National Football League

Page 39 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
I tought we had solved the issue of luck involvement.
There is no way anyone can discuss away that luck does influence games much more than some people (here) think.

Alpe d'Huez said:
Yes, I distinctly remember Brock saying this to me. He held his fingers up about an inch apart and said the difference between the Packers and Panthers is really about that little.
Before you dismiss the following articles please read and understand them:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/08/luck-and-nfl-outcomes.html

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,467126,00.html (it´s in german, but you may can use google translate)

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/11/randomness-of-win-loss-records.html

http://deadspin.com/5883075/math-says-if-wes-welker-catches-that-ball-the-patriots-win

Even this guy got it right:
http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7548066/luck-plays-bigger-factor-super-bowl-life-care-admit

Finally i quote myself ;)
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Hate to admit it, but the nature of the game basketball leaves the fewest possibilities for lucky winners. There you have 50+ scores per team. Talent will prevail since it´s obvious the more chances, the more regression to the (real talent-)mean.

In football you only have about 4 scores per team (+ chances of devastating turnovers).

In hockey you get even less scores (less than 3) and many many (rebounding) luck scores.

Well, soccer :rolleyes:.... you and i agree. We both know why we don´t like it at all, and discussed it lenghtly in different soccer threads. Don´t know how people get excited of 0-0s and ties. :D

Two things work for baseball:
Even tough they have the same scoring occurrences as football, MLB allowes the least teams to reach the playoffs. And since they play 162 games, it´s very difficult to reach the playoffs with an 82-80 record. But of course they had some real lucky winners (like the 87-Twins going 85-77 and the 2006-Cards going 83-78).

This following study ranks luck influence as follows:
1. (no surprise here) Soccer
2. Baseball
3. Hockey
4. (tied) Football and Basketball

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,467126,00.html

The problem that works against Football is the very short season, and that more teams than in baseball reach the playoffs. But that can´t be changed (the lenght of the season i mean). Otherwise we would see playoffs with replacement players only. The game is just to grueling to play longer seasons.
 
Some interesting links there Foxxy. Well worth reading and support what I wrote (and my quote from Brock. He would know!). That guy from Slate/Deadspin nailed in that article:

Numbers like this underscore how razor-thin the difference between winning and losing is, especially when the two opponents are evenly matched. This year's Super Bowl was like most other NFL games—it hinged on a handful of critical and unusual events.
Welcker caught an amazing 122 receptions for 1,500 yards this year. But when he had to catch a ball when it most mattered, it went off his hands. Does this mean he didn't have the skill needed? Or that the Giants were able to get him to move just a little wrong, or Brady's pass just a little high, or the Giants distracted him to where he dropped it? Maybe. Or maybe it was the worst possible time for him to drop a pass, as luck would have it.

SirLes said:
I don't get the luck bit really. If an incorrect call is made by the officials that benefits a side you could argue that's lucky.
I think this is an issue of semantics, or definition. In the instance you mention, I consider that being screwed. Hence, the 2005 Seahawks-Steelers SB, had it been refereed properly, who knows who would have won (even the refs later admitted they blew the game). It was also bad luck for the Seahakws, sure.

There are varying degrees of luck, and don't think that means I think the Giants have no skill. They do. They arguably have the best offensive and defensive lines in the NFL. I think both teams were evenly matched, but as listed in those articles by Foxxy, various ball bounces, mishaps, or untimely mistakes went the Giants way and were strung together in their favor over the last few games. I think more than average, as I listed in the previous posts. Sometimes it takes that to win. Actually, plenty of the time it does. The Patriots definitely benefited form luck in their SB win over the Panthers. And they benefited from luck against the Rams, who were also screwed in that SB as well. This time by Spygate. Would the Rams have beaten them otherwise? I think so, but we'll never know.

