Tuck Rule 30 for 30

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
33,429
Here
Ok, this is awesome.

Tom and Woodson arguing on the couch with Walt Coleman’s voice over them is the greatest thing I have ever seen. There is so much here.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,978
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).
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
33,429
Here
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.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,511
Hingham, MA
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.
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.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,272
South Dartmouth, MA
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).
Completely agree as to the bolded...I texted my family sports thread that I'd vote for Coleman for President.
I think the whole Brady doesn't start in 2002 is fun to banter about 20 years later, but I don't see a world where Bledsoe isn't traded that offseason.
 

mikeford

woolwich!
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2006
27,995
St John's, NL
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?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
33,429
Here
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?
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.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
18,189
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.
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)
 

patinorange

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 27, 2006
27,019
6 miles from Angel Stadium
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.
That Bill "much ado about nothing" Just awesome.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
33,429
Here
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.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,511
Hingham, MA
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)
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?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
18,189
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?
I forgot about the Biekert punt. LOL

You'd have to ask @CFB_Rules how that would be officiated.
 

GB5

lurker
Aug 26, 2013
394
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.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
9,452
Westwood MA
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.
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.

If Kraft in 2020 told Belichick to throw games and that got out, what do you think the league would do to the Patriots?

I'll hang up and listen.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
9,452
Westwood MA
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.
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.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
9,452
Westwood MA
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.
That house.................holy smokes.

Unbelievable.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,911
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.
To me the best part of that play is the Raiders fans whining.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,406
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.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,511
Hingham, MA
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.
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
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
33,069
Deep inside Muppet Labs
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.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
1,993
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.
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,326
This is a really enjoyable piece. Brady’s house is decent, if you’re into the whole “mansion on the beach” vibe.

Watching Tom and Woodson going back and forth simulating the throw was funny. I had forgotten how conservative Gruden played it that night. Some of those punts were no brainer go for it situations given the weather conditions/net yardage you'd expect from kicking. So many things had to go right (and wrong) for that game to end the way it did.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
14,149
UWS, NYC
This doc was informative, hysterical, and really beautifully produced. Continual effect of magnifying the snowfall in many of the archival and close up sequences was really effective.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
41,233
Hartford, CT
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.
 

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
18,447
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.

One little bit I loved that just reinforced everything we've ever heard about TB12's competitive streak: Woodson playfully pushes him down on the couch, and you can see Brady getting pissed off thinking about it, so he goes right back after him. Hilarious stuff.
 

Rheal With Cheese

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2004
108
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 were 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)


What was more damning play calling IMO was after the greatest field goal in NFL history:

they had 22 seconds,
two timeouts,
strong footed Janakowski,
relatively trustworthy and near peak Gannon and some great receivers
starting on their own 35 after a nice kickoff return.

They had literally just seen the patriots show how to move the ball in the fourth with certain passes…. Instead of trying to gain 35 yards in 3-4 plays, they took a knee and played for an overtime…where the offense never got another snap

It’s a much more minor version of the end of Super Bowl 36. You almost always want to take your chances and go for it then, because even if you screw it up with an interception 25 or 30 yards down the field or a fumble, you at least then have the small clock on your side, which can help prevent the other team from a score before the fourth quarter gun.

plus as we know If you wait for overtime you may never even get the ball ….
And even if you do get the ball in OT, and if you then have a turnover around your own 35, well then you don’t have the clock to help pressure the other team. In other words, the other team is in a much better position in OT then they would be if you turned it over near the end of regulation.
So take your chances in regulation when you can.

it’s why I never understood the Madden comment at the beginning of the game winning Drive in SB XXXVI. The risk/downside there sucks but a turnover always sucks and is often decisive in a close game …but it’s nowhere near as bad as the same risk of a similar turnover play in OT
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,511
Hingham, MA
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.
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.
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.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
1,993
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.
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.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,511
Hingham, MA
The best kick ever came on the same drive as the tuck play, didn’t it?
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
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
1,993
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
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.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,898
Needham, MA
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.
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.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
33,429
Here
Like TB and CW, I had totally forgotten about the TB80 fumble.
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.
2001 AFC Divisional Round: Raiders vs. Patriots | "Tuck Rule Game" | NFL Full Game - YouTube
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)
Also, important to note that this was 2001. If it was fourth down, you punted, no questions asked.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,511
Hingham, MA
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.
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.
 

