# New England Sucks!!!!



## Arnold (Jan 14, 2006)

*HA HA HA HA HA *

everyone that said they would kick Denver's ass can eat those frick'n words now!


----------



## largepkg (Jan 14, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> *HA HA HA HA HA *
> 
> everyone that said they would kick Denver's ass can eat those frick'n words now!




 

Typical talk after they win!


BTW, my money was on Denver so me be happy.


----------



## musclepump (Jan 14, 2006)

Denver has always been my favorite team. I'm glad to see them win. Denver and Seattle both win... I'm so happy!


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 14, 2006)




----------



## musclepump (Jan 14, 2006)

Yep,  no more Dynasty!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

I take full responsibility for the loss, I never made it to Hooters.

I gotta root for Pitt now, they are the Underdogs.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

largepkg said:
			
		

> Typical talk after they win!



maybe, but I thought is was funny that people actually thought they would come to Denver and win, number one we kicked their ass once already this season and number two we are 8-0 at home this year.


----------



## kicka19 (Jan 15, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> maybe, but I thought is was funny that people actually thought they would come to Denver and win, number one we kicked their ass once already this season and number two we are 8-0 at home this year.



you won a game, try 3 SBs in 4 years, then talk, and then youll only be equals, i hope denver plays the brocos and gets beat 40-10 or whatever its been the past few years


----------



## Nate K (Jan 15, 2006)

I am glad that they can not compete with Dallas 90's dynasty now.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

kicka19 said:
			
		

> you won a game, try 3 SBs in 4 years, then talk, and then youll only be equals, i hope denver plays the brocos and gets beat 40-10 or whatever its been the past few years




If Denver played the Broncos wouldn't that be redundant?

They can still compete with Dallas' dynasty, if they were to win it next year I would say that would be better than 3x in 4  years.


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jan 15, 2006)

i give it to denver they suprised me could be good matchup in indy denvers defense is fast well see how it goes


----------



## Flex (Jan 15, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> maybe, but I thought is was funny that people actually thought they would come to Denver and win, number one we kicked their ass once already this season and number two we are 8-0 at home this year.



The Patriots were MORE than capable of going into Denver and kicking the shit outta the halfass Broncos.
Ya, you beat us w/o Seymour, Bruschi, Dillon, Faulk. Take away Al Wilson, Mike Anderson, Tatum Bell and John Lynch and see how good the Broncos are.

I'll be the first person to say you can't say "coulda shoulda woulda" in sports, but last night was fuckin bullshit.
Brady's INT to the house ended it, but if it weren't for the worst fucking penalty flag thrown in NFL history to put Denver at the 1 yard line, the Broncos wouldn't have scored that first touchdown, and maybe not an offensive TD all game. They couldn't move the ball AT ALL. 

Oh well. New England can't win every game. Just the fact that they did so unbelievable well over the last 4 years makes me happy for them. I got so used to winning, that it seemed second nature. And to do so in today's day and age, it was unreal. A team won't win like that for a long time.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

Flex said:
			
		

> but if it weren't for the worst fucking penalty flag thrown in NFL history to put Denver at the 1 yard line, the Broncos wouldn't have scored that first touchdown, and maybe not an offensive TD all game.




I think the 3 fumbles also may have had something to do with it.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

Flex said:
			
		

> The Patriots were MORE than capable of going into Denver and kicking the shit outta the halfass Broncos.
> Ya, you beat us w/o Seymour, Bruschi, Dillon, Faulk. Take away Al Wilson, Mike Anderson, Tatum Bell and John Lynch and see how good the Broncos are.
> 
> I'll be the first person to say you can't say "coulda shoulda woulda" in sports, but last night was fuckin bullshit.
> ...


----------



## Triple Threat (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I think the 3 fumbles also may have had something to do with it.



Agreed. Plus the Bailey interception really turned the game around.  The pass interference in the end zone was really the only "break" that Denver got.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 15, 2006)

I could go on a rant forever here but like i said before, i wont come up with excuses. Instead, i'll list the points

-Kevin Faulk's fumble on 2nd and short with a 3-0 lead totally ruined the momentum
-Worst pass interference called ever led to denver TD
-Ellis hobbs fumbled on kick return led to denver FG
-Brady's interception in the red zone lost the game for us

After all that happened, we still had a chance when we pulled within 2 scores after givens TD to make it 24-13. Also, vinatieri missed a field goal and could have been 24-16. After 3 and out for denver, they punted and ...

-Troy Brown fumbled on punt return

ditto. 

One of the worst performances i have ever seen from the patriots. Denver was not that good. They have a good defense but the offense couldnt do shit. All 27 points were scored off turnovers. The pats would have easily blown them out if they hadnt turned over the ball at all.