That's why play off wins mean so much more than regular season wins when evaluating a player. Romo and Dallas being perfect examples.
There's some truth to that. However, I think football is the ultimate team sport. More than any other I can think of. In basketball it's a lot of isolation between scorer and defender. Less so, but similar in the NHL. In MLB most of the game is between the batter and the pitcher (and catcher). I won't even go into Soccer. But in football there are so many pieces that have to fit. This is why I have said you can shuffle most players in the NFL around, and get similar results. Hence, put Ryan Fitzpatrick on the Giants and he would have likely taken them to the playoffs as well, (anyone remember Matt Cassell filling in for Tom Brady?). Granted, some positions, notably QB, are leaders and teams rely heavily on them (Payton Manning), but a QB cannot do it alone and greatly relies on the players around him. The coach can also make a big difference. But not every game. However, to address your statement, there is truth to evaluating teams in the playoffs, which are comprised of players, yes, but in the case of the Cowboys it's not just Romo, even though he is the defacto leader. It's the coaching staff, the offensive line, the special teams, management and ownership, all of it. They both failed in the playoffs, and they were probably unlucky as well. But at least unlike the Seahawks and (Cardinals as I'll show in a moment), they weren't screwed as well.

I wanted Arizona to win in 08.(actually they were unlucky as photos show that the last touchdown which won the game for the Steelers shouldn't have been awarded!)
Hotly contested call. But it was ruled a TD on the field, and I think it was hard to overturn it watching the replay. But the referees should have called an incomplete pass (tuck rule) on Warner's last pass. Had they done so, the Cardinals would have had the ball on about the Steelers 45 with at least two plays left. And the Steelers were having a very difficult time stopping the Warner/Fitzgerald/Boldin tandem. There were other calls in that game that benefited Pittsburgh, Foxxy knows them. The Steelers were lucky, sure. But really, the Cardinals got screwed.

BTW, the only things I was advocating were changes to playoff structure and schedules, that's all, to make it where it's more important than you win regular season games, instead of getting healthy and on a hot streak heading into the playoffs. You can't eliminate all the luck, it's impossible.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
I generally agree with all you said Alpe. I´ll come back to it later.

But three things are for sure:
NE-SL was rigged. The whole game receivers of SL were hold, no flags thrown. On Vinatiers FG the clock read 0:07 seconds. Never ever did i saw a FG short like this taking more than 4 seconds. Nobody complaint after. Just swept under the carpet. The only story from the game was how great Beli was defending SL. Did he really? Even with all the holds in the game, SL outgained NE by 427 to 267 yards. Defensive domination, yeah sure:rolleyes:
And how did NE get there? By a non existing rule back then.

PIT-SEA was even worse. No need to go any further. :mad:

PIT-ARZ falls in the NE-SL category. I counted at least three holds on the Harrison return. And many flags were thrown vs. ARZ at the worst possible times. It might have been the greatest game by a QB ever. Against all odds Warner almost came back twice against the back then No.-1 pass defense. And as one poster (SirLes i think) said: I am not sure if Roetlis TD-Pass was caught inbounds. Well, there´s nothing you can do once the fix is on you.
But the final coffin nail was the refs not calling the tuck rule. Again, never discussed by mainstream. Just swept under the carpet. Warner got robbed of 2 SB wins.

I am not talking conspiracy here. Ex players & investigative journalists called me up for attention:

http://www.amazon.com/They-Call-Game-Shoulders-Stands/dp/0595130763/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328678664&sr=1-1 (a classic)

http://www.amazon.com/Interference-Organized-Influences-Professional-Football/dp/068808303X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328678698&sr=1-2 (still number one)

http://www.amazon.com/4th-Fixed-Rivers/dp/1402205937/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328678732&sr=1-1 (a fiction novel by an ex player. May he couldn´t go any further than this to prevent harm.)

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Game-Life-NFL/dp/0446605204/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328678803&sr=1-1 (Tim Green also touches the issue of multi million $ gambling and possible fixing)

PS: Alpe did you ever discuss those things with Brock, or was you just unaware of things like that (as i was for a long time). Honestly, what did he say?
 
