MattM

They were all close enough to go either way, so it's kind of tough to get worked up to say we wuz robbed. Blame Brown and McKelvin for their fumbles and some poor coaching decisions for this loss....

This^^^^

This one made me spit up my breakfast--well done, sir!

Not following you at all here--using the numbers you used (46-23), looks like you're using aggregate records against playoff opponents during the regular season over a number of years (since 69 is multiples of the 8 times they were one and done). That doesn't make sense to me--for example, a team could be 4-12 one year that the Colts beat them in the regular season, but then 3 years later they beat the Colts in the playoffs when said team was 12-4 that year. Of course they were a tougher out that playoff season and thus you'd expect the Colts to have a worse record against playoff teams than regular season teams. On folks above on Brady's dominance over Manning, how much of that was home field advantage, as they also played twice as often at Foxboro? I thought I read this week that neither has beaten the other on the road since 2006. That's all without mentioning the Spygate asterisk that Belichick firmly planted next to all his teams' records--even more so in this case where Brady would have been a direct beneficiary of said cheating.

Have to point out again that by definition one plays better teams in the playoffs, so one would expect to lose more playoff games as a % than regular season games. Personally, anything at 60% or better in playoff games is pretty good to me, even if Manning has not hit that. Brady is money in the playoffs, but has issues (a cheating scandal that specifically benefitted his side of the ball) of his own that Manning doesn't have. On the J'ville point, some of those mid-aughts Del Rio teams were chic SB picks those years and were almost always playoff spot contenders.

So, there's no difference between the quality of regular season opponents and post-season opponents then? That's the division NOW--remember that most of the time Manning was playing in Indy either Tennessee or Jacksonville were decent teams.

While these are two of the best to ever play the position and we're lucky to get to see them head to head like this for so long, I wonder how much of Brady's success against Manning depends on home field advantage, as they seem to play the annual game in Foxboro nearly every year, both now vs Denver and previously vs the Colts. It's currently the 3rd year in a row it's been played in New England, for ex. A Pats* fan explained why to me yesterday (3 years in a row for head to heads of division winners), but that system seems asinine to me. Why not alternate those games?

What's called and when is of course important--big difference between a 5 yard procedural penalty in the 4th when the game is over vs. a key drive killer or (allower, like the block in the back that wasn't called on the TD) early in the game. At one point early on they flashed the penalties as something like 6 for the Broncos to 1 for the Pats*, IIRC yesterday, for ex.

Interesting factoid on this ref crew--it's headed by Walt Anderson, who was the ref in both the 2007 Cheats*-Ravens Monday Nighter that got some Ravens D players fined as well as last year's Pats*-Dolphins game that also featured a controversial key pro-Pats* call. Go figure.... http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2013/10/yes_the_patriots-dolphins_game.html

Looking at this on Wikipedia, that seems correct, but how asinine that is as a general rule. It also means that the Cheats* have gotten Manning at home three years in a row with the Broncos and 5 or 6 out of the last 8 or 9 against the Colts....

Why does it feel like the regular season meetings between these two are always in Foxboro--anyone have any insight into that? They typically play each other (here and in Indy when Manning played for them) as first place teams playing first place teams in the conference, so you'd think that Manning would get Brady at home every now and then, but to my recollection at least (too lazy to google it) it always seems like they're playing at New England*.....

Sammy cost my fantasy team 7 points yesterday, so I need Alfred Morris to run for a TD and 70 yards tonight without fumbling....

A few quick observations: I disagree that other owners would discuss officiating problems publicly, particularly since bias or worse would be difficult to prove and such criticism would damage their brand and potentially lead to something that might damage it beyond repair. Behind closed doors, however, they may air such suspicions. Recall the NYT article linked way above, where a couple of members of the NFL Competition Committee did in fact anonymously call out the Pats* as the team brought before them for suspected shenanigans over and over and over again, far more than any other. Such internal airings might even lead to things like the head of officiating "retiring", who knows (no inside knowledge on that, just an example of what a potential innocuous looking outcome (to outsiders) of such an internal process might look like)? To address WEO above on his point about it "all falling apart" if the Pats* can't also buy a SB, that's just not logical--as already noted, depending on the setup in question, even a scheduler may have little control in some cases over who refs where/when, particularly in the playoffs, where it's the best graded officials who get the starts presumably through a transparent (to insiders) grading system. Oddly, if someone was on the take, their bad calls during the regular season would likely work against them in qualifying for the postseason, for ex. Finally, on Dennard, I would think that with everything going on discipline-wise in the League, the NFL might be more prone to discipline someone who's reached the end of the appeal rope in court and/or pled already just to show that they mean business. That did not happen with Mr. Dennard, as I predicted in the spring. I'm sure we have different views as to the reason for this (although I'd wager that were he a Bill, he'd have served his 2-4 games off by now).....

