Wednesday, January 26, 2011

14 comments A Summary of Dan Shaughnessy's Reactions to the Patriots Postseason Loss

I love to chart a good meltdown. I am sure I have had a few in my lifetime and it is always good to read about a columnist who isn't able to detach his personal feelings from the outcome of a sporting event. While Dan Shaughnessy hasn't had an exact meltdown over the past week due to the Patriots loss to the Jets, he has had quite a few things to say about it. I am going to start with his reaction to the Patriots loss to the Jets.

(As a beginning to Dan's incorrectness in this first column, he claimed the Patriots were third to last in payroll this season. This was later corrected by the paper, depending on how you calculate it, the Patriots were either 2nd, 9th and 12th. I am not exactly sure how Dan got to third to last. Check out more information here.)

The Patriots’ season was a failure.

The rational part of our brain wants to congratulate the Patriots for exceeding preseason expectations and compiling the best record in the NFL.

As many know, the irrational part of Dan's brain is responsible for writing many of his columns.

This is a young team that was facing a rugged schedule, and some of us (me) thought they would go 8-8. They had a raft of undrafted free agents (22) and 11 rookies.

In a later column we will see Dan complain the Patriots didn't spend enough money and have too low of a payroll. I have always thought the Patriots were on the right track with the way they build their team, and their success over the last 10 years backs that up. I guess Dan wants the Patriots to sign the really expensive undrafted free agents and overpay for their rookies. Payroll skyrockets and success will immediately follow!

All good. But the reality is that this season goes down as a failure because of what happened Sunday. And because of what should have happened Sunday.

What should have happened on Sunday? The Jets should have lost because that's how it was supposed to be? The Jets and Patriots split their regular season series this year. So should the Jets have lost because that's the only "right" conclusion? Since by destroying the Jets one time and losing to the Jets another time, this proved without a doubt the Patriots were the best team?

And now the tournament continues without the Patriots — the team everybody said was the best.

Everybody said this. The same team everyone said was the best is also the team that exceeded preseason expectations. They are pretty much the perfect team. If this world was fair, the Patriots would have won and Tom Brady would have let Dan run his hands through Brady's hair just once...just once...that's all. But the world is not fair, so Dan and Patriots have to live with the completely unfair 9th playoff appearance in the last 11 seasons. How does he go on with such disappointment?

The Bears, Packers, Steelers, and Jets are the NFL’s Final Four. The Patriots beat all of them. The aggregate score of New England’s four victories over the remaining Super Bowl contenders was 151-63.

If only there wasn't a postseason playoff system. If only the clear best teams in each conference, the Falcons and Patriots, could have met in a system designed to reward teams that have regular season success by placing them in the championship game based solely on their regular season record. Perhaps the other 10 playoff teams could have met in different games against each other which would have been shown prior to the Patriots and Falcons playing. We'll call it the "bowl system" and if this could happen I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

I know Dan has blocked this out, but the Jets did beat the Patriots this year prior to beating them in the AFC Divisional Championship game. He doesn't want us to focus on this because it would take away from his attempted point that the Patriots were the best team and the team of destiny that had the Super Bowl unrightly (I made up a new word) taken away.

We all know the Patriots should have gone to Dallas.

No, we don't. The whole "we were the better team even though we got beat" mantra grows old among the Bill Simmons and Dan Shaughnessy's of the world. They seem to forget the 2001 Rams were clearly the best team in the 2001 Super Bowl. If football was fair, the Rams would have won that game because they were the "superior" team. In fact, if we believed "the best team" should have won each Super Bowl the Patriots won, I am pretty sure they wouldn't have three Super Bowl victories over the last decade. Ignore this speculative point though, because it is a grave injustice when the Patriots are the "best team" and lose, but when the Patriots aren't the best team and win, then it is a credit to how fucking smart Bill Belichick is and not an injustice on the "superior" team that lost.

To summarize Dan's point of view:

The Patriots lose: They should have won because they are the best.
The Patriots win: Bill Belichick is a genius.

(I was also informed via email that Dan Shaughnessy doesn't like Belichick and Robert Kraft, so he enjoys watching them lose so he can rub it in. I'm not sure if that is what he is doing here, it sounds more like he is a disappointed fan boy. This could explain Shaughnessy's insistence on criticizing how the Patriots have built their team though. They have a good plan, so maybe his criticism is meant as a way of being critical of Kraft and Belichick.)