Brock tends to shrug at questions like that. He's more of an old-school X's and O's strategy guy. When I see him again I'll try to discuss it. But he'll probably say something along the lines of "you still have to play the game, and control what you can control". Even if he does answer more directly, I will have to send you a PM, as I wouldn't post it in the open. I don't know when I will see him again however. He actually keeps pretty busy, and just became a grandfather. He's also seeking coaching jobs, either as a line coach in the NFL, or head coach or OC on the college level. If he gets less picky, he'll just take one of the lesser offers he sometimes gets to coach somewhere smaller, and he'll be even harder to track down then.

I hate saying games were rigged, as it's just an ugly thought. But there was more than bad luck going against Seattle, St. Louis, and Arizona. But at least the referees later admit they blew the Seattle game, and spygate did come out, proving the Patriots essentially cheated to beat the Rams. As I said, those games were not bad luck, the losing teams got screwed. I agree with all you said about them.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I hate saying games were rigged, as it's just an ugly thought. But there was more than bad luck going against Seattle, St. Louis, and Arizona. But at least the referees later admit they blew the Seattle game, and spygate did come out, proving the Patriots essentially cheated to beat the Rams. As I said, those games were not bad luck, the losing teams got screwed. I agree with all you said about them.
Me too. But BabyCheat should have been banned for 2 years or life for altering the outcome of games, which is just a different form of what Pete Rose got banned for. The only difference is the money... we know Pete bet against his team while managing it.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Me too. But BabyCheat should have been banned for 2 years or life for altering the outcome of games, which is just a different form of what Pete Rose got banned for. The only difference is the money... we know Pete bet against his team while managing it.
And that is, as it is in corruption generally, just the tip of the iceberg, since manipulation of games is hard to prove.

The good side is: We see at least 50% honest games. What we have learned about outcomes of games is they depend heavily on luck. So on the long run approx. 50% of the fixed games would have been won by the "right" team anyway without the need of intentionally altered plays.

It just gets super ugly when the "wrong" team resists respectively plays/is better. Then we get games like ARZ-PIT, NE-SL, PIT-SEA or SD-PIT.

BTW, that´s one of the reasons i´ve not bought any NFL merchandise since the late 90s. And i am not financing TV contracts since the games are free of charge in "my" bar. In german TV they don´t even show the US commercials in pauses, only NFL highlites. So i only make big beer companies rich. ;)

When i visit NFL.com i completely ignore commercials. I know with my clicks i help NFL indirectly. But it´s not in my power to inform the companies who praise products there, that they have absolutely no influence on my consumer decisions. I can´t tell one company advertising there. Nothing, nada...

That´s as far as i can go with my boycott. I had to make some compromises, so that i still can see the best players perform. Just, i am never sure which days they are giving full effort and when not, or when their effort is usesless b/c the refs decide the games.
 
on3m@n@rmy said:
...We know Pete bet against his team while managing it.
Well, we don't actually know that. Even when they looked at all the receipts and books and talked to everyone, they never found him betting against the Reds. Now, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The guy had a serious gambling problem, and as Foxxy says, it was probably the tip of the iceberg, and let's not pretend that only Pete and Art Schlichter are players/coaches that gambled on their sport.

I think the worst of the worst to me is the Tim Donaghy issue. Not only his points shaving, but after the fact his revealing how referees control games with the NBA's blessing, and the fact that the FBI determined he told the truth on all this when he confessed, plus he passed two lie detector tests. And the NBA itself reluctantly had to admit to the FBI they had nothing to prove or show he wasn't being truthful, but instead just tried to blame it all on him anyway outwardly to the media. I hadn't been much interested in the NBA for several years before that, but that completely soured it for me. Not that college is whistle clean, but this showed to me the NBA was essentially rigged, with many, many games altered the way Superbowl XL was, though unquestionably by design. Ugly.

This thread is starting to look like the Clinic! LOL!
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Well, we don't actually know that. Even when they looked at all the receipts and books and talked to everyone, they never found him betting against the Reds. Now, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

This thread is starting to look like the Clinic! LOL!
Well, technically you are correct. I just have my suspicions on Pete, not that it matters. It was just the idea of actions that alter outcomes. And I thought the Pete analogy, correct or not, seemed to fit. Plus we KNOW the Pats did the dirty filming.

