In Dynasty, BB is basically quoted as telling Kraft on the eve of the season opener in Cincinnati that they weren't starting their best QB.Well, this is ending on something I've never really thought about either. Tom says if they lose that game, he thinks Bledsoe gets his starting job back in 2002. But they ask Belichick and he seems to say that Brady would still have been taking over and Bledsoe would have been traded. They edited it a bit to not make it as clear an answer as possible, but that seems like that's what he was saying. That's a fun hypothetical debate!
Has anyone ever seen that angle of Channel 6 right behind the uprights as the ball goes through and that guy makes a pretty awesome catch, falling down? I think it's my first time seeing it.
"Much ado about nothing," followed by that patented Belichick smirk. Oh my God, that was perfect.
Coleman worked 17 more years and never another Raiders game.
Also, Tom Brady has a nice house.
Completely agree as to the bolded...I texted my family sports thread that I'd vote for Coleman for President.It was enjoyable watching them banter back and forth but Walt Coleman stole the show for me in his iron-clad explanation for the call which followed the (stupid) rule 100% correctly. Looks like Brady's team had a hand in putting this together (199 Productions).
Oh yes. Tom mentions it over and over. Then they both agree also that Tom tripped Greg Biekert ("you nearly kicked him in the nuts") and settle it should have been offsetting.Does anyone manage to bring up that, tuck rule or not, Woodson clearly hits Brady in the head which even in 2001 should have been a flag for roughing the passer, negating the entire fumble/tuck rule debate?
Offsetting would have helped the Patriots.Oh yes. Tom mentions it over and over. Then they both agree also that Tom tripped Greg Biekert ("you nearly kicked him in the nuts") and settle it should have been offsetting.
But this was also 2001, nobody cared. The Pats destroyed Kurt Warner in the Superbowl, headshot after headshot, including on Ty Law's INT. What was egregious was the 1976 roughing call. Dude's kicked out of the game in 2021, but in 1976? That shit was NEVER called.
That Bill "much ado about nothing" Just awesome.Well, this is ending on something I've never really thought about either. Tom says if they lose that game, he thinks Bledsoe gets his starting job back in 2002. But they ask Belichick and he seems to say that Brady would still have been taking over and Bledsoe would have been traded. They edited it a bit to not make it as clear an answer as possible, but that seems like that's what he was saying. That's a fun hypothetical debate!
Has anyone ever seen that angle of Channel 6 right behind the uprights as the ball goes through and that guy makes a pretty awesome catch, falling down? I think it's my first time seeing it.
"Much ado about nothing," followed by that patented Belichick smirk. Oh my God, that was perfect.
Coleman worked 17 more years and never another Raiders game.
Also, Tom Brady has a nice house.
You missed 8, which is probably tied with 7: incomplete pass, penalty on Biekert for unsportsmanlike punting of the football. Possibly that could have been a dead ball penalty AFTER blow to head, so 15 for roughing PLUS 15 more?Offsetting would have helped the Patriots.
Outcomes, from worst to best from a Pats' perspective:
1. Fumble, recovered by Oakland, with a penalty on Brady thrown in.
2. Fumble, recovered by Oakland, with no penalty called. (though honestly, at this point, the penalty would probably have been irrelevant)
3. Fumble, recovered by NE. (which didn't happen so I don't really even want to include this)
4. Incomplete pass, penalty on Brady, costing the Patriots key yards.
5. Incomplete pass, no penalty. (which is what ended up happening; Pats keep the ball but lose a down)
6. Offsetting penalties. (Pats retain possession, replay the down with the same yardage and ball spot)
7. Incomplete pass, penalty on Woodson. (Pats retain possession, get extra yards on the roughing call)
I forgot about the Biekert punt. LOLYou missed 8, which is probably tied with 7: incomplete pass, penalty on Biekert for unsportsmanlike punting of the football. Possibly that could have been a dead ball penalty AFTER blow to head, so 15 for roughing PLUS 15 more?
Already did in a different thread. He said he'd have thrown a flag post-play for unsportsmanlike conduct.
I'm curious to see how the league is going to handle the shitshow in Miami where Flores accuses the owner of offering to pay him to throw games.what's kind of funny about all this, is for the last 20 years, the Pats and their fans have been screaming about the league being out to get them due to spygate, deflategate, browns video nonsense, loss of draft picks, and fines. For the 20 years before that, the Raiders held that title because Al Davis constantly pissed in the league's cheerios with lawsuits and other standoff battles.
When that play happened, a ton of Raiders fans thought that the outcome was fixed because the league wanted to get back at the Raiders, the same way the Pats fans have felt for the past 15-20 years.