SoxFanInCali

has the rich, deep voice of a god
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2005
14,339
California. Duh.
As the board's resident Rams fan, I will always 100% believe that the Raiders (if they had even gotten by Pittsburgh) would have been blown out by the Rams in that Super Bowl. The Pats had a defense that could disrupt the Rams offense, and the rules at the time meant that they could get away with a more physical style of play that might not be allowed now. The Raiders were basically Rams lite, would have tried to play a similar style of game as the Rams, but on both sides of the ball the Rams were a better team.
 

GB5

lurker
Aug 26, 2013
394
For all the talk about how difficult fg kicking was in that game, I believe the two teams were 5-5 on field goal kicks, plus two for two on extra points. Its an afterthought, and the pressure on Vinatieri was greater and maybe the conditions were a little worse, but his 45 yard field goal, was not the only 45 yard fg in that game....Sebas was fantastic in that game.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,467
KPWT
The coolest part of the doc was capturing the Eric Allen eavesdropping on Charlie Weiss & Brady part of the tuck rule play call decision making.

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

This was the reason no one was really that angry that Gruden was traded after the screw job in New England. His conservatism and refusal to recognize both what the 2001 Raiders were really good at, and what the conditions called for in that game - short passing- was maddening. The 3 game losing streak at the end of the 01 season and Gruden's terrible performance in the Tuck Rule game had really soured many people on him by that point.


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.
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.

Nor does his belief that Raiders team was somehow a shoo-in for 2 straight titles otherwise.

This is gospel among Raider fans and the fantasy is not that hard to piece together:

2001
The Raiders beat the Pats
They were going to win in Pittsburgh - they played in Pittsburgh in week 2 of the 2002 season and won by 13 in a game that never felt that close.
Beating the greatest show on Turf Rams would have been challenging, to say the least. Not quite sure it would have happened, but they at least had the horses to stay with them and make it a fight. I think the fantasy falls apart right here. But if they get to the Super Bowl, Al doesn't trade Gruden.

2002

They were 6 point favorites in the Super Bowl and only lost because the Bucs had Gruden - a fact acknowledged by players on both teams. Gannon, who was the league MVP- threw 5 interceptions to defenders who recognized and adjusted to every check and audible the Raiders had. Bill Callahan didn't think he could change up all of their signals with only 1 week to prepare, and didn't want to focus on running the ball after the Barret Robbbins debacle. If the Raiders win in 2001, there is no way Al trades Gruden, and some other guy with Toney Dungy's team is losing the 2002 Super Bowl to Gannon & co.


Brady comes across really well in this thing, his genuine empathy and respect for Woodson is a brief glimpse into how he is such a great damn leader.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
9,452
Westwood MA
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.
If the Patriots had lost the playoff game vs the Raiders, then in 2002, does Bledsoe get shipped out of town?

He had signed the first 100 million dollar contract the year before; does Kraft sign off on trading him and going with Brady?

Not sure if Bledsoe gets handed the job, it would have been a camp battle to see who starts.

A great "what if", that's for sure.
 

jaytftwofive

lurker
Jan 20, 2013
1,130
Drexel Hill Pa.
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.
Wasn't it third down??? Either way it still cost them the game.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,898
Needham, MA
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.
Here is the language from the actual rule:


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.
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.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
41,233
Hartford, CT
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.
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.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,467
KPWT
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.
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.

That 02 Raiders team was getting to the Super Bowl with either coach or probably with you or me coaching. They had the #1 seed and won both of their playoff games by 3 scores. That was a really, really good team that got fucked by their unique relationship with their Super Bowl opponent. That was certainly the best Raiders team since the 83 title team and they were motivated to prove to the world that the NFL couldn’t screw them over two years in a row.

Like I said earlier, if one of 8 or 10 things don’t break the Patriots’ way on that snowy night in New England, I think the Silver & Black lose the super Bowl in 01 and win it in 02. But I can see why the great Charles Woodson and several other players on those teams have said they would have won both of them.


EDIT- you guys shouldn’t get too excited about any of this, I believe a bunch of crazy shit about my favorite football team. You’d all laugh at how good I think this year’s Raiders team would have been if Henry Ruggs had taken a fucking Uber.
 
Last edited:

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
9,452
Westwood MA
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.
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?

This as opposed to 1976 when Dreith threw a flag on a play where there was no foul that cost the Patriots the game.

And he admitted it years later on radio.

THAT is a bag job.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
34,110
AZ
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.

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.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
9,622
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
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.
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.