The Nation's Tears: Volume II
- Thread starter jmcc5400
- Start date
- Status
I totally get people are tired of the same team winning, but when people call it “boring” and say “I’m done watching,” and then the Pats-Jags ends up the highest rated thing on TV since last year’s Superbowl, it becomes a bit much. This team is anything but boring.
The freeze frame stills of the refs are nonsense. As is the fact that the majority of the "analysis" rests on the presupposition that each team commits more or less an equal number of infractions a game, and any discrepancy in calls is simply the refs favoring one team over the other.
The degree to which people are willing to openly debase themselves by embracing idiotic theories that run counter to all common sense just to justify what did or did not happen to a bunch of guys they'll never meet and who don't know they exist is truly astonishing. I mean, it's one thing to root for a team. It's another entirely to do so to the extent that you openly make insane assertions that could justifiably lead to people never taking anything you say seriously again. The fact that the media is irresponsible enough at this point to engage in this type of behavior instead of providing any sort of rational content makes it stand out less, because the guy next to you at work isn't saying anything crazier than SAS probably has in the last 24 hours, but man, the idea of common sense and rationality is just entirely off the table at this point.
The degree to which people are willing to openly debase themselves by embracing idiotic theories that run counter to all common sense just to justify what did or did not happen to a bunch of guys they'll never meet and who don't know they exist is truly astonishing. I mean, it's one thing to root for a team. It's another entirely to do so to the extent that you openly make insane assertions that could justifiably lead to people never taking anything you say seriously again. The fact that the media is irresponsible enough at this point to engage in this type of behavior instead of providing any sort of rational content makes it stand out less, because the guy next to you at work isn't saying anything crazier than SAS probably has in the last 24 hours, but man, the idea of common sense and rationality is just entirely off the table at this point.
Looks like he thought he was breaking up a scuffle, realized it was two teammates, and laughed and said "ok ok"
Sorry...what Dollar said.
Do you think that irrationality existed prior to the advent of social media, and even the internet?
People haven't changed. Sports fandom is irrational - if anything, a breeding ground for irrationality. Go read classical texts on rhetoric, or better yet this book, if you want some reassurance that, no matter how stupid an idea is, yes, you can always find plenty of people willing to be that stupid. And it doesn't result in them being shunned from society or not taken seriously in other contexts. Shit, in some cases it gets them elected to public office.
People haven't changed. Sports fandom is irrational - if anything, a breeding ground for irrationality. Go read classical texts on rhetoric, or better yet this book, if you want some reassurance that, no matter how stupid an idea is, yes, you can always find plenty of people willing to be that stupid. And it doesn't result in them being shunned from society or not taken seriously in other contexts. Shit, in some cases it gets them elected to public office.
So far, it’s still not like the Yankees of the 30s, 40s and 50s though. Nowhere close. They won 14 World Series in 27 years, if my counting is correct. That doesn’t even include the Ruth or the “Jeter” teams. However, there was only one playoff series in those years, the World Series, no salary cap, etc., so I think it’s harder to keep a dynasty going nowadays. Russell’s Celtics, of course, winning 11 in 13 years, most likely 12 if Russell wasn’t hurt in 57-58. Somebody should rank the dynasties.
Was it always this way with dynasties and greatness? I feel like anytime a team or a player is great, a sizable amount of people want to hate them for no good reason. Yet, looking back so many people became fans of dynastic teams like the Niners or Cowboys or Steelers precisely because they were great and people still speak about those teams reverently. Same with individuals - Mayweather, LeBron, Kobe - any time there's a historic talent, people want to shit all over them instead of being grateful for the opportunity to watch greatness. I'm not saying everyone has to go all Vision Quest, but I don't get why people aren't embracing the opportunity to watch teams and athletes that are historic, achievements they can tell their grandkids about.
Maybe it was always this way, or maybe it's the need for 24 hour content driving naysayers whose hot takes are picked up by idiots and contrarians, but it's the freaking Player Haters Ball in sportsland.
Maybe it was always this way, or maybe it's the need for 24 hour content driving naysayers whose hot takes are picked up by idiots and contrarians, but it's the freaking Player Haters Ball in sportsland.
Obviously it existed, but social media allows anything to reach a larger audience faster. Couple that with the way news and events are digested now (click bait, etc) and you have irrationality spreading to a larger degree.
