Well I mean what about when the Celts beat the Knicks by like 50 a couple years ago? You put the backups in but they still run their offense. How is it any different?
Because he doesn't like bill and buys into the "your not allowed to play anymore once it would hurt the other teams feelings" argument.
Every time i see that i ask:
as rondo pointed out, why is it acceptable to put your bench in and have them try to score when your up 20+ with under 4 to go? if they simply took 24 second violations and played defense, it's mathematically imposable to come back.
Why don't NHL teams dump and chase and never attempt to run an offense once they are up a large number of goals?
Why don't MLB teams stop swinging once they are up in blowouts (10+ runs with 1 or 2 innings left) in an attempt to not pile it on?
The answer here will be some sort of contrived "It's different" argument when it really isn't at all. But, for some reason, in football we have aquired this "your mean if you put your backups in and keep trying to score" thought process.
My thinking is it pretty much stems from college football, where bigger programs typically put beat downs on lower class schools, and tend to pull their starters early and don't run any semblance of thier offense for the rest of the game.
And, in college, i understand and agree with that. But in the NFL, you are payed a large amount of money to go out and do your job. Just like the other professional sports, when you lace them up, you go out and play the full game.
The only obligation the patriots had here was to pull Tom and the starters early. He was gone with 11 minutes left in the third, as was everyone else but welker.
Non-issue.