1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Chiefs expose Pats

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by dirtylandry, Sep 8, 2017.

  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Call it whatever you want. Posting on this site proves what I'm saying. Tannehill has been lambasted for years.

    I dont recall anyone arguing we should be trading for Smith the off-season before we drafted Tannehill. Alex Smith was a pejorative in most people's mouth (everywhere, not just this site) 5 or 6 years ago when talking about QBs.
     
    Bpk, danmarino and Fin D like this.
  2. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Not this guy. I've always HOPED A.Smith was RT's ceiling. I saw the talent


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  3. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    Their OL only looked susceptible when the Chiefs were up by two scores and the down and distance was not favorable for their offense -- as with any offense. I thought they looked formidable for three quarters.

    Their pass rush on the other hand...
     
    Dolphin North likes this.
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yup, it is as if the pass rushers can get the best of an oline if they know what's coming....
     
    Bpk, Pauly and danmarino like this.
  5. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    Yeah, it's weird.
     
    Bpk and Fin D like this.
  6. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Reid has always done well putting his players in position to succeed.

    However, did you watch the game?

    If so you could see the way he plays, throws, moves in the pocket then realize it has much more to do with him than the system.
     
  7. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    This is a fun game.

    When NE wins they are obviously cheating, when they lose it's because people know they are cheating and countered it.

    This is when some of these threads start to remind me of arguing about sports in Middle School.

    Cloak and Dagger theories.
     
    Steve-Mo likes this.
  8. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    In case I wasn't clear....this post^ was about how difficult olines have it when the defense knows you're in a passing situation. Even the mighty Pats.

    It also shines a light on how difficult it is for a QB to make anything happen, when their defense puts them in such a big hole that all they can do is pass while the opposing defense can pin their ears back and get after it.
    Even the mighty Brady.
     
  9. Dolphin North

    Dolphin North Well-Known Member

    366
    387
    63
    Apr 30, 2017
    Marino did it quite a bit.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2017
  10. Dolphin North

    Dolphin North Well-Known Member

    366
    387
    63
    Apr 30, 2017
    Anyway, good fun to watch the game. One highlight for me was the phantom sack, the first of the 2 near the goal line in the 4th. A DT pushed a lineman back close to Brady. He might have even touched Brady a bit and Brady collapsed. Hilarious. It didn't make Collinsworthless put away the oil they were rubbing on Brady / Bellichick / Kraft for 3 hours, but it's little moments like these that make those 3 hours bearable.
     
    cuchulainn and danmarino like this.
  11. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,361
    20,989
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    I laughed pretty hard at that "sack". I've never seen any other "all time great" cower in the face of a pass rush quite like Brady. He's literally a below average QB when he's pressured. Now, I realize that all QB's will play worse when pressured, but the Marino's, Manning's, and Rodger's of the QB world never looked as bad as often as Brady does when pressured.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2017
    Dolphin North likes this.
  12. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No...it's when they lose and they look completely inept. It causes one to pause and wonder... if they have been cheating for so long, and it seems they have, and they've looked so dominant, plug and play all over the field, if a team is able to neutralize their cheating, you would expect to see a team that looks lost.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  13. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,361
    20,989
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    It's a proven fact that they cheat so why give them the benefit of the doubt? They obviously lose a few games each season so either a) the other team is better than the Pats on that particular day, b) the other team was able to disguise their plays well enough that Ernie Adams can't tell the sidelines what's coming next, or c) the Pats didn't cheat that particular day.

    IMO, any of those options are reasonable. So, if you want to think that the Pats were just outplayed, fine. However, and due to the fact that they have been outplayed so few times in the last 17 years and have been caught cheating on multiple occasions, I'll go with b or c being the reason they got beaten so badly.

    I mean, this is really a perfect case for Occam's Razor. Either the Patriots are the greatest football team of all time and regardless of their players or assistant coaches can beat any other team on any given day OR they cheat a lot of the time which enables them to put nearly any player in any position and win games.

    The fact that no NFL team has ever had such dominance over such a long period of time and the Pats have been caught cheating, multiple times (with many more accusations), I'll have to go with cheating being the simplest explanation.
     