Yes. Irrationality is being given water, oxygen, and sunlight due to social media. And it sells.
I think 30, 40, certainly 50 years ago, access to an audience was so limited by viable media outlets that only a handful of people in each market (and another handful of national people) had meaningful access to the teams. And to get the best scoops, it paid to be chummy with the players and write more favorably of them. And local fans want to hear nice things about their local team, so everyone was happy.* National outlets were even more limited, and coverage beyond scores was limited to large events, and the rare legitimate story/scandal (e.g. Pete Rose gambling). When CNN was airing back in the late 80s, I think sports got 5 minutes of every 30, and it was a bang-bang-bang flurry without any commentary. Even when ESPN came along, it limited its focus to actual news and scores for its first 10-15 years or so.
Now, for better and for worse, lots of people have national audiences and have no possibility of getting any personal access or true insight to a team or player, so there a benefit to writing negatively. For everyone who likes Team X, there's fans of 3-5 other teams that actively dislike Team X. The audience is always bigger on team negative.
EDIT: Look at Deadspin. For every article on the Patriots, there are 10 anti-Pats comments for every pro-Pats one. Hate gets the hits.
*That's why a guy like Ted Williams was treated so poorly, because he kind of broke that social contract and was treated accordingly.
Last edited:
n/m
I believe you're incorrect in assuming that Jack was not a "runner". Basically, once he takes the ball from Lewis, he has possession. But he was on the ground with Lewis, so he's considered down by contact. As there was really no chance that Jack could have gotten the ball without contacting Lewis somehow, and Jack was on the ground with Lewis.
I'll continue the thread mess-up:
I believe you're incorrect in assuming that Jack was not a "runner". Basically, once he takes the ball from Lewis, he has possession. But he was on the ground with Lewis, so he's considered down by contact. As there was really no chance that Jack could have gotten the ball without contacting Lewis somehow, and Jack was on the ground with Lewis.
Nice McCourty quote to pass along to Pittsburgh fans from the end of Borges' article:
“First week (James) Harrison was here he said one day, ‘More meetings?’ Bill drills us on every situation over and over. ..."
Tells you a lot about this team and prep. It also, BTW, goes a long way toward explaining all the tin-foil-hat nonsense around the country. People just don't appreciate how much more seriously the Pats take this stuff, day in and day out.
“First week (James) Harrison was here he said one day, ‘More meetings?’ Bill drills us on every situation over and over. ..."
Tells you a lot about this team and prep. It also, BTW, goes a long way toward explaining all the tin-foil-hat nonsense around the country. People just don't appreciate how much more seriously the Pats take this stuff, day in and day out.
Growing up in the 70's and 80's, the teams I hated were those with a Boston-centric reason for the dislike - the Yankees, Canadiens, Dolphins and Lakers in particular. I don't remember having much hate for Staubach's Cowboys, Bradshaw's Steelers, Montana's 49ers, etc. I think you nailed it regarding the rise of the 24/7 Hot Takez!!! industrial complex.
Would we be hearing about the officiating if the Jaguars win? Everyone knows the answer to this question. The only reason the officiating is being brought up is because the Patriots won the game. There were absolutely no controversial calls yesterday yet there's a conspiracy.
The total lack of a call on the offensive lineman shoving a Patriots player in the back (in wide open field where you can't say the Umpire and/or Ref view was blocked) that was on the ground that was trying to get up to tackled the QB is pretty controversial. Just not in the way the Pats haters want to talk about.
The Yankees had national papers, and still have big parts of the national media that love them. Writers then were actual writers and painted romantic pictures of the the Yankee way, and the "hallowed grounds" etc. They made teams playing the Yankees equally romantic underdogs. The Dodgers was jut s romanticised for losing to the Yankees.
IMHO in comes from Spygate,and Easterbrook's crusade to protect the undefeated Dolphins. Until that point the Pats were another "System Dynasty" where NFL films showed slo-mo plays interspersed with clips of the stoic man's man coach. Thye were a team, a group,etc.
We have a different generation of players and fans. The idea you don't talk before the game and shut up when you lose is over. Nfl guys are supposed to be tough guys, and they cry like babies after games half the time.
IMHO in comes from Spygate,and Easterbrook's crusade to protect the undefeated Dolphins. Until that point the Pats were another "System Dynasty" where NFL films showed slo-mo plays interspersed with clips of the stoic man's man coach. Thye were a team, a group,etc.