This is comedic coming from the Raiders of all teams, Ben Dreith, the piece of shit that he was, admitted it was a bag job horseshit penalty vs the Patriots in 1976, Hamilton did not hit Stabler anywhere near the head, that was 4th down, game over, instead the Raiders are gifted the winning touchdown on a horseshit penalty. Back then, anything short of committing homicide on a QB was legal, let alone a love tap that didn't get anywhere near his head.There’s an “Inside the 30 for 30” where you can watch Lincoln Kennedy spout conspiracies. He seems to suggest Walt Coleman never reffed another Raiders game because he was paid off. Not, you know, because he didn’t want to get murdered. He also says Gruden gave a speech after the game saying “the league will never let the Raiders win.” Guess that’s why he wanted out lol.
That house.................holy smokes.Well, this is ending on something I've never really thought about either. Tom says if they lose that game, he thinks Bledsoe gets his starting job back in 2002. But they ask Belichick and he seems to say that Brady would still have been taking over and Bledsoe would have been traded. They edited it a bit to not make it as clear an answer as possible, but that seems like that's what he was saying. That's a fun hypothetical debate!
Has anyone ever seen that angle of Channel 6 right behind the uprights as the ball goes through and that guy makes a pretty awesome catch, falling down? I think it's my first time seeing it.
"Much ado about nothing," followed by that patented Belichick smirk. Oh my God, that was perfect.
Coleman worked 17 more years and never another Raiders game.
Also, Tom Brady has a nice house.
To me the best part of that play is the Raiders fans whining.This is comedic coming from the Raiders of all teams, Ben Dreith, the piece of shit that he was, admitted it was a bag job horseshit penalty vs the Patriots in 1976, Hamilton did not hit Stabler anywhere near the head, that was 4th down, game over, instead the Raiders are gifted the winning touchdown on a horseshit penalty. Back then, anything short of committing homicide on a QB was legal, let alone a love tap that didn't get anywhere near his head.
If the Raiders want to whine about how they got screwed and would have beaten the Steelers and then the Rams, Patriots fans can say the same thing about 1976; that Patriots team was a wagon, they would have gone into Pittsburg and beat a banged up Steelers team, then rolled a Vikings team on the back nine of their 1970's run.
The knife cuts both ways, cry me a river Raider players.
The Raiders also punted on:Just watched and it was great...that OT drive is very underrated. Definitely don't agree with Brady that Bledsoe would have started in 2002...it's good theater but absolutely no way. Belichick was the voice of sanity. Brady's explanation that Woodson forced his intended tuck into a pass, thus making it an incomplete pass, best describes the play and correct rule interpretation. Also, I would suspect that most (30+) teams would go for it in today's NFL on the crucial 4th down after Crocket is stopped, given how the thinking has changed on such plays.
I suspect we’d see a lot of the same decisions today if the game is played in a blizzard. The 4th and 5 at the 36 is borderline (you’d absolutely go for it/kick with normal weather), but I think they’re all defensible given the conditions.The Raiders also punted on:
4th and 1 from the NE 48
4th and 4 from the NE 43
4th and 5 from the NE 36
And then finally 4th and 1 from their own 44 with a first down sealing the game
Not Gruden's finest night. But yes, I suspect some of not all of those decisions are different in 2021 vs 2001
I suspect we’d see a lot of the same decisions today if the game is played in a blizzard. The 4th and 5 at the 36 is borderline (you’d absolutely go for it/kick with normal weather), but I think they’re all defensible given the conditions.
Yeah they did a really poor job with the punting. Plus if kicking field goals is so hard, is it that big of a deal to give up the ball at the 35 or 40 yard line? The other team still needs to go 60-65 yards for a TD.Importantly, the Raiders were getting dogshit net yardage when they punted in those situations. Lechler - who is otherwise one of the best punters of all time - had several touchbacks and Troy Brown had several sizable returns off of those questionable punts.
Ideally, the coach would figure out how unfavorable the kicking conditions were and get more aggressive on fourth down later in the game.
The ones the Patriots went for are a lot more clear cut go-for-it situations than the ones the Raiders punted on. I didn't realize how poor the net punting was, but I still think Gruden was right to play to the conditions. There were 29 total points scored in 68.5 minutes and six of them were due to an obscure rule that's since been repealed (it was obviously correctly applied) and the best kick ever.Yeah they did a really poor job with the punting. Plus if kicking field goals is so hard, is it that big of a deal to give up the ball at the 35 or 40 yard line? The other team still needs to go 60-65 yards for a TD.