But yeah, the clinic... I guess illegally filming (in the NFL sense of what's illegal) is like doping in that outcomes can be altered, just by a different method.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
This thread is starting to look like the Clinic! LOL!
Funny, right... :)

Should we open a Clinic-NFL-Thread for the dark sides called like something "another interesting piece I found on the official NFL Thread" ;)
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Interesting and disturbing stuff. I'd like to think that NFL refs are sufficiently well scrutinised to make bribary harder. (I'm thinking Tax wise here).

However with several marginal calls in games there is the possibility for refs to influence the game despite challenges etc. A couple of the calls that went GB way vs the NYG game were quite extrordinary particularly given that one was challenged.

I do think that even unbiased umpires, being human, can be effected. In tight calls they will rule with the "better" player based on past experience.
I remember my Dad talking about an experience he had with a team he was coaching. They were playing a well known side with a good reputation. In the first half his side were getting nothing from one of the umpires. At half time he managed to have a quick conversation with him that went something like this. "your team are playing quite well" "Yes, but I'm disappointed we're losing, we normally beat these guys." "Oh really?". In the Second half the decisions suddenly started to go their way!

I've been in a team that has won a National title and I've also been in a team that's been relegated. I am sure that teams at the top get preferential treatment even if it's subconcious.

Umpires/ refs can also get caught up in the moment. understanding how to "play" an official is vital.

I believe in rugby, where interpretation of rules can vary from ref to ref teams will spend hours analysing and studying the ref to tips on how best to play certain situations, what they can get away with and what they can't.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
All true with refs being human and giving call advantages to "Superstars" etc... But that´s a whole different league than manipulating games on purpose. A wrong holding call in the 1st Qtr can be overcome, but not if that happens trou-out the game on deciding downs (like 3rd´s, FG-Range, on turnovers etc.) vs one particular team, like it happened in the mentioned games. That goes deep into the integrity of the game. Worse than doping, painkillers, violence, injuries and all those dirty little tricks like Beli used to apply.

As worthwhile as the 60 Minutes with Tyler Hamilton:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5914330n
The whole time Donaghy says he didn´t fix outcomes, yet he won "70-80%" of his bets:eek:. Listen carefully like at 8:23. Indeed he fixed games...
Doesn´t Stern look and talk like the other crook McQuaid? :D

Dowd, the investigator of Pete Rose indeed thinks that he bet against his own team. I mean we all have our senses intact. If i have a gambling addiction (thus being down tens of thousands dollars on my bookie) and i am manager of a team i bet on, it´s easier to throw games (that one i can control) than placing winning bets hoping my pitcher Soto has a good game (whereas i have no influence at all). There is no doubt in my mind that Rose bet against his team regulary. 100%.

Some stories from the mentioned books: The "greatest game ever" BAL-NYG. BAL being 4 1/2 favourite. Rosenbloom (owner of the Colts) was betting heavy on his team. He had to insure his coach not going for a FG, but TD to cover the spread.
Klein (owner of Chargers) discussed openly about point spreads and senseless FG´s inside the TMW.
Numerous (congress) investigations were shut down like the Armstrong case.
The 1946 championship game was fixed and the NFL knew it. Yet some involved players were still allowed to play.
FBI investigation in the late 70s uncovered 8 games fixed by refs for the NY mob.
Dice Dawson (gambler/bookie) was in thight connections with Len Dawson, a KC Hall of Fame QB. Once he won 15 straight bets on a 50/50 chance. The probability of something like this to happen is 0.003%.
Numerous games of KC were taken off boards in Vegas (b/c of heavy one sided betting) to reduce the losses for the sportbooks.
And so on...

There is no doubt: The fix is in, week in week out. Watch out guys, next time you observe an pro sports game on TV or in the stadium. But don´t think you´ll be better off with college games. Those un-paid players are easy targets for guys like Michael Franzese.
 