We have a different generation of players and fans. The idea you don't talk before the game and shut up when you lose is over. Nfl guys are supposed to be tough guys, and they cry like babies after games half the time.
Eh, I remember my dad talking about Cowboys hate back in the 70's. Part of it was their behavior/personality, but obviously a lot of that was the "winning".
And, while a football fan, my dad wasn't like a football-centric guy. He talked about how it was a thing that was out there in the media (and that he shared it also).
Conspiracy theories develop as a way to for humans to try and impose order on random events (like 9/11). For me, what it boils down to is that this Pats run has essentially never been seen before and so people need to develop alternative explanatory theories (cheating, ref bribing, etc.). People just cannot fathom that one team could dominate the league for so long.
So...you're saying that my dad disliked me because of all my winning?
I think you're thinking of your dad...
Right - rules - wise this isn't much different than a receiver being contacted in the air while gaining control of the ball. If he lands and falls, he's down - he doesn't have to be touched after he has full control - just any time during the process.
The rules are weird - because they comingle the crap out of definitions for "Recovery" (getting the ball after it hits the ground) and "Catch". Fun fact - if you recover a fumble while sliding out of bounds and bobble the ball out of bounds, you didn't recover it.
In the section of the rule definitions for "Player Possession" (which earlier states that these rules apply to fumble recoveries) - it states-
bolded mine.
The rules are strange - essentially the entirety of the attempt to corral the ball is treated as one simultaneous event - and Jack was contacted by a 'defender' while going to ground during a catch/recovery - so he's down by contact. There's no specific rule about treating catches differently - the wording for recoveries even has the language about controlling the ball to the ground, etc.
The weirdest part though - if Jacks hadn't managed to hold onto the ball - and it had popped out after he hit the ground, I think it would have been live.
I'll go to my grave thinking Lewis had the ball pinned to his side and was down by contact. I will also go to my grave thinking he completely fucked up that play by hesitating behind a wall of blockers. If he burst through while #50 was being engaged, he gets another 15-20 yards.
Edit: That said, it was a defensible non-overturn.
Edit: That said, it was a defensible non-overturn.
I thought Lewis fucked it up live, too, but watching the replay it looks more like Mason’s fuckup. He turned back toward Jack as it he was going to block him, probably giving Lewis a false sense of security, and then inexplicably turned back upfield and allowed the tackle.
I think it was a fumble fwiw.
Yeah, I was literally yelling at the bar TV for Mason to block Jack. The non-block was on him, but Lewis has to hang onto the ball there.
What the hell kind of romanticized, nostalgic claptrap is this? Kids These Days are no different. Do you think they invented pregame trash talk in 2005? Shit, that's a core part of Mohammed Ali's legacy. Ask John McEnroe how complaining about the officials cost him his rep back in the day. Satchel Paige was one of the most notorious trash talkers in history, and he's lionized into bunyanesque proportions. Deion Sanders? Shannon Sharpe?
Sore losers (and trash talking) have been around forever, and it doesn't take much googling to prove that to yourself. 1991 Detroit Pistons walking off the court before the final buzzer vs the Bulls? Bobby Knight's manny tantrums? Bobby Cox owns the MLB record for managerial ejections, by a mile, and got fined and even suspended for comments about officiating.
He did pin it against his body - but it doesn't matter. As soon as the ball became loose, he had to establish possession again- and establishing possession here means maintaining control of the ball through contact with the ground - and he definitely didn't do that.
This is the same as the Sefarian-Jenkins play - where the bobble means the whole process has to happen again.
And yeah - the first part of that play was awesome - and then Lewis did a whole bunch of dumb things - like not protecting the ball while running 3/4 speed following blockers (and knowing backside players would be catching up). I'm sure he's getting chewed out in film class.
EDIT - yeah, you're right about Mason. Lots of stuff to talk about in film class there.
So what you're saying is that I am not going to my grave thinking 2 things I thought I was going to my grave thinking 20 minutes ago. I may be hungover.
Yep this was about the only thing I got right in the game thread yesterday. If Mason blocks Jack, Lewis might have scored since he still had two blockers ahead of him and probably just a S/CB left on that side of the field.
