are captive to
principles that spit in the face of individual rights.
Would have been nice if the "Patriots" could have beaten last year
by Charlotte, a place where they still seem to have a genuine
appreciation for the stuff 1776 was really about.
OK, that's my Thinking Waaaay Too Much About A Frikkin Sports Game
contribution for the day.
|2.6.05 @ 11:32AM|#
Hey everyone! Semolina's site looks interesting. Click on "Semolina" in the 11:04 AM post.
Semolina|2.6.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Thanks, Rick.
(Guest poster "Officer Friendly" is my [much] younger sister. She's
a good college kid, keeping up the good fight at her very liberal
school. She deserves any encouragement and props she can
get...)
Semolina|2.6.05 @ 11:47AM|#
Thanks, Rick.
(BTW: Guest poster "Officer Friendly" is my [much] younger sister.
She's a good college kid, keeping up the good fight at her very
liberal school. She deserves any encouragement and props she can
get...)
Semolina|2.6.05 @ 11:52AM|#
Oops... Sorry. Got a weird message about some time delay that's been installed to fend off abusive posters. And then it double posted.
|2.6.05 @ 4:10PM|#
E-A-G-L-E-S, EAGLES!
E-A-G-L-E-S, EAGLES!
E-A-G-L-E-S, EAGLES!
Hope springs eternal in South Philly ...
|2.6.05 @ 5:36PM|#
When the Colts lost to the Jets, I was quite disappointed. I
guess the taint of their origins in the All-American Conference
finally caught up to them. :)
Kevin
|2.6.05 @ 7:00PM|#
Well, the Patriots didn't score on their first or second possessions. Its a battle of punters so far.
|2.6.05 @ 7:03PM|#
kevrob,
The Colts lost to the Patriots; the Jets beat the Chargers (and
lost to the Steelers).
|2.6.05 @ 7:37PM|#
TOUCHDOWN EAGLES!!!
The Patriots may still win the game, but this will not likely be a
blowout.
|2.6.05 @ 9:01PM|#
The game appears to be over. Hopefully the Eagles can keep the score respectable.
|2.6.05 @ 9:21PM|#
Thanks, Steve_in_Clearwater. Too bad I got your message too late. Or maybe not: I would have bet on the Eagles.
|2.6.05 @ 10:11PM|#
Looks like the Eagles will beat the spread (not the same as winning the game of course). :)
|2.6.05 @ 11:57PM|#
Gary,
Kevin was referring to the Colts losing to the Jets in Super Bowl
III. That was in 1969. How soon you forget. :)
|2.7.05 @ 1:32AM|#
Rick Barton,
I was barely just born then. :)
Anyway, the Eagles appear to have outperformed both the Colts and
the Steelers this playoff season. At least they get the small ring.
T.O. played a man of a game given his recent injury.
|2.7.05 @ 6:16AM|#
Congratulations to the Patriots and their fans. I wonder, since
the Current Wisdom all year has been that the AFL/AFC has been
stronger than the NFL/NFC, did the punters lay more cash on the
Pats, giving the points? Are fans all over New England cheering in
their hearts, while groaning in their bank balances? Meanwhile,
eastern Pennsylvanians win some cash, and have something new to boo
about next season. :)
I've heard that while the Vegas line is one thing, local bookies in
and around the home cities of the teams playing in a big game will
often adjust it. If all Boston wanted to lay money on the Pats,
they'd have had to give more points than customers elsewhere.
Meanwhile, in Philly, the bookies would give fewer points.
Sentiment makes people bet funny. I wonder if an effect of legal
sports books, or offshore ones connected via the net, has
restricted this sort of arbitrage?
Kevin
|2.7.05 @ 8:13AM|#
kevrob,
Notice how the Patriot players were talking about bringing the
trophy "home" to "Boston." They didn't say "New England," they said
"Boston."
|2.7.05 @ 9:28AM|#
"It's a shame that such a great name gets saddled with a town
like Boston, which long ago gave up any claim as a place where
liberty is revered."
Let's not forget the Patriots players choosing to forgo individual
introductions at the beginning of the 2001 Superbowl.
