MattM

Not really. It affects network coverage, which can equal $ via exposure. Every team would love the nob gobbling the Pats* get, and now we see how/why they get some of it....

I'd be curious to hear JW's view on this, and why this isn't reported. If you think about it, it means that the network covering the AFC has a direct financial interest in one of the 16 AFC teams, and also won't want to piss off that team's owner because he's on their board. That's all a bit fishy to me, but I hate the Cheats* anyways....

Actually guys, if you read Kraft's Wikipedia page you'll see that he's on the board of Viacom, CBS's parent company, and that CBS has an interest in Patriot* Place. Conflict of interest anyone? Those aren't conspiracy theories, they're facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kraft I'm shocked no one has brought this up before. Seems like a conflict to me....

Hope I'm wrong, but it's a bit hard to get excited for a guy who turned a bad college program into a mediocre one.....

On the flip side, I remember reading in his column (which I miss) a few years back Ross Tucker saying Buffalo was his favorite place to play (he also played in NE*, Dallas and Washington) due to the family-like and friendly atmosphere.....

162--75% of which will be on the Texans, including several of which will kill their drives or prolong the Cheats*', followed by a few late "makeup" calls on NE* to make the penalties look more even than they are by games end. In other words, just a normal Pats* game....

He's also under contract and there's no way they release him....

It's not often that I agree with WEO, but this is one of those times. Not excited about this hire, but hope I turn out to be wrong....

10 geography lesson responses, but none on the question asked. PS. I know Levitre went to State. I was referring to Byrd, who was there at Oregon when Kelly was OC.

Too lazy to read the rest of the thread, but anyone consider the potential ancillary benefits of hiring Kelly, namely since he's in the driver's seat he may require a promise that we'll (a) resign our own FA he likes (which would be Levitre and Byrd, who Kelly personally knows from coaching at Ore.) and (b) a commitment to spend $ in FA more generally? I was lukewarm on him until considering that....

Best of luck to Chan. I'm sure he's as sorry as any of us here that it didn't work out, and I think we should all be able to agree that it wasn't for lack of his trying. I wish him well wherever he ends up. As others above have stated (my take is much similar to SJBF's in a number of his posts above), I think they needed to let him go after the team underachieved this year with a good number of pieces apparently in place, but I take no joy in someone else's firing, particularly someone who seemed like a good guy trying his best. Here's hoping that the next one works out better, both for him and us....

Really? What I'm seeing are a lot of people asking for sensible gun laws (like the two gents above in this post, including the OP) such as limits on assault weapons and large clips and the right and NRA saying "over our dead body" to use an apt metaphor. Did you catch Wayne LaPierre of the NRA's speech this morning? You'd have thought it was straight out of SNL or the Onion. Batsh*t crazy.....

Now you know how the rest of the League feels when we play the Cheats*--maybe Kraft's check didn't clear this week....

I said about the same thing to my wife earlier this game. I was all set to be ok with another year for Chix and Wanny, but after this "effort", I've changed my mind on that....

Clear? You mean like when the ball lands 10 yards out of bounds coming almost straight down on a bomb from midfield (you know, like the one they called on us against them)?

Can't link to it since I'm on my IPad, but there's an absolutely hysterical discussion of how the "uncatchable ball" exception to PI is no longer being enforced apparently because Pats* fans haven't seen it called all year. Maybe that's because YOU ALL ONLY WATCH PATS * GAMES WHERE IT'S NEVER CALLED AGAINST YOU. Finally, towards the end of the thread a guy admits that that should have been the call on our PI in the end zone. As they might have said on Seinfeld, "Comedy gold, Jerry, comedy gold...."