    Dolphin North, Bpk and cuchulainn like this.
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Perfect case for Occam's razor in the other direction IMO. I think Occam's razor says that because

    1) the cheating NE has actually been found guilty of cannot explain the 16-year dominance and 5 SB wins
    2) the cheating NE would have to be successfully at to have that dominance seems near-physically impossible (extremely difficult to intercept signals from encrypted headsets like that)
    3) no other teams are supposedly capable of cheating like the Patriots after 16 years??
    4) other teams supposedly can't take preventive measures against NE cheating after 16 years??
    5) the difficulty of explaining certain games like last year's SB. NE couldn't cheat in the 1st half but could in the 2nd??

    Occam's razor suggests to me that the simplest explanation for NE's dominance is Belichick is one of the all-time great coaches and Brady is one of the all-time great QB's.
     
    Steve-Mo and djphinfan like this.
  15. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,361
    20,989
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Gotta disagree. Ernie Adams is the Rainman of football. I'd argue that there isn't another guy like him employed in the NFL. All he needs are some illegally obtained signals and plays and he can call in a counter play that works 95% of the time. Like a guy dressed as a janitor stealing notes, for example. ;) Something the Pats have done.

    If it's as easy as you say to emulate their cheating, why isn't it just as easy to emulate what the Pats do? This is a copy cat league and yet no one has been able to do it for 17 seasons.

    Add to it that it took 7-8 seasons before they were caught cheating I think it's much easier to believe that they are still cheating.
     
    Bpk likes this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You misunderstood. I'm saying it's extremely difficult to cheat the way the Patriots are allegedly doing to have such dominance (see point #2 in the previous post). It's SO difficult that Occam's razor says it's extremely unlikely the Patriots are doing it in the first place.
     
  17. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,361
    20,989
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    I understand you. That's why I said they cheated for 7-8 years before getting caught. It's completely plausible that they devised a more elaborate method that has gone undetected for 8 more years.
     
  18. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    A disguised janitor isn't going to do the trick. Only thing I can think of is stealing encrypted signals, which I think we can safely reject as unrealistic. Oh.. and IF that's realistic for one team then it's realistic for all teams because it's not an ability you have in-house, but something you'd have to hire outside experts for.
     
  19. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    1. The cheating they've already been caught for proves they are cheating in every way they can.
    2. Tom Brady's headset stays on during the entire play. Flutie accidentally outed that. Brady is known for his "quick decision making".
    3. Maybe they can't. Maybe they're trying. Maybe they have ethics.
    4. Depends on how they're cheating, doesn't it. I mean casinos spend a lot of time and money on trying to stop cheaters and yet people still cheat.
    5. I find it hard to believe that you're using that game as an example of NOT cheating.

    Following your logic, the simplest answer is that David Copperfield is actually magic.....
     
    Bpk likes this.
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No disagreement that NE wants to cheat. No need to debate that. My argument is that the cheating they've been found guilty of can't (realistically) be argued to be responsible for the kind of success they've had and that the kind of cheating needed to have that level of dominance just doesn't seem realistic for only one team to be capable of.

    "Realistic" is the key word. Intention without ability isn't evidence. And it's not hard to see why a great coach + great QB can lead to lots of success. So my Occam's razor logic is fine (certainly not Copperfield = real magic haha).
     
  21. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,361
    20,989
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    How many great coaches have had great QB's? Any of them get caught cheating? Any of them have the same success we see with the Pats? The Pats won 3 Super Bowls by 3 points and 2 Super Bowls due to the other team making bad offensive calls. Cheating, in the way they've been caught and accused, is more than enough IMO
     
    Bpk and resnor like this.
  22. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,361
    20,989
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Not to mention that their defense has been responsible for the majority of their success if you don't include cheating
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Not the same thing but Sean Payton did get suspended for an entire year because of bountygate. Though the hits themselves weren't illegal the decision to pay a bounty for hits was illegal. That was the most severe punishment against a coach in NFL history for "cheating". And his QB was Brees btw.

    In any case, lots of teams and players try to cheat. I think you're right that NE's has had the most success so far, but keep in mind Bill Walsh + Montana should also be tainted once you realize Jerry Rice used stickum and the OL used silicone and that Montana himself admitted they cheated during his tenure:
    http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/new...riots-49ers-linemen/w58ue1w23ec01dq8277h1hrgf

    Also.. the Pats winning 2 of their SB's because of bad offensive calls by the OTHER team actually supports the idea it wasn't the Pats cheating at that moment.
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  24. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No, it is like my Copperfield analogy.

    You are looking at a team do things than no other has done. You are looking at them do it with a previously failed head coach and 6th round QB. You are seeing them do it with different coaches and players. You are also seeing them do it while getting caught cheat more than once and accused even more.