Sunday’s shocker at Gillette is to the Jets what the 2004 American League Championship Series was to the Red Sox. Jet fans always are going to be able to throw this in the face of Patriots fans. Forever.

Oh my God, are we seriously still talking about this? The 2004 Red Sox were great...nearly seven years ago. Dan is the guy who keeps talking about this really attractive girl he dated a few years ago, as if anyone cares now. Let's move on. Weren't we just talking about football? No other writer intentionally cross-sections sports in one town more than Dan Shaughnessy. There are no other comparisons to be drawn in sports in his mind, other than comparisons to something a Boston-area team has done before.

The loss to the Patriots is like the Red Sox win in the 2004 ALCS, except the exact opposite and it isn't like it at all.

There is more to be written after this on Page 2, but I refuse to sign up with because I don't want to be spammed with content they have. But let's just trust there was a lot of other terribly written stuff on Page 2 of this column. I will summarize what is probably says for you...

"The Patriots should have won. Insert Celtics 2007 season reference here. Bill Belichick is like Grady Little. Pedro Martinez. Everyone knows the Patriots were the best team. Wes Welker. Too many young players on the roster. Look at how good our young players are. 2004 Red Sox."

Dan then tells Patriots fans in his next column why they should have cheered for the Jets in the AFC Championship Game. I guess Dan wants to take the crown of guy who "speaks for all Boston fans" from Bill Simmons. I'll give you a hint why Dan is on the Jets is because he is really on the Patriots bandwagon. Much like any sports-related incident has something to do with Boston sports in Dan's world, cheering for the Jets is mostly about the Patriots.

I’m in. I’m on the Jets bandwagon.

No one cares.

The Jets lack self-importance. They do backflips in the end zone.

Really? The Jets lack self-importance? This is the story Dan is going with? If a person made a list of the 30 teams in the NFL that lacked self-importance, the Jets would not be on that list. They lack a lack of self-importance.

Oh, and the Jets have fans who have suffered for years, just like Red Sox fans up until 2004.

Here Dan goes with the cross-sectioning one Boston area sports team with another AND he throws in some "suffering." The only thing Red Sox fans "suffered" from is having to read constantly about how they were suffering...well that and having to read Dan Shaughnessy's columns everyday.

If you are a Patriots fan still smarting from the shocker last Sunday, you should be rooting for the Jets tonight.

But why? Hint: It has something to do with the Patriots.

The better the Jets do, the more the Patriots will be driven to beat them.

Well naturally, is there is another reason to watch a football game other than to see the future-hypothetical-yet-purely-speculative-reason the Patriots will play better? I personally don't give a shit about the Super Bowl. I just want to know how three titles for the Steelers impacts the legacy of the Patriots. If the Packers win, well, we all know the Patriots would have beaten the Packers. So this is further proof of just how good the Patriots were this year, knowing they absolutely would have won the AFC Championship game and the Super Bowl without a doubt. They woulda, shoulda, coulda beaten the Super Bowl champs...without a doubt this is true based on the fact they beat the Jets and Packers (by a whole four points) this year, and therefore rightly should have beaten the Jets again.

If the Jets win the AFC Championship at Heinz Field, perhaps the Krafts will be inspired to spend a little more money on payroll next year (are we supposed to feel good that the Patriots have the third-lowest payroll in the NFL?).

I thought Belichick was a genius? I thought he could win a Super Bowl with twenty-two physically handicapped players?

This isn't baseball, upping the payroll isn't the best chance to win games, it is merely the best chance to spend money and have future potential payroll problems. If the Patriots "up" their payroll, how are they going to pay for their young nucleus down the road? Assuming there is a salary cap still of course.

Maybe New England will stop trading down to get “value’’ for high draft picks.

Because Devin McCourty, Rob Gronkowski, and Aaron Hernandez were such huge disappointments this past year. Why did the Patriots even draft these bums? In this upcoming draft, the Patriots have 4 picks in the first 60 draft picks of the 2011 NFL Draft. The Patriots should increase their payroll AND spend more money on high draft picks. Who needs 4 picks in the first 60 picks of the NFL Draft when they can spend all that money on two players? That's the smart thing to do!

Maybe New England will seek more talent.

Nah, they will probably try to avoid drafting talent and draft loser bums like McCourty.

So, yes, the Jets are my team. I hope they go on to win the Super Bowl in Dallas in two weeks. Perhaps that will motivate people back at Patriot Place.

