We'll move on to the rest of this week's picks shortly, but first, a rebuttal of Chris's last rebuttal (a re-rebuttal?), specifically concerning the sub-topic of wide receiver contact rules.
I originally said:
There are plenty of other high-class organizations out there, so it's a poor argument by TMQ. However, Chris, I don't believe you can honestly tell me that bringing up an argument to the rules committee in the offseason about them enforcing an already-existing rule is at the same level of "poor sportsmanship" as willfully breaking a rule to gain a competitive advantage (no matter how small that advantage might actually have been).And then Chris said:
First of all, it was not an already-existing rule. The rules for wide receiver contact were changed after those meetings to the current system where no contact with wide receivers is allowed beyond 5 yards. Before that, contact was allowed so long as the ball was not in the air. Before you go making such an authoritative statement on this matter, Chris, I'd like to see some reasonable source (even a obscure internet source) indicating that the rules were in fact
changed, as opposed to enforced, because I really don't think they were. It may shock you, but even outside the New England universe, many fans have been affected by the interpretation of the rules governing cornerback play, and have been forced to keep close tabs on the situation. To the best of my understanding, the narrative actually went something like the following:
- For many years before the incident in question, the rules for contact before the ball was thrown were basically the same as they are now. You were allowed to shove any offensive player around as much you wanted within five yards, and after five yards, you were still allowed to make contact as long as you didn't impede the progress of the receiver.
- By the early 2000's, many teams (not just the Pats, but the Packers as well, who have long been one of the biggest bump and run teams in the league) were taking advantage of the fact that the officials tended to be pretty lax on the five-yard rule, and generally let DB's redirect WR's as long as the ball wasn't in the air, in which case the regular pass interference rules would go into effect.
- After the Patriots used a game plan that prominently featured downfield shoves (which were technically illegal at the time), the Colts complained to the league
- The following year, the league announced it would more precisely enforce it's existing rules. In reality, the only thing that was now being enforced more than before was the "5 yard" part, which is why it my have looked to the casual observer like a new rule.
It's hard to find any real evidence online because search results get obscured behind the most recent Colts-Pats interference controversies, but in a few minutes of googling I was able to find
this article which seems to agree with my points.
Does this version of the events paint new New England in a poor light? Not at all. Does it make the Colts look like crybabies and sore losers? Yes. But the Colts' point was technically correct (
the best kind of correct) and there's no rule about not complaining about rules enforcement, so I don't think you can compare it to a situation where someone's trying to force a rule change. Even if that was the case, I think the argument stills boils down to:
which is worse, cheating or complaining? And at least for me, cheating is the winner there. To bring back your basketball analogy, if I played pickup against a bunch of guys who complained every time they lost, it would be annoying, but I'd love coming back the next week to try to beat them again, especially if they managed to get the rules slightly tweaked. If I played against guys who willfully cheated, I just wouldn't show up the next week.
OAK at KC. I've heard that this is a big rivalry game. Yeah, and so is The University of Vermont vs The University New Hampshire... KC.
SEA at STL. We'll start hearing about how Seattle is "legit" after they win here, which, of course, is beyond laughable. SEA.
TEN at CIN. Tennessee's record is starting to catch up with their talent level, and Cincy seems like a team that will win a few because they're basically out of the race (Marvis Lewis thrives under non-pressure). CIN.
HOU at CLE. I haven't seen a single minute of the Browns this year, so I feel completely unqualified to dismiss or extol them. If only the folks at ESPN had the same scruples. CLE.
MIN at NYG. Did anyone notice Chester Taylor's performance last week? Maybe AP isn't twice as talented as everyone else in the league... NYG.
WAS at TB. I can't believe this horrible matchup actually has significant playoff implications. TB.
NO at CAR. Fun fact: David Carr was healthy enough to start last week, but Vinny was still given the nod. David, welcome to Tim Couch territory. I hope your long, luxurious hair will help console you. NO.
BUF at JAX. This is EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY the kind of game the Jags normally blow, but I've done well fighting the urge to go against them for an upset special this year, so I'll let things slide. JAX.
BAL at SD. Best comeuppance story of the year: Brian Billick in Baltimore. SD.
SF at ARI. GIDCAOTW. ARI.
DEN at CHI. I'm just
praying that free-agent-to-be Rex Grossman does well enough the rest of this year to convince the Bears management that he is the solution, not the problem. CHI.
PHI at NE. Really came close to going upset special here, but I couldn't tell if it was coming from my mind or my gut. NE.
MIA at PIT. Not this week, Miami. PIT.