You might remember that, Semolina - it was right before the
nameless mass beat up the overrated bunch of individualist
superstars from St. Louis.
|2.7.05 @ 9:31AM|#
Seeing as how Patriot-ism is the identification of the self with
the larger community, the incorporation of a group identity into
one's personal identity, and the willingness to sacrifice one's own
safety or even life for the nation as a whole, I really don't see
how individualists have any claim on the term at all.
The name Patriots, like the trophy, is right where it belongs.
|2.7.05 @ 9:44AM|#
Oh, and the Eagles defense is really tough. Little or no yardage
gained after the catch, almost no missed tackles, and Cory Dillon
looked like he was going to pass out in the fourth quarter.
Actually, both teams looked exhausted in the fourth quarter. Tough
football.
|2.7.05 @ 10:55AM|#
NFC teams will continue to lose superbowls until they figure out
how to handle 3-4 defenses, of which there are plenty in the AFC
but none in the NFC.
I'm a Steelers fan, and I am annoyed and tired of the Pats winning,
but even I have to admit they do it just right. They don't make
mistakes in big games EVER, and any small miscommunication between
QB and receiver on the opposing team WILL be a Pats INT and WILL
result in at least 3 points. It is uncanny. Some friends are
working on a Belichick Pact with Satan theory based on his
performance with the Browns vs. the Pats, and I'm almost ready to
sign on.
Everybody talks about the defensive genius of coach B, but it isn't
really anything amazing. He runs a 3-4, which has the 2 advantages
of bringing the 4th passrusher from confusing angles and stuffing
the crap out of the run, and he mostly stays back in 'straight up'
defense packages. Belichick is great because he gets his team to
execute. The win over the Steelers was not one of game time
coaching or genuis scheming - it was all player execution. Brady
overthows and it goes out of bounds. Ben overthrows in the middle
of the field and gets picked. Philly blitzed a zillion times and I
don't recall them ever getting to Brady. The Pats blitzed very few
times but to great effect each time. That absurd blitz that saw 4
Pats shed blockers at the same time is a fine example. The blitz
was picked up, but it didn't matter. Execution.
That is as much love as I can muster. Congrats joe and all you
other Beantown folks. And enough already, okay?
|2.7.05 @ 11:15AM|#
When the Colts lost to the Jets, I was quite disappointed. I
guess the taint of their origins in the All-American Conference
finally caught up to them. :)
Ha, ha. You said "taint".
|2.7.05 @ 12:02PM|#
joe, eryk, etc.,
What's the deal with being sore winners?
Jason Ligon,
They don't make mistakes in big games EVER...
Except when Brady fumbles in the red zone. :)
...and any small miscommunication between QB and receiver on
the opposing team WILL be a Pats INT and WILL result in at least 3
points.
Oddly enough, the Patriots only converted one of Philadelphia's
four turnovers into a score as I recall. The Eagles D did a good
job of holding the Patriots at bay until the end of the second
quarter.
Philly blitzed a zillion times and I don't recall them ever
getting to Brady.
McNabb was sacked three times; Brady was sacked once (his sack lead
to a drive ending fumble).
|2.7.05 @ 12:08PM|#
Jason,
Ah yes, the 3-4 defense. The Broncos really helped popularize it
back in the 77 season when they went to the Super Bowl on the
strength of their "orange crush" defense.
|2.7.05 @ 12:36PM|#
Sore winner? I wrote, "Oh, and the Eagles defense is really
tough. Little or no yardage gained after the catch, almost no
missed tackles, and Cory Dillon looked like he was going to pass
out in the fourth quarter."
I don't the defense of my state's patriotism has anything to do
with winning the Superbowl. Then again, neither did Semolina's
charge that we lacked patriotism.
|2.7.05 @ 12:38PM|#
Gary,
Gee, how did I forget to mention the results of their first Super
Bowl? That was painful to watch for me.
|2.7.05 @ 12:43PM|#
joe,
Try to improve your writing skills; your statements are losing
their cogency.