Because that's what the Super Bowl is really all about, making sure Patriots Place is more crowded.

Imagine the noise next year when the Super Bowl champion Jets come to Gillette Stadium.

Imagine the noise next year when the New York Jets, the team that beat the Patriots in the playoffs and have a rivalry with them, come to Gillette Stadium! That's right, without a Super Bowl win for the Jets I doubt any Patriots fans will find it pertinent to attend this game. That's what it seems like Dan Shaughnessy thinks.

How can you root against a team with a general manager who was a Needham Rocket and a UMass Minuteman? Mike Tannenbaum grew up watching Bob Lobel on Channel 4 and reading Bob Ryan on these pages. He is one of us.

I feel terribly bad for those who read Dan Shaughnessy's column every single day. It's like reading a fan blog by 13 year old, just more poorly written.

You should root for the Jets because they are homeless. For years the Jets played their home games at Giants Stadium. Officially, they are the New York Jets, but they’re more like the Queens Jets, the Long Island Jets, or the Jets from the Swamps of New Jersey.

This is as opposed to the Patriots who are named after an entire region? Yet they are located in Massachusetts. I am sure Dan uses this as proof the Patriots represent the entire region and are more important than your favorite NFL team.

If none of these arguments bring you around, you should root for the Jets tonight because you don’t want to root for the Steelers. The Steelers and their fans are babies.

The Steelers fans are babies says the guy who just wrote an entire article about how the Patriots were the team that should have won the Super Bowl. The same guy who wants the Patriots to increase their talent level, spend more money, and quit trading back for value draft picks...yet doesn't understand the best way to increase the talent level is to get as many 1st and 2nd draft picks as possible. This is exactly what the Patriots have done. The same team that Dan Shaughnessy thinks had the birthright to appear in the Super Bowl this year was built using value draft picks and not overspending on players, yet Dan wants the Patriots to go away from this strategy. I am sure his reason has something to do with the 2004 Red Sox.

By any definition, quarterback Ben Roethlisberger is a boor. If he wins tonight, he’s going to his third Super Bowl, and that’s going to start talk of comparisons with Brady.

Which of course should never happen because Tom Brady is a superior player to Ben Roethlisberger due to his being a New England Patriot. As a side note, Roethlisberger has won a Super Bowl with two different coaches, while Brady has won 3 Super Bowls with one coach. This doesn't matter at all, but I felt like I would mention this.
The Steelers have won two Super Bowls since the last time the Patriots won one. You want to see them go for a third?
No. You want the Jets.
It’s not as stupid as it sounds. Really.
Even if it isn't as stupid as it sounds, Dan Shaughnessy has a way of making it sound stupid.

In the column after this one, Dan details how painful the AFC Championship was because the obviously superior Patriots team didn't get to play in the game. His basic point is that everyone knows the Patriots were the best team in the AFC, that's not him acting like a baby, that's just him being a sore loser and acting like a baby.

Did you watch or did you boycott because you believed the Patriots should have been playing?

Again, Steelers fans are the babies. Boycotting the AFC Championship game because you rightfully feel your team should have been in the game, despite losing at home to one of the teams in the AFC Championship is the big boy thing to do.

It was a sloppy four quarters that only reinforced the notion that the Patriots blew a golden opportunity to go to the Super Bowl this year.

Everyone knows if the Patriots were in the game they would have won 38-3 in a clean game that had no penalties or sloppiness, like poorly executed fake punts or interceptions on screen passes...the Patriots would never do that in an important game. I still can't get over the fact Dan Shaughnessy thinks the Patriots were the best team in the AFC, despite losing to the Jets in the playoffs. It's delusional fandom at its best.

Pittsburgh is going to the ultimate game and the Jets are finally going home. The Steelers bolted to a 24-0 lead over Rex Ryan’s team, but the Jets — to their credit — did not fold. They scored 19 unanswered points and came close to mounting the greatest comeback in conference championship history.

It was a sloppy comeback though. The Jets defense in the second half just reinforced what a great team the Patriots were, because the Jets never would shut down the Patriots, just like the Steelers great offense in the first half reinforced what a great team the Patriots were because they couldn't score that many points on the Patriots, The temperature at the game also reinforced what a great team the Patriots were. The fact I am talking about this...reinforces the idea the Patriots were a great team. The sun only rises in the morning to see if the Patriots will be a great team that day and then sets out of disappointment the Patriots still aren't seen as the greatest team in the NFL for 2010. If aliens ever visit Earth, when they greet our leaders the first thing they will acknowledge is how they are there mainly to see the Patriots play in person. Again, this reinforces what a great team the Patriots were this year.