Meanwhile the Patriots:
- Went for 4th and 2 from the Oakland 31 (failed)
- Punted on 4th and 1 from their own 30 (not a surprise)
- Punted on 4th and 1 from their own 37 (ditto)
- Punted on 4th and 3 from the Oakland 36 (this was with a minute left in the half and questionable... but it succeeded in that it led to Oakland kneel downs to end the half. This was more situational than anything, not giving them a chance)
- Kicked a FG down 7-0 4th and goal from the 5
- Went for 4th and 4 from the Oakland 28 in OT
So faced with some similar situations, they were conservative, but they did go for it a couple times, whereas the Raiders didn't a single time.
He's saying there's no OT without the tuck play, hence 6 total points, I thinkThe best kick ever came on the same drive as the tuck play, didn’t it?
Yeah, that's correct. I think given the way that game played out though it was right to punt and trust your defense in those conditions. If you play conservatively against a good offense in good conditions, they're just going to get back to that spot in a few plays. I would imagine BB went for it on 4th and 2 in Indianapolis because he thought Peyton would score no matter what against a gassed defense.He's saying there's no OT without the tuck play, hence 6 total points, I think
Edit: I'd argue the lack of points proves the opposite, Gruden should have been more aggressive since they weren't scoring anyway, but YMMV
The Raiders would have been underdogs in the AFC Title game in Pittsburgh had they won, and underdogs again against the Rams had they somehow won in Pittsburgh. But, yeah, pencil them in for a Lombardi if they leave Foxboro with a win that night.Charles Woodson's inability to understand a rule that must have been explained to him thousands of times doesn't reflect especially well on him. Nor does his belief that Raiders team was somehow a shoo-in for 2 straight titles otherwise.
He fumbled twice on punt returns, and Larry Izzo recovered both. Slater has overshadowed him, but my goodness was Larry Izzo a beast on Special Teams. First fumble is at 1:30:50. Broadcast did not catch it, but refs did rule it a fumble (which it clearly was) and it's in the box score.Like TB and CW, I had totally forgotten about the TB80 fumble.
Also, important to note that this was 2001. If it was fourth down, you punted, no questions asked.After a nice first down run by Charlie Garner, the Raiders had 2nd and a very short 3 Before that unsuccessful 3rd and 1 play which would have iced the game.
Obviously, I was certainly glad they decided not to go for it on fourth down, but I’m thinking the Raiders are focused on the fact that the patriots moved the ball 12 yards in 4 plays the prior drive. (One 12- yard pass for a first down and then three incompletes by Brady stalling on their own 30)
Fully agree with the logic re: 4th and 2. I guess it would be an open question for Gruden whether, 20 years later, he regrets not going for a couple of those.Yeah, that's correct. I think given the way that game played out though it was right to punt and trust your defense in those conditions. If you play conservatively against a good offense in good conditions, they're just going to get back to that spot in a few plays. I would imagine BB went for it on 4th and 2 in Indianapolis because he thought Peyton would score no matter what against a gassed defense.
The Raiders also punted on:
4th and 1 from the NE 48
4th and 4 from the NE 43
4th and 5 from the NE 36
And then finally 4th and 1 from their own 44 with a first down sealing the game
Not Gruden's finest night. But yes, I suspect some of not all of those decisions are different in 2021 vs 2001
the Tuck is complete when the second hand hits the ball. Brady's refusal to acknowledge what is right on the screen in front of him - his second (left) hand is touching the ball right as Woodson hits him- doesn't reflect especially well on him. Brady does have an excellent point that if Woodson just goes for the hit and not the ball, it still might be a fumble, but it is definitely a sack and puts the Pats at 2nd & 15 or 16 with another 20-30 seconds run off the clock.Charles Woodson's inability to understand a rule that must have been explained to him thousands of times doesn't reflect especially well on him.
Nor does his belief that Raiders team was somehow a shoo-in for 2 straight titles otherwise.
If the Patriots had lost the playoff game vs the Raiders, then in 2002, does Bledsoe get shipped out of town?Just watched and it was great...that OT drive is very underrated. Definitely don't agree with Brady that Bledsoe would have started in 2002...it's good theater but absolutely no way. Belichick was the voice of sanity. Brady's explanation that Woodson forced his intended tuck into a pass, thus making it an incomplete pass, best describes the play and correct rule interpretation. Also, I would suspect that most (30+) teams would go for it in today's NFL on the crucial 4th down after Crocket is stopped, given how the thinking has changed on such plays.
Wasn't it third down??? Either way it still cost them the game.This is comedic coming from the Raiders of all teams, Ben Dreith, the piece of shit that he was, admitted it was a bag job horseshit penalty vs the Patriots in 1976, Hamilton did not hit Stabler anywhere near the head, that was 4th down, game over, instead the Raiders are gifted the winning touchdown on a horseshit penalty. Back then, anything short of committing homicide on a QB was legal, let alone a love tap that didn't get anywhere near his head.