Rick Barton,
Couldn't have been worse than the 1990 Super Bowl when the 49ers
beat the Broncos 55 to 10? I remember turning that game off at half
time. That Bobby Humphrey fumble must have really brought you low.
:)
|2.7.05 @ 12:44PM|#
What Eryk Boston said! Which was:
A patriot is someone who is always prepared to defend his
country from his government.
|2.7.05 @ 12:58PM|#
Ok, after reading Eryk Boston's Hayekian insight in his 12:33 PM post, it's Eryk Boston for President!
|2.7.05 @ 1:03PM|#
The Patriots can win as many titles as it takes to keep the
people of Boston from allowing suicide bombs to be launched from
Logan.
Nice defense back in '01, Bostoninans.
|2.7.05 @ 1:18PM|#
Gary,
The only revolution that I favor for us is an electoral revolution.
joe dead? What?? I was hoping that joe would agree to serve in
President Boston's state dept. (before it's abolished) I trust that
President Boston will have the wisdom to keep him far away from
domestic policy. :)
|2.7.05 @ 1:29PM|#
GG:
I will admit that the game against Philly is as sloppy as the Pats
have been in the Post season during their superbowl runs. I
couldn't believe that they actually got called for motion at least
once in the game. I think I read a stat somewhere that in the
previous SB seasons, the Pats had 0 offsides penalties in the
overwhelming majority of post season games. Just absurd. Brady
fumbling in the red zone was too much for me, and I began to doubt
the pact with Satan had teeth. Then I saw the results of those
mistakes. Few points and none.
Concerning Philly's defense, I just can't believe how much time
Brady had to throw on every blitz (except the one that got him). He
burned them over the middle over and over again. It looked like
they had too many linemen on the field the way that wall formed. If
Philly had any sense, they would have shown blitz and faded to
coverage a couple of times, but I guess they are committed to blitz
o rama even when the QB clearly knows what you are going to do.
|2.7.05 @ 1:30PM|#
"A patriot is someone who is always prepared to defend his
country from his government."
...is a formulation that makes it impossible to declare the men who
didn't get off the sand in Normandy patriots.
|2.7.05 @ 1:32PM|#
Jason Ligon,
Live by the sword. Die by the sword.
Anyway, I thought the Eagles did a great job. Hats off to them.
|2.7.05 @ 1:34PM|#
joe fails to understand (because the only reality to him is the government presumably) was that those men weren't as a rule fighting for their government, they were fighting for their country.
Tim Cavanaugh|2.7.05 @ 1:58PM|#
Ok, after reading Eryk Boston's Hayekian insight in his
12:33 PM post, it's Eryk Boston for President!
I won't vote for a guy who doesn't know how to spell "Erik"!
|2.7.05 @ 2:27PM|#
I think the Pats will win but not beat the spread. Their prior
wins were all close in score if not in field advantage.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict another 3 point victory.
Patriots 24, Eagles 21.
|2.7.05 @ 2:40PM|#
The relevant phrase,
Gary-who-appears-to-skim-comments-then-reply-to-them, is "from his
government."
Zero of the American dead in World War Two were defending their
country, or anything else, agains the American government.
|2.7.05 @ 4:29PM|#
Gary, you mean my statement that if you believe that patriotism is ONLY fighting against your own government, there were no American patriots in World War 2?
|2.7.05 @ 4:53PM|#
OK, Gary.
Democrats are the party that cares about the poor and believes in
racial equality.
Note the absence of the word "only."
|2.7.05 @ 4:54PM|#
I don't know how many people are still reading this thread, but:
Congrats to the Patriots. You can blast McNabb for his picks, but
Brady deserves credit for making none of his own. You can blast
Reid & Co. for their abysmal clock management during the 2nd
and 4th, but Belichick's crew deserves credit for shutting down the
Birds' ground game and constantly creating short-yardage
mismatches.
I still say that the Pats would've been taken down by one of the
aforementioned teams, any one of which I think would've used the
Eagles' screw-ups to turn the game into a rout. But this might
still be the best team to win the Lommbardi in six years, if not
eight.