I like how Dan Shaughnessy thinks the Patriots are the best team in the AFC, yet he also doesn't think the Patriots have enough talent and they should start drafting better players and quit trading back to get value draft picks. I can only imagine how good he would feel the Patriots are if they followed the "Shaughnessy Plan" and spent a shitload of money on free agents and only had 1 draft pick in each of the first two rounds of the 2011 draft.

The greatest comeback in conference championship history was pulled off by the Colts. Remember that one? Indianapolis trailed the New England Patriots, 21-3, then came back to win, 38-34, in January of 2007.

Why the use of italics?

It’s always about us, right?

Acknowledging the faults in your writing style doesn't mean you shouldn't change it.

I have to tell you that it was impossible to watch last night’s game without thinking about the Patriots and the fact that New England whupped both of these teams and should have been hosting this game.

I don't mean to harp on this point, but the Jets beat the Patriots, at Gillette Stadium, in the playoffs. This happened just last week. In fact, the Jets beat the Patriots 2 out of the 3 times they played this year. Therefore, advantage Jets. So this whole talk about the Jets getting "whupped" is only true for one game. The other two games the Jets beat the Patriots.

I am afraid some idiot Patriots fans take their talking points from Dan Shaughnessy. There has to be a better Boston-related writer to get talking points from.

Pittsburgh’s Rashard Mendenhall ran for 95 yards in the first half. The Steelers had 231 yards of offense to New York’s 50 net yards. The definitive moment came when Mark Sanchez was sacked on his 20 and lost control of the football. William Gay collected it and went 19 yards for a touchdown to make it 24-0 with 1:13 left in the half.

He didn't lose control of the football. He was throwing the football and the ball got knocked out of his hand. Did Dan Shaughnessy miss the Jets-Patriots game? Why must he be willingly blind to the fact the Patriots didn't get screwed out of a win at home, but lost a game because they turned the ball over and didn't play well? It happened.

But New York came back. Pittsburgh never scored again. Sanchez stayed in the game and led a furious comeback that put the game in doubt when New York cut it to 24-19 on a touchdown pass from Sanchez to Jerricho Cotchery with 3:06 left.

It was a sloppy comeback though. There wasn't any white grittiness like Wes Welker, Danny Woodhead, and Julian Edelman show. The Jets quarterback didn't have his long hair peeking from under his helmet like the son of Zeus like Tom Brady has. So it really shouldn't count as a comeback at all.

In the end, the Jets proved somewhat worthy.

Do you know who wasn't worthy of appearing in the AFC Championship Game? The Patriots because they lost to the Jets in the AFC Divisional playoff. Most Patriots fans understand this, but the delusions of Dan Shaughnessy won't and can't accept this.

It sounds like sour grapes, but I couldn’t get it out of my head that the Patriots should have been in this game. And probably should be going to the Super Bowl.

Do you know who else should have been going to the Super Bowl? The #1-#5 seeds in the NFC. But they aren't. Green Bay is. So this bullshit about which team "should" or "should not" be in the Super Bowl IS sour grapes. Not saying, "I think the Patriots should have beaten the Jets and were the better team, but they didn't," and instead continuously harping on the Patriots actually being the better team is annoying. It is as if Dan Shaughnessy thinks the Patriots were cheated out of an appearance in the Super Bowl in a way that had nothing to do with their own performance in the playoffs.

Certainly the Steelers are playing better now than they were when New England came here and won easily in November, but there’s no way the Patriots would have gotten skunked by Pittsburgh playing in Foxborough last night. The Patriots own the Steelers.

I feel like Dan isn't a professional sportswriter, but some asshole at a bar talking shit to fans of the Jets and Steelers about the superiority of his favorite team. The Patriots have owned the Steelers, but the Patriots have also owned the Jets in the past and they lost to them twice this year. The whole "we would have beaten X team if we had played" argument doesn't mean much when it comes to actually proving something of substance if your team doesn't win enough games to beat X team.

Team of the new century? Pittsburgh’s making a case for itself.

If the Steelers win against the Packers in the Super Bowl, will that help their case for team of the new century? Maybe. Though in Dan Shaughnessy's eyes we would have to include that Tom Brady owns the Steelers and the Patriots had a Super Bowl and AFC Divisional Game stolen from them by teams that didn't nearly deserve to win as much as the Patriots did. Also, the 2004 Red Sox would have something to do with this as well.