Lewis also had the ball in the wrong hand. Players are taught at an early age to always carry the ball with the outside (closest to the sideline) hand. Lewis had the ball in his right (wrong) hand on the left sideline.
I am not sure how much NFL coaches care about that stuff though, because I see it all the time.
I am not sure how much NFL coaches care about that stuff though, because I see it all the time.
I've been thinking about this, and one theory I have is that the fact that so many of the big wins during this stretch have been razor-close exacerbates the bitterness. It leads the defeated and their sympathizers to focus on all of the "if only" moments, and that invariably magnifies the perceived significance of officiating calls -- starting of course with the tuck rule -- as well as suspected cheating and rule-bending.
I actually suspect that there'd be more grudging respect and even admiration for the Pats if they'd just steamrolled the league in a conventionally entertaining show of awe-inspiring dominance like the '27 Yankees or '85 Bears. Instead they just plug away and consistently put themselves in position to win, and more often than not they execute when they most need to. To be sure, there are those who respect and admire that body of work -- but it doesn't inspire an enthusiastic widespread following, and over time it leads to boredom and resentment among many.
That and the coach is mean to reporters.
I've been thinking about this, and one theory I have is that the fact that so many of the big wins during this stretch have been razor-close exacerbates the bitterness.
Deadspin is eating its own tail lately with the Patriots hate, but Magary made an excellent point last by noting that the Pats dominate while always appearing vulnerable. They never strike people as being as intimidating as, say, the 1985 Bears (save the 2007 team and we know how that ended). So all these wins and all this dominance annoy opposing fans because there are always some noticeable flaws that should be seemingly exploited, but the Pats overcome them. So then you get the narrative of "The Pats make other teams lose their minds, it's maddening!"
Deadspin is eating its own tail lately with the Patriots hate, but Magary made an excellent point last by noting that the Pats dominate while always appearing vulnerable. They never strike people as being as intimidating as, say, the 1985 Bears (save the 2007 team and we know how that ended). So all these wins and all this dominance annoy opposing fans because there are always some noticeable flaws that should be seemingly exploited, but the Pats overcome them. So then you get the narrative of "The Pats make other teams lose their minds, it's maddening!"
"So, Shaq, what happened on this play?"
*Mason gets up and just goes to run laps for an hour*
"OK, good answer. Lewis, which hand should be on the ball there?"
*crickets*
"Coach, Lewis left to run laps when you queued up the film"
"Moving on."
I think he thought that Lewis was already beside him or on his way past already. He knows Lewis is way fast than him, and he sees #42 up ahead as the more likely threat. If Lewis had made just a little spurt up the sideline behind hie "lead" blocker, he's well past #44.
Not saying it was the "right" decision. Just suggesting that was what happened.
I missed where I said nobody did this before. My point was, and is, things are generally different.
Each of your examples, other than Cox, stood out and were given negative press for what they said. Isiah Thomas had to hold a national press conference to apologise. There were not nation news agencies saying the Pistons, and the Celtics who did it when the Pistons eliminated them, were right and the teams that beat them didn't deserve it. There is today.
If you think the media, general public politically and in sports punishes bad, partisan whining like 30 years ago then I disagree. You can have your own tv news for, sports, shows, sports websites for your own side, and it has made all people less civil. There was a time when most team acted like the Pats, didn't say anything, and the needle has moved.
If you think the current president, and the other TV star solution being touted as his replacement, don't represent a less measured, less thoughtful time, then again we disagree.
IMO, this was his worst game this year. And it doesn't crack the top 10 worst performances by a Pat OL this year. Dude has been a stud.
He greeted Bortles before the game and didn’t get to Brady. Seriously.
Why is this a thing?
EDIT: I think I’m talking about a different one. Oh well. Still stupid.
Last edited:
Except:
The Pats beat the Titans soundly, and somehow it was the officials fault. And when the Pats trounced the Colts, it was due to deflated footballs. And, in 2007, the Pats were blamed for "running up the score".
Might as well embrace the hate, because the only thing that will make it go away is to become the Browns.
Exactly.
When it's close, it's razor sharp and heart-breaking.
When it's not close, we're abusive and cruel.
What we need is...well, nevermind.
Lots of salty tears from Bart Scott on WFAN's Afternoon Drive. https://tunein.com/wfan660/
Devin McCourty will be on around 5PM
Devin McCourty will be on around 5PM
- Status