I'm not saying that this is happening--as noted several times above, none of us can have any idea of that. All I've been saying is that were it to be the case, it wouldn't be as far-fetched as some of you (you in particular) may think, for the reasons laid out above, and, frankly, wouldn't surprise me. That's not the same thing as saying it's happening. A few specific points in rebuttal: 1. On small groups of refs being involved and able to wreak havoc, note that Walt Coleman, for ex., has presided over 4 controversial Pats* games--two involving us (including "Just Give it to Them" and last week), plus the Tuck Rule Game and the AFCCG in 2004. About a third of his Wikipedia-listed controversial calls are calls in favor of New England--again, considering there are 32 teams, what are the odds of that happening randomly? As noted above, were something like this to happen, it could be done with the help of the ref scheduler, as well as a number (could be a small number) of refs on different crews. Depending on the setup, one may or may not have total control over when an official on the take is involved in a game, that might be how sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. How is that so difficult to understand? Again, speaking theoretically here; 2. According to another poster above, Donaghy did name names by singling out a crooked game in the NBA finals one year and I believe that he may have also given the feds other names as well. Wouldn't that be by definition naming names? Whether that was credible or not is up to the FBI--they apparently thought not, but as noted above, if done right, a crime like this may be difficult to prove; 3. I find it most interesting that you proffered one example each of Steeler and Giant wins on what you deem controversial calls (and single calls at that) vs. the plethora that I cited involving New England, many/most of which involved multiple bad calls all going one way. One each is much more likely to be random, than multiple in favor vs. very few (if any) against. That's probably why neither team is really known as one that benefits greatly from biased officiating, unlike our current subject, nor does either franchise boast the rap sheet that New England does outside the refereeing arena noted above. Also interesting that both of the single calls you cited were line calls (uncalled holds) and interior line calls at that which, by their nature, are much more tougher to see than things like PI (which seems to be a Pats* specialty) where the players are open to all on an island in front of the refs and spectators/viewers. As I've said before, I'm not saying this is going on, but merely putting forth a scenario as to how it could be done and coming away unsurprised if it was in fact really being done, based on what my eyes see in the games and the other factors laid out above. Why are you avoiding the Dennard topic--waiting anxiously by the mailbox waiting for that suspension notice to arrive any day now? Now you're onto my real plan--taking out the Smoking Man so my Bills can finally win the Super Bowl!

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/20/earl-thomas-refs-need-to-stay-out-of-it-and-let-us-dominate/ Earl, just tell them you're SB champs and a great team and so should get the benefit of the doubt on all calls, right WEO? Isn't that the way it works?

This--a thousand times this^^^^^

Nice recovery guys, let's keep this up!

Nice pick, Leo--and I love the fact that he was looking for Fred to give him the ball afterwards

So many things wrong with your e-mail, but I've got to get the kids to McDonalds and back in time for the kickoff: 1. Money is the motivator--doesn't matter who provides it, gamblers, owner, GM, some random guy. That should be pretty simple to understand; 2. I agree with you that the larger the conspiracy the less likely it is. That's why in my original post, I suggested that the most likely way it could be done would be to involve the scheduler of referees and then a select number of refs. Doesn't have to be a whole crew, BTW. This was actually done in the Serie A scandal; 3. Donaghy claimed that others were also on the take--the FBI did not believe him. Again, if done right, it's very hard to prove; 4. Let's take your proferred rationale for what we're all seeing (unless it's an NFL-wide mass hypnosis/hysteria situation and none of the millions of us are seeing our teams getting screwed repeatedly). There are many other similarly successful teams in the League--for ex., the Steelers, Packers, Giants, Colts, Broncos, Saints, to name just a few. Many of them are even more successful recently than the Pats*, who haven't won a SB in 10 years, while the Giants and Steelers have won two each since then. Why is it that none of those teams have anywhere near the rap sheet that the Pats* do in regard to seemingly benefit over and over and over again from bad reffing, not even close? Why don't they they get the repeated benefit of the doubt from the refs to the point that it's a scandal? Why is it to quote the NFL Competition Committee member in the NYT article I cited above "one team, over and over and over again." That same team also has a rap sheet in other sketchy areas that no one else can come close to matching, as also noted above. Even you should be able to put one and one together and realize what I noted originally above--there's enough smoke here that what I've posited as a possibility may not be all that surprising were it to turn out to be true. As also noted above, none of us on this board knows anything for certain--we're all merely conjecturing on what might be the cause of what we (and other fanbases around the League) are seeing here. PS Still no answer on the Dennard question, I see. For others reading this thread, I wagered WEO earlier this year that Dennard would not get suspended by the League despite pleading out to a DUI-related charge that got him a 60 day sentence (on top of his prior checkered history, which includes punching a cop). He said at the time there's still a long offseason, let's see what happens. Well, the offseason's long over and voila, no suspension. Maybe Alphonzo had a sit down with Roger and Kraft and brought along Bianca Wilfork, since that seemed to work for Ms. Wilfork's hubby back in 2007, when he was fined 4 times in one season and yet not suspended after having said sit down with Goodell. One of my all-time favorite Big Vince plays: This, too, was in front of a ref and drew no flag--go figure.... That Ravens Monday Nighter was one of the worst officiated games I've ever seen in 40 plus years of watching Pro Football. Multiple garbage calls late in the game in one direction (all the hallmarks of what you'd expect if the fix was in). My favorite was one that wasn't even needed--it was 4th and about 5 from the 15 or so and the ref threw a late flag away from the play on an alleged bump at the line (well within 5 yards replay showed), but what was funny about it was that the ref flew the flag NOT when the push he called happened, but well after that when it appeared that Brady would be sacked on the play (he later escaped and ran for the first, hence the refusal of the penalty). As you may recall, T. Suggs and some other Ravens spoke out about that game and were fined, I believe.

