stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (01/13/86)
This note contains a few random comments, all of which have to do with
the Patriots. (I'm a Raider/Niner fan for whatever that's worth.)
First, congratulations to the Patriots for beating and outplaying the
Dolphins, and becoming AFC champs for the first time in the club's
history. Winning three games on the road is some feat.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the 1976 Pats/Raiders playoff game:
In the pre-game shows and newspapers, all I kept hearing about was the
questionable roughing-the-passer call against Julius Adams on 4th down
that allowed the Raiders to keep their last-gasp drive going and beat
the Pats in the closing seconds. What I do NOT hear about was a much
more blatant mistake by the refs that allowed the Raiders to get the ball
in the first place. There were something like two minutes left in the
game and the Pats had the ball somewhere around midfield and were attempting
to run out the clock. A third-down passing situation came up in which
the Pats could run out the clock (or all but run it out, I forget) if they
could manage to make a first down. They attempted a pass over the middle
(I forget the intended receiver's name), but it was incomplete, bringing up
fourth down. The reason he did not catch the ball, however, was that
Raider linebacker Phil Villapiano grabbed him and threw him to the ground.
I'm not sure whether he did this before or after the ball was thrown,
but either way it should have resulted in a penalty (def. holding or
pass interference) that would have given the Patriots a first down. As
no penalty was called, the Pats had to give up the ball, setting up the
Raider drive that included the roughing call on Adams and the subsequent
winning Raider TD drive.
Does anyone else remember the non-call against Villapiano? Is my memory
playing tricks on me?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Next subject: sportsmanship.
Is Blackmann (sp?, N.E. #55, anyway) taking sportsmanship lessons from
Pat Sullivan? I was quite unimpressed by his apparent taunting actions
after the Dolphin kicker missed a field goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final subject: Super Bowl prediction.
I have long contended that teams that get to the playoffs and win
playoff games by relying on turnovers are not what Super Bowl winners
are made of. What typically happens is that they win by beating teams
who are turning the ball over, but ultimately run into a team that is
"hot" and is not turning the ball over, and lose. Consider the Vikings
of the early '70's or the Broncos and Seahawks recently. Also, remember
the Redskins of couple years ago, who ran up some phonomenal turnover
"ratio" only to get blown out by the Raiders in the Super Bowl.
The Patriots seem to be such a team. In my estimation, the Patriots will
need a turnover "ratio" of at least +3 in the Super Bowl in order to beat
the Bears. All indications are that the Bears are "hot" (they are also
good). I just do not think that Chicago will turn the ball over that
often. I would not be surprised to see something close a repeat of Super
Bowl 18 where the Raiders blew out the Redskins. Let's go with Bears 27,
Pats 10. Turnovers: Bears win 3 to 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This will be only the fourth Super Bowl in history in which neither team
has been to a Super Bowl before. The others were Packers-Chiefs
(obviously) in '67, Jets-Colts in '69 and 49ers-Bengals in '82. Can
anyone shed some light on what players and coaches from either team
have Super Bowl experience?
Steve Vegdahl
Computer Research Lab.
Tektronix, Inc.
Beaverton, Oregondpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (01/15/86)
> This note contains a few random comments, all of which have to do with > the Patriots. (I'm a Raider/Niner fan for whatever that's worth.) > > > Regarding the 1976 Pats/Raiders playoff game: > In the pre-game shows and newspapers, all I kept hearing about was the > questionable roughing-the-passer call against Julius Adams on 4th down > that allowed the Raiders to keep their last-gasp drive going and beat > the Pats in the closing seconds. What I do NOT hear about was a much > more blatant mistake by the refs that allowed the Raiders to get the ball > in the first place. There were something like two minutes left in the > game and the Pats had the ball somewhere around midfield and were attempting > to run out the clock. A third-down passing situation came up in which > the Pats could run out the clock (or all but run it out, I forget) if they > could manage to make a first down. They attempted a pass over the middle > (I forget the intended receiver's name), but it was incomplete, bringing up > fourth down. The reason he did not catch the ball, however, was that > Raider linebacker Phil Villapiano grabbed him and threw him to the ground. > I'm not sure whether he did this before or after the ball was thrown, > but either way it should have resulted in a penalty (def. holding or > pass interference) that would have given the Patriots a first down. As > no penalty was called, the Pats had to give up the ball, setting up the > Raider drive that included the roughing call on Adams and the subsequent > winning Raider TD drive. > > Does anyone else remember the non-call against Villapiano? Is my memory > playing tricks on me? I remember this clearly. The receiver had turned to look back towards the quarterback. Villipiano turned with him. Unfortunately, the ref was on that side, too. Villipiano simply reached behind the receiver with one hand, and pulled him down. The ref couldn't see the arm behind the receiver, so he didn't call it. But the TV cameras had it all on tape. > Final subject: Super Bowl prediction. > I have long contended that teams that get to the playoffs and win > playoff games by relying on turnovers are not what Super Bowl winners > are made of. What typically happens is that they win by beating teams > who are turning the ball over, but ultimately run into a team that is > "hot" and is not turning the ball over, and lose. Consider the Vikings > of the early '70's or the Broncos and Seahawks recently. Also, remember > the Redskins of couple years ago, who ran up some phonomenal turnover > "ratio" only to get blown out by the Raiders in the Super Bowl. > > The Patriots seem to be such a team. In my estimation, the Patriots will > need a turnover "ratio" of at least +3 in the Super Bowl in order to beat > the Bears. All indications are that the Bears are "hot" (they are also > good). I just do not think that Chicago will turn the ball over that > often. I would not be surprised to see something close a repeat of Super > Bowl 18 where the Raiders blew out the Redskins. Let's go with Bears 27, > Pats 10. Turnovers: Bears win 3 to 1. The really strong teams, e.g. Steelers and Raiders of the 70's, won despite consistently turning the ball more than the opposition. As you say, teams that depend on turnovers to win have a tough time winning when the opposition doesn't turn it over. So the Patriots aren't one of those dominant teams. But the question is: Is Chicago one of those teams? Can they win even if they turn it over a couple more times thand New England does?