Those calls you mentioned weren't controversial outside New England--i.e., they were good calls, both of them. The Buffalo call WAS PI and Brady was throwing to no one on that SB play--there was no one within 20 yards of the ball where it landed. The calls I mentioned outraged fans across the League because they were clearly wrong. Doesn't get much more wrong than an "inadvertent whistle" or Bernard Pollard being repeatedly held over the middle right in front of refs in that AFCG (I rewound that one over and over again to watch his shoulders jerk back while the Pats* defender on back to back plays had a large piece of his jersey squarely in his mitts, right in front of an official). My other favorite was in that same Bills game when a Pats* defender was clearly 3 feet offsides on a key sack (again, I watched over and over on my DVR and it was clear as day and offsides is perhaps the most obvious penalty to call). Remember the Giants game that same undefeated season--the first one, that is? The one where Wilfork poked Brandon Jacobs in the eye (again, front of a ref) and got nothing? Or the one where a Pats* defender clearly hit a Giant return man on a kickoff late in the 4th, G-Men down by 3 and the Giants got the 15 yard penalty (basically a 30 yard field position shift)? There are tons of these over the years. Go on PFT.com or any other website that has a national following and you'll see that it ain't just us who sees this favoritism, EVERYONE sees it. They are far and away the main team mentioned as getting favorable calls all the time (along with perhaps the Steelers, largely on the Seattle SB alone, and the Cowboys perhaps get more than the average mentions). As for the schedule, you're correct that WHO one plays is set. When one plays them is not, however, and so we get things like the Bills playing teams with extra days to prepare 4 WEEKS IN A ROW earlier this year, when an avg team would face that twice in one season. Or a team like the Pats* getting high value games after their bye year after year after year (either divisional or against key opponents like the Ravens--see the thread on this earlier this year, when a number of people looked at this over time and found once again and to some of us, unsurprisingly, that the Pats* got a good deal year after year from the schedule makers). Or the Pats* asking the League a few years ago to get their West Coast games back to back so they could stay out there and the League saying "ok" (since then others have done the same thing, BTW, but I believe NE* was the first to do so). On and on it goes. Personally, I don't know whether there's really some kind of shenanigans going on in all of this, but I have my suspicions based on observable facts and it honestly wouldn't shock me at all if we find out ten or twenty years from now that there were in fact something untoward going on there.....

Alphadawg--name me a game the Pats* lost late in the game on a controversial call or non-call. And by "controversial", I mean League-wide controversy, not just to Pats* fans. We all here can name a whole bunch just against us, from "just give it to them" to the garbage PI calls this year to my favorite from about 6-7 years ago (remember the "inadvertent whistle" as Nate had a pick 6 taken away among many other 1-way atrocious calls that day?), not to mention the Tuck Rule, the AFCG against the Colts that necessitated a rule emphasis change the next season or another favorite, the Monday nighter against the Ravens during the "undefeated season", etc. If truly random this would even out, no? Why doesn't it seem to then? I don't feel the League is trying specifically to screw the Bills via officiating, but I have noticed a pro-Pats* bias in just about all things, from schedule-making to officiating. Reminds me of "Animal Farm"--all animals are equal, but some animals seem more equal than others....

I'm pretty sure it was a wine cooler. You all also realize that the "author/defender" here was the head of officiating until 2011, don't you? You know, the guy who might possibly have an interest in burying negative stories on officiating and burnish the reputation of officials. Personally, I believe what my eyes tell me, which is that some players (and teams) seem to get more than their fair share of calls go their way (cough, cough, Pats*, cough)....

On 11 I've noticed that, too. Anytime there's the threat of contact they all grab the ball tight with 2 hands. May mean we don't gain an extra yard or two, but I'll take that over coughing it up over and over....

That's correct, meaning we'll have a 2nd string RG and 3rd string RT in there for however long Wood and Hairston are out....

Really? Oh, crap....

Nice play for that TD--where's this O been all year?

Perhaps Seattle is one of those "more casual" teams when it comes to PEDs and cheating. As noted, different teams may be at all different points along a "comfort" spectrum on that issue. But even so they don't have the penumbra hanging over them of all of the other baggage the Pats* do, such as Spygate, the Competition Committee quotes, multiple coaches accusing them of headsets going out at odd times, other PED issues (like Rodney--only caught for a drug not currently tested for because he ordered it in his own name), bizarre officiating in their favor in a large number of games over the years, etc.

There are many ways to cheat (for the millionth time, go look at the NYT article from the May after Spygate in which two members of the NFL competition committee said it was the Pats* over and over they got complaints about). For ex., what do folks think of the fact (and it is a fact) that this season the Pats* have had two players suspended for PED violations. Not even the usual suspects either (the aging Pats* vets, a la Harrison, who go there to "gain an extra step), but a couple of young guys. Perhaps some teams are just a bit more comfortable "pushing the envelope", no?