From Kevin van Valkenburg, ESPN the Magazine, in an article about Tom Brady... He makes a phenomenal point about the lead-up situation to "Deflategate":
"There is one important but mostly forgotten scene in the Deflategate mess. It came after the Patriots outfoxed the Ravens in the 2014 AFC divisional round, using only four offensive linemen and declaring one receiver ineligible to create confusion for the Ravens' defense. Brady threw for 367 yards and three touchdowns. Baltimore coach John Harbaugh was annoyed, feeling the Patriots had exploited a loophole in the rules. He predicted the league would make such tactics illegal in the offseason, and he was ultimately correct.
"When informed of Harbaugh's comments, Brady couldn't resist offering a cheeky dismissal and twisting the knife. A smile spread across his face as he spoke. "Maybe those guys gotta study the rulebook and figure it out," Brady said. Within a week, someone -- the Ravens deny it was them -- turned that statement around on Brady. The Colts insisted the league check the PSI level in Brady's footballs during the AFC championship game, and leaks, allegations, depositions, lawsuits and mayhem followed. It was a kangaroo court, in a way, with the outcome barely taking into account the evidence. If there's one statement Brady would take back, it might be that dig about the rulebook."
I thought the Belechick play design in the Ravens game was utterly brilliant at the time, and for some reason I was personally offended that they legislated such a clever tactic out of the playbook. But if IT led to the checking of the footballs? (Or, more precisely, the comments by Brady et al led to the PSI checks?) Ironic, at the least. Undoubtedly most of the league KNEW Brady played with the under-inflated footballs: the rule was instituted at his and Peyton Manning's request in the first place, and he was on record as saying how much he preferred the grip.
So the bending of the law was true, I have no doubt. But the rubbing in of the exploitation of the rulebook could very well have led to that being turned against them, to the detriment of both Brady and the NFL, in the long run.
(PS - it was a STUPID rule in the first place: why are you allowing two different kinds of football depending on who's on offense? You flip sides of the field, all that sort of thing to make the game as even, as fair as possible. Why the NFL gave in to the star power of Manning and Brady and gave them this is beyond me.)
Someone suggested that the NFL would go to significant lengths, if not to keep the Patriots from winning, at least from keeping Tom Brady from being the MVP, so Roger Goodell wouldn't have to present the trophy to him, this season in particular. While I don't base my North Star on the NFL's ethics and behavior, that seems far fetched to me. Unless we see a smoking gun during the game on Feb 5th, don't spend any time worrying about it. (But the very fact that I bring it up...)
It really is remarkable to see the longevity of the Pats' run at the top of the heap: Seven straight trips to the conference finals? Seven years in a row that they were one of the four best teams out of 32? In a league that prides itself on parity, that's an amazing feat, and one that had never been accomplished before, even "pre-parity" (which I date from Rozelle's leadership - it was his mantra, originally). The year before that streak? Brady's injury year, when they managed to go 11-5 with a back-up QB.
One of the most remarkable things about Bill Belechick's coaching is how he exploits every little detail, as witness that play against the Ravens. (Remember, they won that game b y two TDs - the two they got on running that play twice and scoring both times.) How often have you seen them pick up someone's dropped player off the waiver wire and make them a useful cog in their machine? He's probably the ultimate "Fantasy Football" player, in that he knows which positions on his team are important and must be paid and pampered (QB, TE, etc), and which positions can be filled with exchangeable parts (he's notorious for plugging any old RB in and getting him 100-yd games!). The cases where he's pushed the fringe of the rules - "spygate" comes to mind, of course, although I've never understood that rule, particularly. And regardless of what he said, do you believe that someone with the "I NEED to know everything that's going on!" mentality he has really had NO knowledge about the inflation of footballs? But y'know what? That's life in the NFL. You could take away those edgy issues and he'd still have the best team most years. You could take Brady away and they'd still go 11-5. You could injure half his team, and they'd still make the conference finals. I don't like the man's image - I certainly don't know the man - but I admire the heck out of him as a coach.
No comments:
Post a Comment