    The simplest answer is they are cheating. It takes significantly more mental gymnastics to ignore the cheating and claim these two are somehow the greatest of all time in spite of the cheating.
     
    Bpk, danmarino and resnor like this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    They're cheating. I think many teams cheat. Jimmy Johnson even said spygate was "commonplace" among teams.

    But the kind of cheating needed to have the level of dominance we see I see no evidence of. So if you go by evidence, Occam's razor => great coach + great QB combo.

    Anyway.. it's fine to disagree but there's (as of yet) no evidence their tremendous success is due to cheating. At this point it's no more than speculation based on intention without apparent ability.
     
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    They have been caught cheating. More than once.
     
    Bpk and resnor like this.
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I think its extremely fraudulent to compare what the Patriots have been caught doing, and accused of doing, with the likes of stickum or slippery uniforms. Yes, both are technically cheating, but one is certainly know insidious than the other.

    In fairness, though, I do not any longer refer to Jerry Rice as the greatest receiver of all time. He cheated. He is not, therefore, the greatest.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  28. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    This is one reason why IMO, those who call Brady the GOAT, rather than Dan, are being obtuse. Would have loved to seen how Dan would have done with those Belichick defenses in Miami.
     
    Bpk, resnor and danmarino like this.
  29. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Guys like Stabler, Staubach, and Bradshaw thrived under worse pressure than that which makes Brady wilt like a daisy in the desert sun.
     
    Bpk and danmarino like this.
  30. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    It's embarrassing as an adult Dolphins fan to claim "only reason Pats beat us is cause cheating" it's a pathetic excuse. Seems many folks around here live by "excuses" so I guess I'm not shocked.

    To me it is a ***** move, and screams snowflakes


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Steve-Mo likes this.
  31. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,361
    20,989
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    I never said it was the only reason. They obviously do the little things you need to do in order to win. This shows that they do practice hard and are taught well. However, how much of their success is due to cheating? We don't know and to assume it has no affect is ignorant. Add to it that there are teams with better QB's and great head coaches and they still don't come CLOSE to what the Pats have done. Why? Well, I'll tell you why... cheating. There really is no other simpler reason.
     
    Bpk and resnor like this.
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    btw.. while I do agree NE has shown a level of dominance in the last 16 years we haven't seen from any other NFL team, I don't think it's that unlikely to see such a dominant team after a league has 50+ years history.

    In American sports history the New York Yankees from 1947-1964 are possibly the most dominant team we've seen over a 15+ year period. They won the World Series 10 times, lost it 4 times and failed to make it to the WS 3 times in those 17 years. The only asterisk in a comparison to the Patriots is that the MLB in 1947 was a 16 team league and went up to a 20 team league by 1964.

    You also have the Boston Celtics (NE again eh?) who won the NBA championship 11 out of 13 years from the 1956-57 to 1968-69 seasons. This is less impressive than the Yankees IMO because it was an 8 team league in 1956-57 that expanded to 12 teams by 1968-69.

    A closer comparison competition-wise to the Patriots would be the same New York Yankees but from 1995-2012 = 18 years. The league in 1995 had 28 teams but expanded to 30 in 1998 so this is comparable. NYY won 5 World Series (similar to 5 SB's for NE), lost 2 World Series (just like NE lost 2 SB's), and otherwise made the playoffs 10 out of the remaining 11 seasons. This is at least as impressive as what the Patriots are doing now.

    Point is.. having a team with this level of dominance isn't unexpected over a 50+ year period.
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It is unexpected when you factor in parity. You won't see an NBA team dominate today like that Celtics team. Same with the Yankees example. There's a reason toy have to go back at least 50 years in any pro sport to find a similar level of dominance.

    The second Yankees example was simply a matter of the Yankees spending way more money than any other team. I mean, WAAAAAAY more money.

    It isn't possible anymore.
     
    danmarino and cbrad like this.
  34. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    It done thing to say the Pats cheated. It's about her to write off all of the success, then come in this forum and say they lost because the cheating was countered. That's stupido


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I don't think parity is the right argument for the Celtics or the first Yankees example. The right argument is league size.

    Both back then and today there was/is little parity in the NBA or MLB. The reason it's harder to win today is primarily because there are 2-3 times more teams in the league, so for the same level of parity (or lack thereof) it's harder to win because there are more teams at similar levels of ability. But in terms of dominance, Jordan's Bulls were as dominant as those Celtics, adjusting for league size.