What was the greatest game ever between Balt-NYG? Not 2000 SB? And you don't mean the Colts-Jets Superbowl III, with Namath? (The game where Bubba Smith swore that Shula and the coaching staff purposefully lost the game, with poor play calling, and failure to even play Johnny Unitas until it was too late.)

I too would imagine Pete Rose bet on and against the Reds (his own team), I was just saying there's no proof he did of any kind. But I think it's assumed by many he did. I mean, he had a serious gambling problem, why wouldn't he have?

I would generally agree in the NFL it's harder to manipulate games with marginal calls by referees. Harder than in the NBA or Soccer, which are very prone to such a thing, as history has shown. The NHL isn't far behind. It's also probably harder than MLB. The strike zone in MLB is a factor though. There are also gray areas in MLB, such as pitchers aren't supposed to take more than a "reasonable amount of time" to pitch, or the umpire will issue a count of a ball. Yet some pitchers take forever, and I believe last year in all of the entire season, only twice were pitchers admonished for it. And I'm certain they weren't star pitchers.

I believe Donaghy was implying that referees in the NBA favor popular teams, and extend series under the near guidance from NBA officials, just by the way they normally officiate games and that there was serious financial motive behind this. It's blatantly obvious, and Donaghy was part of it, whether he calls it "fixing outcomes" for his own benefit, or not. In that regard I'm certain what he was saying was true. And you don't need to ask Kings or Suns fans about this one.

Of course this says nothing about judged sports. Numerous scandals, on top of horrible judging. I can't even begin to make a list, not enough space here.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
There have also been two spectacularly suspicious and related games in the Champions League this season. Ajax were denied two perfectly good goals against Real Madrid (not that I suspect for a moment that Real could not have upped their game and still won) by the same linesman, while at the same time, Dynamo Zagreb let in seven goals against Lyon. The upshot was that Ajax missed out on further (lucrative) CL participation.

I'll spare you the exact details, but both of these games reeked to high heaven - in different ways. It isn't sour grapes on my part as an Ajax fan. Real were the far better side and deserved to win, it was just painful and very frustrating to see that some kind of fix was in to make absolutely sure. Sadly, corruption would seem to be an integral part of modern pro sports.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
I think we should shift to the clinic now and merge with the Armstrong thread. May the Hog, Race Radio and others have some more infos. ;)

Alpe d'Huez said:
What was the greatest game ever between Balt-NYG? Not 2000 SB? And you don't mean the Colts-Jets Superbowl III, with Namath? (The game where Bubba Smith swore that Shula and the coaching staff purposefully lost the game, with poor play calling, and failure to even play Johnny Unitas until it was too late.)
No, no mean the NFL´s self declared "greatest game ever". The 1958 Championship-Game of BAL-NYG. My personal favourites are the SL-TEN superbowl and the fog game (CHI-PHI).

Alpe d'Huez said:
I too would imagine Pete Rose bet on and against the Reds (his own team), I was just saying there's no proof he did of any kind. But I think it's assumed by many he did. I mean, he had a serious gambling problem, why wouldn't he have?

I would generally agree in the NFL it's harder to manipulate games with marginal calls by referees. Harder than in the NBA or Soccer, which are very prone to such a thing, as history has shown. The NHL isn't far behind. It's also probably harder than MLB. The strike zone in MLB is a factor though. There are also gray areas in MLB, such as pitchers aren't supposed to take more than a "reasonable amount of time" to pitch, or the umpire will issue a count of a ball. Yet some pitchers take forever, and I believe last year in all of the entire season, only twice were pitchers admonished for it. And I'm certain they weren't star pitchers.
I tought the same that NFL is harder to manipulate than Soccer or NBA. Well that is/was wishful thinking. In Parrish´s book it´s described how easy it is since in almost every play there is some infraction. Just throw flags everytime you need them like in the SEA-PIT or PIT-SD games. And then you have the QB who can by will throw easy picks, or a DB falls down "accidentally", or a Kicker like Vanderjagt misses the goal posts by 15 yards. Endless opportunities...
Baseball: I remember a 1995 game, Glavine pitches like 20 throws just outside the strike zone left off the batter. Every time he got the strike call (the opposing pitcher didn´t). Or you throw pitches right down the middle to the sweet spot of the baseball bat. Even your average MLB-SS will hit those pitches out of the park. Easy.
Yeah NHL. Even Gretzky was involved. Well, swept under the carpet.
Soccer: There is a betting/fixing scandal at least once per year in europe, especially in Italy.