Think about that. The Steelers were blanked in the second half, at home, and they are going to the Super Bowl.

This is merely another clear sign the Steelers are frauds and don't deserve to be in the Super Bowl.

The Patriots are powerless to stop the Steelers and despicable Ben because they could not beat the Jets at home, six weeks after crushing them.

Which they did 10 weeks before they lost to the Jets for the first time this year.

The 14-2 Patriots were forced to watch last night’s weird game and it served as one more painful reminder of an opportunity wasted.

Sorry. But if you watched, I know you had to be thinking the same thing.

Fans of the Falcons, Saints, Ravens, and Colts were probably also thinking about this as well. Naturally, Dan Shaughnessy believes it means more to Patriots fans, simply because he is a Patriots fan. See, it is like the 2004 Red Sox...

You know what I am really thinking? I am thinking I can't believe Dan Shaughnessy is respected as a sportswriter. It's hard to believe.


rich said...

The Patriots beat all of them.

::looks at NFL schedule:: Yup, Jets still beat NE this year too. I love the reaction "We beat all of those teams!" Too bad you played the one team that also had beaten you. Tough shit.

We all know the Patriots should have gone to Dallas.

::looks at NFL schedule:: Just wanted to check to see that the Divisional Round results still held up.

Under Dan's logic, the Patriots shouldn't have played in 2001 or 2004 because the Steelers had a better record than them both of those years.

So STFU or send those two Lombardi trophies to other teams.

Jet fans always are going to be able to throw this in the face of Patriots fans. Forever.

Forever? I mean the Patriots were clearly favorites in the game, but it's not like they went down by 30 points and made an awesome comeback. The 2004 Red Sox were special because they a. were down 3-0 in the series and b. won the WS. If the Red Sox had won the series 4-1 no one would ever talk about it.

Dan really sucks at analogies.

four victories over the remaining Super Bowl contenders was 151-63

And half of that differential came in one game. NE won in Green Bay by 4 when MATT FLYNN was starting. Lets not act like NE would be a lock to beat Green Bay.

are we supposed to feel good that the Patriots have the third-lowest payroll in the NFL?

Yes. Because it means your team has spent wisely and therefore has money to retain or sign impact players.

The top three spenders in the NFL were: Oakland, Dallas and Minnesota.

You have to get to number 5 to get to the first playoff team (NO). Cleveland was 4th! FOURTH!

On the flip side, the bottom 5 teams? ALL MADE THE PLAYOFFS, including one team playing in this year's SB and the one with the good Manning brother... who played in the SB last year.

The Steelers have won two Super Bowls since the last time the Patriots won one.

Didn't the Patriots win three Super Bowls in 4 seasons? Ya, it'd be a fucking shame if another team won a few before NE managed to piss out another one.

New England whupped both of these teams and should have been hosting this game.

And all I kept thinking about was how the Jets had a winning record against the Patriots this year.

I feel like you should send Dan and email and just paste this line in there 500,000 times: The other two games the Jets beat the Patriots.

Team of the new century?

We're only 11 years into the new century... lets just label this "end of the century creep" and call it a day.

And probably should be going to the Super Bowl.

And the Giants should have been in the playoffs, but they weren't. Dan really needs to put his big boy panties on and suck it up.

Arjun Chandrasekhar said...

ben, this is what i was talking about when i told you on twitter that shaugnessy is the biggest homer BY FAR - he's even worse than simmons because at least simmons is partially objective about the celtics, whereas shaughnessy is like this for all the boston teams. everything revolves around boston. boston is the greatest city on earth. all of boston's sports teams are superior in every way. everything in sports can only be compared to other boston sports. if other teams beat the pats, then either shaughnessy will call it a total fluke and whine, or he'll go to the opposite extreme and declare that obviously the other team must be the greatest team ever if they beat the mighty patriots; the patriots aren't bad at all, the other team has simply separated from the rest of the league to finally attain a spot on the patriots level. im with you - i have no idea why shaughnessy still has credibility as a sportswriter when he wears his emotions so obviously on his sleeve and allows his personal biases/affection for the local place and teams intoxicate his writing.