    For the second Yankees example I'll agree the parity argument works because it's true there's a decent correlation between win% and salary in the MLB and the NYY often spent way more than everyone else during that period. So maybe the Patriots because of that are more impressive, but by how much is hard to say. The parity argument works for the probability of making the playoffs, but it doesn't work for winning the WS or SB once you make the playoffs.

    btw.. it is worth noting that it's easier to make the playoffs in the NFL than in the MLB. 10 out of 30 teams today make the playoffs in the MLB (and it used to be 8), so at most 30% of teams, while in the NFL it's 12 out of 32, or 37.5%. So to some (unknown) degree, there is a compensating mechanism for the relative lack of parity in MLB vs. NFL.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2017
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    There is parity. That's why its so hard to build and keep a super team for more than a couple seasons. The NFL also has parity.
     
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Wait.. are you saying there IS parity today in the NBA? That's the only way I'm understanding the word "also" in the last sentence. If that's what you're arguing I totally disagree. NBA has historically lacked parity. That doesn't mean the same teams will always remain dominant of course. The major change is number of teams in the league, not parity.

    For example, look at the list of NBA champions and SB champions since 2000. In the NBA you have 2 teams like the Patriots in that time period: Lakers and Spurs (the Spurs I think are the closest thing today to the Patriots). Lakers won 5 championships since 2000 and Spurs also won 5 if you include 1999. In the NFL there's only one such team: NE. No other team won more than 2 SB's.

    Also, note that 19 different teams went to the SB from 2000 while 13 different teams went to the NBA championship from 2000. So if you're arguing there's similar parity in the NBA and NFL (if I'm reading that correctly) then I disagree.

    EDIT: I just checked the same stats for MLB and I'm kind of surprised: 18 different MLB teams went to the WS from 2000, similar to NFL. So maybe the salary difference doesn't matter in practice when we're talking about WS vs. SB (it does matter for playoffs because of that win% correlation) which would then actually make the 1995-2012 Yankees example a good one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2017
  38. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    If the explanation is cheating, it doesn't explain why other teams aren't cheating back and negating that advantage.
    For example for the last 5 years at least drone technology would allow any team to tape any outdoor practise by an opponent. Drones can fly high enough to be undetected by ground observers and the resolution of cameras is easily sufficient to get clear details. Given that it is (a) possible and (b) effectively undetectable I assume the Pats are doing it, along with every other team in the league.

    As for dominance, the Dolphins from 1970 to 1985 had a pretty good run, with 5 SB appearances, and getting very close a few other years, the 1974 team which lost the "sea of hands" game would have collected anoth SB win but for an amazing play by a HOF QB. Many other teams complained that the Dolphins were getting an unfair penalty advantage from Don Shula being on some rules committee, which we Dolphins fans said was sour grapes because the Don enforced discipline.
    The 1980s 49ers also put on a display of sustained dominance.

    What has changed is the salary cap. Teams really don't get opportunities to hold key members of a team together, so many teams built on talent acquisition is going to fall apart after a few years. But we have seen teams built around a dominant QB (Peyton Manning's Colts for example) or selecting talent that fits their scheme and coaching up players (Pittsburgh for example) can have enduring success. What's happening is that there are fewer "talent dynasties" (examples 1970s Steelers, early 90s Cowboys) staying together long enough to farm multiple SBs, which gives more room for "Cinderellas" (example Eli Mannings Giants) and "System Dynasties" (NE, Pitt) to collect SB wins.
     
  39. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    It isn't an explanation.

    It's a defense mechanism for insecure fans.

    I hate to say it, but it's real ****.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  40. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,361
    20,989
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    I already touched on that.

    Ernie Adams

    He's the main cog in their wheel of cheating. Without him you either a) can't cheat effectively or b) get caught.

    Why is it that the NFL completely destroyed every bit of evidence they found in the Pats cheating vault? It's because there were much more nefarious things going on than taping signals. Why is there so much smoke around the Pats? Some say it's jealousy, but no one was accusing the Cowboys of the '90's or the 49ers of the '80 of cheating.

    Why is it that nearly every owner in the league want the book thrown at the Pats over deflategate? It's because they are aware of their cheating, but saying anything about it now may destroy the NFL. In essence, they'd be cutting of their nose to spite their faces. Instead, they're patiently awaiting the day Ernie Adams retires and BB goes with him. And until that day, the Pats team could be formed from people on this forum and they'd still make the playoffs.
     

Share This Page