Asked and answered above--please keep up. Here's one of my favorites, right in front of a ref, too: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=+holding+new+orleans+saints+new+england+patriots&facrc=_&imgrc=cduerwcKUsq7tM%253A%3Bundefined%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcdn2.sbnation.com%252Fassets%252F3384441%252FSaintsPatriotsHolding.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.chatsports.com%252Fnew-orleans-saints%252Fa%252FSaints-vs-Patriots-2013-Referees-Missed-Holding-Call-on-Final-Tom-Brady-Play-2-8629614%3B450%3B298 How does that not get seen and flagged--ask yourself that.

While not broken down by situation, someone above researched number of PI's called (both offensive (against) and defensive) and found the Pats* were in the Top 3 for each for each of the last 3 years, I believe. What are the odds of that happening randomly (the key question in all of this)? I agree with you on the situational nature, too, but the League doesn't track that. It's almost like it's in their play book for third and long--"WR deep out to draw the PI".

They don't--the Pats* organization does, however.

If it was truly random it should even out, right? Name some games that the Pats* have lost on controversial calls or non-calls (controversial outside of Boston). Just off the top of my head I listed above a boatload of games the Pats* have won on iffy calls. Personally, I can only think of one--last year's Carolina game (and even that could have gone either way). Nothing in their history like the AFCCG vs the Colts or the inadvertent whistle game or "just give it to them"--not one close to those. All I know is what my eyes see. You're long on moralizing, short on examples. I gave examples. I've asked Pats* fans that question often over the years and have gotten bupkis for an answer. BTW, it's not just us here in Buffalo that are noticing this. Read the PFT comments sometime on this issue--it's pretty clear there's a growing consensus on this issue among NFL fans. I gave my Saints fan buddy example above and was approached today by a Jets fan's wife today who called me prescient for warning her hubby about the refs before Thursday's game. One of my wife's college roommates is a Browns fan from Canton--she was raving for a week last fall on Facebook about the garbage calls that cost them the Pats* game. The League needs to get out in front of this.

$, plain and simple. Very easy answer. Slightly more complex answer--$ and all it can buy (cachet, prestige, luxury goods, sex). Ask Tim Donaghy or the Serie A refs or any other cheating officials and odds are you'll get the same answer. As for the slightly more difficult question of why other owners might put up with it, first if done correctly it's very difficult to prove. Second, these are smart businessmen by and large, who don't want to damage their own investment, particularly if they're not certain that it's going on--see point one. Question for you, as we've had this discussion numerous times over the years. My worldview model would have predicted that we'd be here discussing this again and again and, well, here we are, twice in eleven days and one not involving the Bills even (like Cleveland and New Orleans last year.). What's your explanation for why the Pats* are accused over and over and over again for getting preferrential treatment from the refs? PS. From our discussion in the spring, I'm sure Demnard's suspension from the League's coming any day now, right?

I know what my eyes see--which is "inconsistent" officiating which seems to favor the Pats* far, far more than it hurts them. Often this is in clear view of an official and yet a bad call or no call gets made that benefits them. I've given my views above as to why this might happen. Can you honestly tell me that there's nothing at all fishy about a team consistently getting game changing calls in their favor (and often late in the game)? Have you watched their games? Why is it that there's really only one team in the League that this comes up about over and over? What are the odds of that happening randomly? This doesn't explain why the Bills might stink, but is a separate matter to that. Winning the occasional game against the Pats* won't turn us into winners. No one here is using this as an excuse for the Bills and their performance, merely stating potential reasons for what we've observed.