If the Raiders want to whine about how they got screwed and would have beaten the Steelers and then the Rams, Patriots fans can say the same thing about 1976; that Patriots team was a wagon, they would have gone into Pittsburg and beat a banged up Steelers team, then rolled a Vikings team on the back nine of their 1970's run.
The knife cuts both ways, cry me a river Raider players.
Pretty sure it was 4th down, ballgame over, incomplete pass.Wasn't it third down??? Either way it still cost them the game.
Here is the language from the actual rule:the Tuck is complete when the second hand hits the ball. Brady's refusal to acknowledge what is right on the screen in front of him - his second (left) hand is touching the ball right as Woodson hits him- doesn't reflect especially well on him. Brady does have an excellent point that if Woodson just goes for the hit and not the ball, it still might be a fumble, but it is definitely a sack and puts the Pats at 2nd & 15 or 16 with another 20-30 seconds run off the clock.
He has to have tucked the ball "into his body" in order for it to be a fumble. The ball hit his left hand for maybe a millisecond before the fumble, there's no possible way you can say that he had "tucked the ball into his body" based on that video.NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.
Well said.Here is the language from the actual rule:
He has to have tucked the ball "into his body" in order for it to be a fumble. The ball hit his left hand for maybe a millisecond before the fumble, there's no possible way you can say that he had "tucked the ball into his body" based on that video.
Brady (and many others) thought it was a fumble when it happened because they didn’t understand the rule. Thankfully Coleman did.
I agree with you that beating the 01 Rams would have a tall order and said so in my post. Belichick was probably the only coach who could put together a plan to somehow mindfuck Mike Martz into forgetting he had Marshall Faulk for 3 quarters.Well said.
Gunfighter, I am a bit befuddled at the idea that the Raiders would’ve gone on to beat STL then, with the same coach you said you wanted run out of town, made the same run to the SB the next year to defeat the Bucs, who in this scenario would also get there rather than, say, Philly? That’s a lot of projection. I can more easily talk myself into ‘the Pats were very close to 5 straight Super Bowls from 14-18’ than this one.
Raider players and fans are complaining about a rule that the referee interpreted correctly; don't be mad at the result, be mad about the rule itself, it was not a bag job and Coleman was not paid off.............paid off to do what, interpret the rule correctly?Gruden, to his eternal credit, has always publicly said that the Tuck Rule wasn't the reason they lost, that they had multiple chances to win the game after that call, and that they failed to make enough plays to do so.
One of the things you have to be a Patriots fan to really appreciate is how many of the big games during the dynasty were so freaking close. The average fan would probably assume that it was domination. It was domination in results but not in the journey. More than a dozen games where you can point to one play here or there that would have been the difference -- and they certainly didn't all go in the Patriots' favor.Gruden, to his eternal credit, has always publicly said that the Tuck Rule wasn't the reason they lost, that they had multiple chances to win the game after that call, and that they failed to make enough plays to do so.
Nah, the Patriots were very often dominant. It's just impossible to trounce most opponents in the playoffs over an extended period of time. Some of those close games they won in the Super Bowl also came against teams they were easily better than and should arguably have handled with a lot more ease (mostly Carolina and Atlanta). But that's football, Super Bowl blowouts have become the exception over the past 20 years. I recall Bucs x Raiders, Seahawks x Broncos, Broncos x Panthers and Bucs x Chiefs as the only non competitive games in that timeframe, but I guess you could add Steelers x Seahawks and Colts x Bears, even though both had the losing team with the ball down one score in the 4th quarter.One of the things you have to be a Patriots fan to really appreciate is how many of the big games during the dynasty were so freaking close. The average fan would probably assume that it was domination. It was domination in results but not in the journey. More than a dozen games where you can point to one play here or there that would have been the difference -- and they certainly didn't all go in the Patriots' favor.
In the end I think six championships feels right. It feels like about what they deserved, give or take. But man you can think of about a zillion different combinations there could have been if you just change a play here or there. The second Rams super bowl was in the balance for 55 minutes and even still in some reasonable doubt until the Rams missed the field goal, depriving them of the score and the chance to onside. And that was the most "lopsided" Super Bowl the Patriots ever played in, since the Bears one.
I imagine there are a lot of opposing fans who look back on so many of those games and think that if they could have just had one play go differently. Of course, we have games where we feel like that too. To me it's one of the most amazing things about the dynasty. The Patriots were rarely dominant. They were able to parlay being very good into so many wins.