Denver earned the win so i cant get too dissappointed. The pats had a good run the last 4 years and i dont think any team will ever match what they accomplished again. 

If the colts win today, they will easily destroy denver. No doubt.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> I could go on a rant forever here but like i said before, i wont come up with excuses. Instead, i'll list the points
> 
> -Kevin Faulk's fumble on 2nd and short with a 3-0 lead totally ruined the momentum
> -Worst pass interference called ever led to denver TD
> ...




They deserved to lose.  Very sad that Robert Dimaggio feels the need to make the children of New England cry, I thought more of him, just sad.

BTW, that was a bad call, what happens when the NFL reviews stuff like that, do they not let the official officiate in the layoffs again?


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

lol, it's not like Denver won by only 3 or 7 points, this is just funny reading your responses.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

I think New England did what they needed to do to win, except Fumble 3 times, throw 2 interceptions, and not score enough touchdowns.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> *HA HA HA HA HA *
> 
> everyone that said they would kick Denver's ass can eat those frick'n words now!




Hey Rob, is there room for 2 on that bandwagon?


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I think New England did what they needed to do to win, except Fumble 3 times, throw 2 interceptions, and not score enough touchdowns.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 15, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> -Worst pass interference called ever led to denver TD


 
I would not have called PI on that play but saying it was the worst PI call ever is absurd. They BOTH were pushing and tugging. Like I said, I would not have thrown a flag, but give me a break.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I would not have called PI on that play but saying it was the worst PI call ever is absurd. They BOTH were pushing and tugging. Like I said, I would not have thrown a flag, but give me a break.




When your team loses it can never be their fault, you oughta know that with all the losing you have had to experience in the past.  

Go Steelers.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 15, 2006)

HA!  Where was RD talking all this shit BEFORE the game???


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

I Are Baboon said:
			
		

> HA!  Where was RD talking all this shit BEFORE the game???






			
				Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Hey Rob, is there room for 2 on that bandwagon?



Just needed to be sure this was not buried Rob.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> When your team loses it can never be their fault, you oughta know that with all the losing you have had to experience in the past.
> 
> Go Steelers.


 
Seattle has a 1-game playoff win streak now.

Not impressive, I know, but better than the Patriots.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 15, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> lol, it's not like Denver won by only 3 or 7 points, this is just funny reading your responses.



3 superbowls in the last 4 years
a lot of records set that will probably never be broken
denver won't go anywhere, especially if they play the colts

dont get your hopes up, you still have two games left


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

I Are Baboon said:
			
		

> HA!  Where was RD talking all this shit BEFORE the game???



I thought it would be more fun to let everyone talk their shit and then I could come back here and rub it in their faces!


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 15, 2006)

i guess this is what happens when someone like me lives in foxboro, MA and is just so used to winning. Losing is just unacceptable in my town.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> 3 superbowls in the last 4 years
> a lot of records set that will probably never be broken
> denver won't go anywhere, especially if they play the colts
> 
> dont get your hopes up, you still have two games left



Gee, let's not forget Denver back in in 96 - 98.  I believe we had back to back Superbowl wins, but you're right Denver sucks.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 15, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> 3 superbowls in the last 4 years
> a lot of records set that will probably never be broken
> denver won't go anywhere, especially if they play the colts
> 
> dont get your hopes up, you still have two games left


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I thought it would be more fun to let everyone talk their shit and then I could come back here and rub it in their faces!




Or you didn't think they would win and were too afraid to come out and talk shit with the big boys.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Seattle has a 1-game playoff win streak now.
> 
> Not impressive, I know, but better than the Patriots.



1)They are still undefeated in the playoffs when I watch them at Hooters.
2)I bleed Steeler black.  Wait, Colts just intercepted, I bleed Colt white.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Or you didn't think they would win and were too afraid to come out and talk shit with the big boys.



*I had no doubts*, as I said earlier we beat them once this year and we are 8-0 at home, and 2 of the road games that Denver lost were by 3 points and one of them was in OT. I know close does not count, but we could have been 15-1 this year with the only real loss being our first game to Miami.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

You could have been 16-0 if you didn't lose that game.  Save for 7 games this year, the Pats were undefeated too.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 15, 2006)

What the Patriots fans seem to want to ignore is the fact that the Donkeys were FAVORED in the game. This was not a lucky win. The better team won.

 I still can't beleive how many people picked them in the IM pool.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> You could have been 16-0 if you didn't lose that game.  Save for 7 games this year, the Pats were undefeated too.



my only point was that 2 of our road games were VERY close.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> What the Patriots fans seem to want to ignore is the fact that the Donkeys were FAVORED in the game. This was not a lucky win. The better team won.



thank you.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 15, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I would not have called PI on that play but saying it was the worst PI call ever is absurd. They BOTH were pushing and tugging. Like I said, I would not have thrown a flag, but give me a break.



