Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!dpb
From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: Patriots
Message-ID: <550@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Jan-86 13:53:50 EST
Article-I.D.: philabs.550
Posted: Wed Jan 15 13:53:50 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Jan-86 04:20:26 EST
References: <468@tekchips.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 59

> 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?