Assuming the return of Trotter and no major injuries come playoff
time, I'm giving the Eagles a 70% chance of returning next year.
With some improvement, Atlanta has a meaningful chance at derailing
Philly, and Seattle a lesser one. I'll give the Pats a 50% chance;
though I expect the Steelers to regress somewhat, the loss of
Crennel and Weis will hurt, and the Colts will be hell-bent on
seeing that the road to Detroit goes through the RCA Dome. The
Patriots now occupy a place in Indy's psyche deeply similar to the
one that the Cowboys occupied in the minds of the 49ers in '94.
|2.7.05 @ 6:28PM|#
joe,
At first I responded thusly:
joe:
Democrats are the party that cares about the poor...
Based on results, they have a funny way of showing it. Many of
their policies that are billed as helping the poor do the opposite-
Taxes, regulation, and minimum wage laws.
...and believes in racial equality.
That's no excuse for the imposition of affirmative
action/quotas.
Then I remembered that this was a semantics debate:
Note the absence of the word "only."
Your statement about Democrats certainly implies more exclusivity
than: "A patriot is someone who is always prepared to defend his
country from his government." There are only a finite number of
parties and only one other major one.
|2.7.05 @ 7:46PM|#
I'm not sure which is worse: someone being possesed of enough
malice as to wish the presidency on me or someone who thinks I
can't spell my own freaking name. (Timmy, do you really think that
was origional?)
BTW, I wil give the Eagles their due on this: they had much better
end zone dances.
Semolina|2.7.05 @ 10:06PM|#
Joe wrote: "Democrats are the party that cares about the
poor and believes in racial equality. [ ¶ ] Note the absence of
the word 'only.' "
Okey doke. I have noted the absence of that word. But I don't get
the point. What part of the sentence, exactly, does its absence
leave notably unmodified?
* "Democrats are the only party that cares about
the poor and believes in racial equality." -? (No other party
cares about the poor and no other party believes in racial
equality.)
* "Democrats are the party that only cares about
the poor and believes in racial equality." -? (Democrats do
nothing but care about the poor and believe in racial
equality.)
* "Only Democrats are the party that cares only
about the poor and believes in racial equality." -?
(Democrats engage in caring, but only about the poor. Democrats
also believe in racial equality.)
* "Democrats are the party that cares about the poor and believes
only in racial equality." -? (Democrats
engage in believing, but only about racial equality. Democrats also
care about the poor.)
I can be pedantic about semantics, yes. But that's not my
motivation here. I'm genuinely wondering what you meant. What
absence are we supposed to be noting, exactly?
Semolina|2.7.05 @ 10:10PM|#
(Odd... I have no idea what " - " means. Or why it's there. Ahh well. Ignore it.)
Semolina|2.7.05 @ 11:24PM|#
Joe, moving on to the other thingee...
You wrote of my "charge that (Bostonians) lacked
patriotism."
I didn't say that contemporary Bostonians lacked patriotism -- not
"patriotism" in some broad, universal sense.
My post was a reply to Rick Barton, who'd noted that the Patriots
are "… named after those who led the struggle in the
libertarian revolution to establish our republic … " Rick is
right, of course, about that historical context. And my reply dealt
with that context.
It doesn't matter what definition you want to apply today
to the word "patriot." The team itself is named "Patriots" because
of Boston's particular role in a particular revolution for a
particular ideology.
Modern Boston no longer values that revolution's ideology. That's
why I said the historical name "Patriots" would be more relevant in
a place like Charlotte, which still values the revolution's
ideology.
Otherwise, you'd have convince me that one of these two premises is
wrong:
1. The team name "Patriots" refers to Boston's historical role in
the American Revolution.
2. Boston still values the core principles of the American
Revolution.
|2.7.05 @ 11:59PM|#
Eryk Boston,
It wasn't malice toward you, it was a desire for liberty that led
me to nominate you for president. But whatever, now I'm given to
understand that you decline so I'll have to cancel the fund raising
operations and all the machinations of the vast libertarian
conspiracy that I set to labor on your behalf.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245