Alpe d'Huez said:
I believe Donaghy was implying that referees in the NBA favor popular teams, and extend series under the near guidance from NBA officials, just by the way they normally officiate games and that there was serious financial motive behind this. It's blatantly obvious, and Donaghy was part of it, whether he calls it "fixing outcomes" for his own benefit, or not. In that regard I'm certain what he was saying was true. And you don't need to ask Kings or Suns fans about this one.

Of course this says nothing about judged sports. Numerous scandals, on top of horrible judging. I can't even begin to make a list, not enough space here.
Sure he was honest when 5 years in prison were at sight. No matter who or how the games are manipulated. It´s game fixing and he and the mob (as usual) benefited from it.

Amsterhammer said:
There have also been two spectacularly suspicious and related games in the Champions League this season. Ajax were denied two perfectly good goals against Real Madrid (not that I suspect for a moment that Real could not have upped their game and still won) by the same linesman, while at the same time, Dynamo Zagreb let in seven goals against Lyon. The upshot was that Ajax missed out on further (lucrative) CL participation.

I'll spare you the exact details, but both of these games reeked to high heaven - in different ways. It isn't sour grapes on my part as an Ajax fan. Real were the far better side and deserved to win, it was just painful and very frustrating to see that some kind of fix was in to make absolutely sure. Sadly, corruption would seem to be an integral part of modern pro sports.
Soccer is endless too:
1978 ARG-Peru
Rossi early 80´s
Southkorea-Spain 2002
Italy league 2006 (and many other times)
Belgium, Finnland.... endless
Bundesliga scandal 1971 etc. etc.

Yes i heard of the Ajax and Zagreb games. No doubt those games were fixed. Somebody made a bunch of money.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I thought the same that NFL is harder to manipulate than Soccer or NBA. Well that is/was wishful thinking.
I didn't say impossible. I merely said more difficult. But yes, holding calls, illegal contact, pass interference, numerous other calls that are judgmental. Ask the 1984 SF 49ers about their loss to the Redskins. A lot of people still think Craig Morton threw Superbowl XII. Then in MLB there's the 1st base call in the 1985 World Series. The flexible strike zone in the 1995 WS. I always wondered how and why Vanderjagt missed that gimmie FG in the 2006 playoffs after making something like 50 in a row (you know, the same year the Steelers "beat" the Seahawks?!), now I know the answer! I could list many more. The list is endless of games, plays or players, across all sports. We could have fun for hours with this!
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I didn't say impossible. I merely said more difficult. But yes, holding calls, illegal contact, pass interference, numerous other calls that are judgmental. Ask the 1984 SF 49ers about their loss to the Redskins. A lot of people still think Craig Morton threw Superbowl XII. Then in MLB there's the 1st base call in the 1985 World Series. The flexible strike zone in the 1995 WS. I always wondered how and why Vanderjagt missed that gimmie FG in the 2006 playoffs after making something like 50 in a row (you know, the same year the Steelers "beat" the Seahawks?!), now I know the answer! I could list many more. The list is endless of games, plays or players, across all sports. We could have fun for hours with this!
We might as well get rich. Remember "Amsterhammer" or was it "on3m@n@rmy" saying we should write a book? I mean this thread has already 100 pages. Think we could fill 300 easily. The book should be called "Pro Sports Encyclopedia of Fixed Games. A different look at our heroes of the past century".