wbs@cybvax0.UUCP (William B. Solomon) (01/16/86)
In article <468@tekchips.UUCP> stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) writes: > > >Regarding the 1976 Pats/Raiders playoff game: > A third-down passing situation came up in which >the Pats could run out the clock (or all but run it out, I forget) if they >could manage to make a first down. They attempted a pass over the middle >(I forget the intended receiver's name), but it was incomplete, bringing up >fourth down. The reason he did not catch the ball, however, was that >Raider linebacker Phil Villapiano grabbed him and threw him to the ground. >I'm not sure whether he did this before or after the ball was thrown, >but either way it should have resulted in a penalty (def. holding or >pass interference) that would have given the Patriots a first down. As >no penalty was called, the Pats had to give up the ball, setting up the >Raider drive that included the roughing call on Adams and the subsequent >winning Raider TD drive. > >Does anyone else remember the non-call against Villapiano? Is my memory >playing tricks on me? Being a niner fan , you should Know this . The reciever was Russ Francis. Villipiano held him before and while the ball was in the air. The lineman called for roughing the passer was Ray Hamilton (current assistant for the pats). >Final subject: Super Bowl prediction. >I have long contended that teams that get to the playoffs and win >playoff games by relying on turnovers are not what Super Bowl winners >are made of. What typically happens is that they win by beating teams >who are turning the ball over, but ultimately run into a team that is >"hot" and is not turning the ball over, and lose. Consider the Vikings >of the early '70's or the Broncos and Seahawks recently. Also, remember >the Redskins of couple years ago, who ran up some phonomenal turnover >"ratio" only to get blown out by the Raiders in the Super Bowl. > >The Patriots seem to be such a team. In my estimation, the Patriots will >need a turnover "ratio" of at least +3 in the Super Bowl in order to beat >the Bears. All indications are that the Bears are "hot" (they are also >good). I just do not think that Chicago will turn the ball over that >often. I would not be surprised to see something close a repeat of Super >Bowl 18 where the Raiders blew out the Redskins. Let's go with Bears 27, >Pats 10. Turnovers: Bears win 3 to 1. Do you think the Pats would have lost to the Jets without turnovers. I doubt it. 10 of the Raiders points were preceded by Patriot Turnovers. Against Miami , New England would have had several long drives for scores instead of short and medium ones. In Miami, the Dolphins were just flat out beaten (turnovers or no turnovers). My point is that the patriots are not such a team. They've won several games this season with 80+ yard drives late in the game (Offensive line Dominates). >This will be only the fourth Super Bowl in history in which neither team >has been to a Super Bowl before. The others were Packers-Chiefs >(obviously) in '67, Jets-Colts in '69 and 49ers-Bengals in '82. Can >anyone shed some light on what players and coaches from either team >have Super Bowl experience? > Tony Franklin - Phil. Derek Ramsey - Raiders Greg Hawthorne - Pitt. ?? William Solomon Brighton , Ma.
djm@rayssd.UUCP (Dan R. Murphy) (01/20/86)
> Regarding the 1976 Pats/Raiders playoff game: > A third-down passing situation came up in which > the Pats could run out the clock (or all but run it out, I forget) if they > could manage to make a first down. They attempted a pass over the middle > (I forget the intended receiver's name), but it was incomplete, bringing up > fourth down. The reason he did not catch the ball, however, was that > Raider linebacker Phil Villapiano grabbed him and threw him to the ground. > I'm not sure whether he did this before or after the ball was thrown, > but either way it should have resulted in a penalty (def. holding or > pass interference) that would have given the Patriots a first down. As > no penalty was called, the Pats had to give up the ball, setting up the > Raider drive that included the roughing call on Adams and the subsequent > winning Raider TD drive. > > Does anyone else remember the non-call against Villapiano? Is my memory > playing tricks on me? > Yes this did happen and I believe it was Russ Francis who was held. Dan Murphy Raytheon SSD Portsmouth, RI