NFL Divisional Round Thread: Colts? Chargers? Vikings? Saints? Come Out & Play!

That was just Favre being a kid-at-heart gunslinger type who loves the game of football.

 

really? a clean, big hit is good football, even moreso if delivered by a scrub during garbage time. a td pass in the red zone of a rout with less than two minutes left? after you've already pretty much declared your intentions to go out quietly by running the first three downs?

seriously? you're just being argumentative now to say you don't see the diff...

 

I just want there to be a *reason* for the unwritten rule if we are going to make it.

Who is being hurt, what negative effect is being created, by a team passing for a touchdown late in a blowout?

 

Keith Brooking's feelings.

 

What makes it particularly offensive is the prevailing mythology (forced on us like liturgy) that Favre has always "respected the game" and "done it right."

Well, no.

Say what you want about the way the Colts run their organization, but I don't think Manning would have been out there that late in the game, in a pass formation, under similar circumstances.

 

That's all I can come up with. I guess if the answer is that you are hurting the adults' feelings by beating them by too many points, then we can agree to disagree on whether that should be relevant.

 

it was belichickesque.

and rick, if it needs to be "explained" to you, well, it's time to just give up. you're a lost cause.

that's okay. you're not alone. it's gotta be a stunner to realize you're an evil-doer!

 

If the Cowboys were using timeouts to try to get the ball back for a garbage touchdown, then sure, by all means, fire away in that situation. But they were out of timeouts. The matter had been decided.

And if you don't think setting a personal record in what might be his last victory doesn't mean anything to Favre, then you haven't been paying attention. The "Garsh, fellas, I don't care about numbers, I just like to win" bullshit is as dated as Zubaz sportswear from his rookie year.

 

So... still no answer?

Really, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with *something.*

Why is it bad?

 

It's bad because it's done simply to kick an opponent when they're already dead.
It's bad because it was done to feed the ego and pad the stats of a prima dona at the expense of an already-dead opponent.

And what exactly did the Vikings gain by winning 34-3 instead of 27-3?

I realize you value stats above all else, rick, but there is such a thing as sportsmanship.

 

When the Vikings play the Saints, will they have any added advantages by winning by 30 points? Do they get an extra down or a shorter kickoff for such a lopsided win?

All that matters is winning the game, and running up the score motivates your opponent to try harder the next time you play. Why would you want to do this if you are gaining nothing in return?

 

Apparently they felt like they had something to gain, and if it doesn't hurt anyone, then there's nothing wrong with it.

If it does hurt the other team, sure it's wrong, but I get the feeling that this is a circular argument. It's bad sportsmanship because it hurts the other team, and it hurts the other team because it's bad sportsmanship.