Yes, Vanderjagt really made sure he misses that FG. No highly talented kicker misses a FG by 15 yards wide, no matter how high the pressure.
The whole 2005 post season is a joke as the 2001 one.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
There is no doubt: The fix is in, week in week out. Watch out guys, next time you observe an pro sports game on TV or in the stadium. But don´t think you´ll be better off with college games. Those un-paid players are easy targets for guys like Michael Franzese.
Proof: does Art Schlichter, known for compulsive gambling and the legal problems that arose from it, ring a bell? Hopefully those kinds of things in normal sport (like futbol, football, NHL hockey, etc, but not like WWF) are an aberration.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
We might as well get rich. Remember "Amsterhammer" or was it "on3m@n@rmy" saying we should write a book? I mean this thread has already 100 pages. Think we could fill 300 easily. The book should be called "Pro Sports Encyclopedia of Fixed Games. A different look at our heroes of the past century".
Ahhh, I think Amster said something about a book, and I said you and Alpe could write a novel (or book) or a thesis. And then I dubbed thee two guys Dr. Foxxy and Dr. d'Huez. But that was over everyday common analysis of teams/games/players that is on NFL.com everyday. But this "clinic" stuff is fresh. Nobody's really talked much about it. I'll bet it could sell. If nothing else to the National Inquirer for dirt cheap. Or a lifetime supply of your favoriet brewski. Not that cheap Buckhorn stuff either. ;)
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Well, it seems not. Or did you not read the last few pages? Of course not every player/official has gambling problems like Rose, Schlichter or Donaghy. But i think anyway that the bigger threats come from shady owners, the mob and vegas. Plus every player/coach has a weak spot that can be attacked, no matter how upright they are.

"If nothing else to the National Inquirer for dirt cheap. Or a lifetime supply of your favoriet brewski"

LOL. That would be enough. I am not greedy. Either some bucks or lifetime supply of good beers is ok with me. But a small house at some equator beach should be included. :D

Edit: Well, if i think of it; skip the beers, i prefer pina coladas at the beach. You know one hand the drink, the other...
 
I'll take the money, personally. :)

Just watched the Vanderjagt kick again. He completely boffed it. Way wide right. In a dome, at home, where he had made an absurd amount of kicks in a row, and had never missed a post season kick, ever. At the time he was the most accurate kicker in NFL history, and in 2003-2004 didn't miss a single kick. But when the time was right, and big money was down, and that vacation villa in the Bahamas was there for his family to visit whenever he wanted... ;)

You know, if you look at the way the SB was that year, I'm only half joking here. Think about it.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
I always think you are serious, unless you become very sarcastic like in that now famous "Bolt 2009 thread". :)

Now i had to look at that kick again too. It truly seems it was 15 yards wide, as i estimated. The snap was ok, the hold too... No way a NFL kicker misses that wide.

May there even was an investigation by NFL security into that 2005 post season. But the public never gets to know of those investigations. Hell, most NFL fans don´t even know that they exist.
 
Honestly, I don't know why he missed the kick. I'll never completely know. He probably just felt a lot of pressure, and trying to kick it too hard, badly missed. He missed a key playoff kick against the Patriots as well. But that was in NE, in the cold, on grass, and he barely missed that one. It's strange, and one of those one in a hundred things, but that's probably what happened. He just blew it.

However it wouldn't surprise me if there was an NFL investigation into what happened, considering how accurate he was, and how badly he missed, and that he wasn't rushed to kick it (like Cundit). I mean, he completely missed it, you could tell right when it left his foot, that's how bad it was. Easily the worst kick of his entire career, at the worst possible time.

So, having said all that, if he was on his death bed and said he was told by certain people if he were in a key position and missed a kick, he could heap a large payday for it, and so he missed it, I wouldn't be completely shocked. A little, but not entirely. But I prefer to think the most logical thing is that he just blew it.
 
Moving away from the conspiracy fun and back to the sport. Here's the latest mock draft, courtesy of Bleacher Report. I agree with their thoughts that it's very possible the Redskins will give up three picks in order to be able to draft RG3 with the second pick in the draft. Very possible. It's something Snider and the Redskins would risk, and it's something St. Louis will give up. The only question I think is just how much they'll give up.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY