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.

Comments

[mahoney]

Does anyone know of any non-ripoff sites where one could bet on the game online?

[mtc]

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.

[Mo]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[Eric II]

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]

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.

[Mo]

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.

[Mo]

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.

[Mo]

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.

[mojoe]

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.

[cdunlea]

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.

[Mo]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

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]

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?

[madman]

My Prediction:

Eagles 32 Patriots 20

[Eric II]

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]

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.

[david53]

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

[Douglas Fletcher]

I'm rooting for the Dodgers. Or is the Orioles, I forget.

[R C Dean]

Semolina, allow me to correct one misconception.

Poker isn't gambling.

[playa]

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.

[Eryk Boston]

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

[Eryk Boston]

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.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

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]

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.").

[joe]

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]

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.

[Eric II]

"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?

[Eryk Boston]

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.

[Eric II]

"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.

[Eryk Boston]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

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

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[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."

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.

[kevrob]

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.

[dicky blowhard]

Gary Gunnels posts too much.

[SteveInClearwater]

MAHONEY, drop me an email at [e-mail] 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

[Gary Gunnels]

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?

[cdunlea]

. 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.

[Gary Gunnels]

cdunlea,

I think you are confusing "articial" and "natural" selection. 🙂

[dead_elvis]

"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!"

[MJ]

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.

[Eryk Boston]

Actually, they play in Foxboro, MA which is a good drive from the city of Boston.

[joe]

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.

[kevrob]

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

[Rick Barton]

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 😉

[Rick Barton]

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!)

[Rick Barton]

...Make that "...the Broncos (not Bronco's) were led by John Elway..." It was 2:30 in the morning. Gimme a break.

[Semolina]

"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.

[Rick Barton]

Hey everyone! Semolina's site looks interesting. Click on "Semolina" in the 11:04 AM post.

[Semolina]

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]

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]

Oops... Sorry. Got a weird message about some time delay that's been installed to fend off abusive posters. And then it double posted.

[Still in the 700 level even th]

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 ...

[kevrob]

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

[Gary Gunnels]

Well, the Patriots didn't score on their first or second possessions. Its a battle of punters so far.

[Gary Gunnels]

kevrob,

The Colts lost to the Patriots; the Jets beat the Chargers (and lost to the Steelers).

[Gary Gunnels]

I can't figure out which team is playing more poorly. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

TOUCHDOWN EAGLES!!!

The Patriots may still win the game, but this will not likely be a blowout.

[Gary Gunnels]

TOUCHDOWN PATRIOTS!!!

[crimethink]

Was that Paul McCartney's nipple????

😮

[Gary Gunnels]

The game appears to be over. Hopefully the Eagles can keep the score respectable.

[Mahoney]

Thanks, Steve_in_Clearwater. Too bad I got your message too late. Or maybe not: I would have bet on the Eagles.

[Gary Gunnels]

Looks like the Eagles will beat the spread (not the same as winning the game of course). 🙂

[Rick Barton]

Gary,

Kevin was referring to the Colts losing to the Jets in Super Bowl III. That was in 1969. How soon you forget. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

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.

[kevrob]

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

[Gary Gunnels]

kevrob,

Notice how the Patriot players were talking about bringing the trophy "home" to "Boston." They didn't say "New England," they said "Boston."

[Eryk Boston]

Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyahhhh Nyah

[joe]

"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.

[joe]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Rick Barton]

Kudos to the Patriots and their fans. They beat a very good team.

[Jason Ligon]

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?

[perv]

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".

[Gary Gunnels]

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).

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

Alternatively a patriot is a dupe.

[Rick Barton]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

Rick Barton,

Back when the Cowboys smacked them around 27-10?

[joe]

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.

[Rick Barton]

Gary,

Gee, how did I forget to mention the results of their first Super Bowl? That was painful to watch for me.

[Gary Gunnels]

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. 🙂

[Rick Barton]

What Eryk Boston said! Which was:

A patriot is someone who is always prepared to defend his country from his government.

[Gary Gunnels]

Rick Barton,

So, come the revolution, joe is dead?

[Rick Barton]

Ok, after reading Eryk Boston's Hayekian insight in his 12:33 PM post, it's Eryk Boston for President!

[Snarky]

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.

[Rick Barton]

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. 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

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.

[joe]

"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.

[Gary Gunnels]

Jason Ligon,

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

Anyway, I thought the Eagles did a great job. Hats off to them.

[Gary Gunnels]

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]

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"!

[Pretrodictor]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe, the relevant phrase is your statement of course.

[joe]

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?

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

Well, he never said that it was "only" that of course.

[joe]

OK, Gary.

Democrats are the party that cares about the poor and believes in racial equality.

Note the absence of the word "only."

[Eric II]

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.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

It appears that creating fallacies of definition are your role in life.

[Rick Barton]

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.

[Eryk Boston]

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]

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]

(Odd... I have no idea what " - " means. Or why it's there. Ahh well. Ignore it.)

[Semolina]

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.

[Rick Barton]

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.