Arjun Chandrasekhar said...

in 2002 the raiders were the best team in the nfl and they were kicking ass in their divisional playoff game until the refs fucked up. they ruled an obvious fumble an incomplete pass, allowed the other team to keep momentum, drive for the tying field goal, win the game in OT, and win three super bowls. we all know the raiders should have gone to new orleans - perhaps they would have become the team of the new century? instead they lost to a team that won a sloppy and lucky super bowl. oh wait - that was the patriots. the patriots shouldnt have been there.

(by the way, are most boston sports fans like simmons and shaughnessy, who seem to deny the existence of the tuck rule game and pretend that the patriots have never gotten big breaks or had things go their way when it shouldnt have? or do most boston sports fans see through dan's bullshit? i'm legitimately curious because i don't want to unfairly lump common beantown fans with some of the national idiots)

Anonymous said...

Let the "Tuck RUle" go people. It happened to the Pats that very season against the Jets. Didn't recall anyone bitching that NE got hosed. (Probably because they managed to comeback and win that game unlike the Raiders)

Bengoodfella said...

Rich, I am not going to deny the Patriots were probably the better team, at least on paper, going into the Jets game. Simply put, you have to win in the playoffs or else it doesn't matter. Good teams lose in the playoffs all the time to teams with worse records.

I don't think the Patriots have that much to be ashamed of here. It's not like they got blown out at home, they had a bad game and the Jets had a good game. End of story.

I forgot Matt Flynn started for the Packers in that game. How did I forget that? I added something, which was emailed to me, in the post about the whole "payroll" issue. Let's just say Dan was wrong.

Arjun, what is interesting is I was emailed this morning that Dan Shaughnessy really doesn't like the Patriots and looks for any failure to throw in their face. It doesn't seem that way in this column though, does it? It seems to me like Dan has no ability to separate reality from what he thinks should have happened.

Arjun, I think most Boston fans are rational and can see through the bullshit. What is probably irritating is that guys like Shaughnessy and Simmons tend to "speak for" the Boston fans, against their will, which gives them a bad name. I don't think they are generally any more irrational than another fan base, it is just easier to pick on them because certain writers make it so.

It is similar to how Dick Vitale and his love for all things Duke contributes to everyone hating Duke.

Anon, I have let the Tuck Rule go personally. It didn't matter much at the time nor does it matter much now. It was a call that was made and the Patriots still had to win the Super Bowl, which they did.

I personally thought the fumble call on Mark Sanchez was a bad call, so that's the one I would focus on. I really thought that was an incomplete pass.

I think what Arjun was saying is Dan's idea of the Patriots "deserving" to go to the Super Bowl can go the other way on them. I am over the Tuck Rule.

Anonymous said...

My point about the tuck rule is that you could have taken shaughnessy's column and written it from a raiders perspective in 2002, and shaughnessy would have called it stupid, yet he is bitching and complaining when the patriots don't get the ring they deserve. i am not trying to discredit the patriots three super bowls as much as i am trying to discredit dan shaughnessy

Arjun Chandrasekhar said...

that last post was me by the way, i accidentally published it anonymously

Anonymous said...

Good ol Shank the cals he used don't count cap hits, dead money, or bonuses.

Anonymous said...

He's also not "Bitching about the ring the Pats deserved" He's tweaking the "Footy Pajama Wearing" Pats fans who thought his 8-8 prediction and 3rd in the East was utter crap. He loaths the teams and fans he covers

Bengoodfella said...

Anon, I think if he loathes the team he covers then it is only fair they loathe him back. I get the feeling they do.

Arjun Chandrasekhar said...

i've also heard that shaughnessy loathes the fans and teams that he covers, but i've honestly never seen evidence of it in his writing. most of his work that i've read seems extremely boston-centric and biased; he writes all of his columns with extremely boston-colored glasses. if i am wrong about this then please show me the evidence

Martin F. said...

The Sanchez pass went backward, so it was either a fumble, or a lateral, not an incomplete pass.

Bengoodfella said...

Martin F, I always thought the test was whether his arm was moving forward or not with the ball in his control? I didn't think it mattered if the ball went backwards or not. Of course I don't really care b/c I am not a Jets fan and it is in the past now.

Martin F. said...

It would be, because in most cases the ball is moving forward also, making it a pass. In a case where he might not even be under duress, if his arm is moving forward and the ball slips out and goes backward, it would be a fumble/backward pass/lateral. If the ball starts forward, and then ends up going backward, incomplete pass, but in this case, it never seemed to me to ever be going forward.

Where's Rulebook when we need him?