It wasn't just that, it was the fact that the referees threw the flag like 5 seconds after the play had ended.

Incomplete pass

....... 5 seconds gone by

Oh woops, there goes the yellow flag


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 15, 2006)

Denver was the better team based on the result - a win

The patriots are still clearly the better team overall

But hey, it doesn't end here. Denver still has two games to go. If they lose the AFC Championship or the superbowl, this game clearly means nothing.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> It wasn't just that, it was the fact that the referees threw the flag like 5 seconds after the play had ended.
> 
> Incomplete pass
> 
> ...



lets hang the whole game on one bad call, did you forget what the final score was?


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 15, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> lets hang the whole game on one bad call, did you forget what the final score was?



did you forget there is still two games left? Enjoy your victory while it lasts, they won't go all the way.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> But hey, it doesn't end here. Denver still has two games to go. If they lose the AFC Championship or the superbowl, this game clearly means nothing.



of course it means something, just getting into the playoffs means somethig, and winning the first playoff game means a lot whether they lost the next or not.


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jan 15, 2006)

stop being a bitch shiznit newengland lost


----------



## Jodi (Jan 15, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> *HA HA HA HA HA *
> 
> everyone that said they would kick Denver's ass can eat those frick'n words now!


Wow - saying NE Sucks isn't very good sportsmanship.

Pat's didn't play their best last night but you can hardly say that NE Sucks given their history in the past 4 years.

That PI call was absurd.  Totally   and so obvious that it was bullshit........anyway what's done is done and given the kind of year NE started out with and all the injuries and losing coaches last year......I'm quite proud of what they have accomplished and I've no doubt they will be back next year to WOW the NFL again.  Go Pat's  

Congrats Denver, you won and good luck in the championship.  My guess is you will be up against the Steelers.  Payton and offense are playing pretty bad right now.


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 15, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Wow - saying NE Sucks isn't very good sportsmanship.
> 
> Pat's didn't play their best last night but you can hardly say that NE Sucks given their history in the past 4 years.


I heard the same thing when the Yankees  finally lost to Boston and I understood their joy even though it hurt like the dickens (I was almost in tears)

Get used to people saying that, that's been said about the Yankees even they were winning all those championships. In fact I used to say the same about the Dallas Cowboys even though they were great.


----------



## fufu (Jan 15, 2006)

I would like to state, as a native of New England for almost 9 years, I dislike the Patriots. Go Miami!


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> Denver was the better team based on the result - a win
> 
> The patriots are still clearly the better team overall
> 
> But hey, it doesn't end here. Denver still has two games to go. If they lose the AFC Championship or the superbowl, this game clearly means nothing.



this is the dumbest post ive read in this thread. the patriots clearly the better team overall? sure other than the 5 turnovers and all of the other mistakes they made. the fact they lost to denver twice this season and brady is 1-4 vs denver. oh yeah and bilichek is now 3-8 vs shanahan. they clearly did not play their best game. but even if they had then that doesnt mean they would have won. if both teams bring their A game i feel denver still wins hands down easily.  denver has a more opportunistic secondary and a better run defense.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> if both teams bring their A game i feel denver still wins hands down easily.  denver has a more opportunistic secondary and a better run defense.



I don't know about all that, those 3 fumbles don't happen and the Broncos get blown out at home.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I don't know about all that, those 3 fumbles don't happen and the Broncos get blown out at home.



if Both teams play their A game. the pats dont have their turn overs but denver runs the ball better and controls the clock. no blow-out. i dont think denver played their best game either.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

I agree that they didn't play their game, but I do not agree that they are better.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 15, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Wow - saying NE Sucks isn't very good sportsmanship.
> 
> Pat's didn't play their best last night but you can hardly say that NE Sucks given their history in the past 4 years.
> 
> ...



Jodi, you really take things a bit too literal.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I agree that they didn't play their game, but I do not agree that they are better.


of course they are better. both teams would pretty much shut down each others run game, except for probably a few big plays on denvers part. and while new england will generate more yards from their passing game denvers secondary is more opportunistic and will make those few crucial big plays. and thats how it will go down with both teams playing their A game.  Denver still wins. Denver is still the better team no matter how you look at it. 

New England has been over rated all year long.  they were never really in contention this year.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

Neither was Pitt, but look where they are.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> of course they are better. both teams would pretty much shut down each others run game, except for probably a few big plays on denvers part. and while new england will generate more yards from their passing game denvers secondary is more opportunistic and will make those few crucial big plays. and thats how it will go down with both teams playing their A game.  Denver still wins. Denver is still the better team no matter how you look at it.
> 
> New England has been over rated all year long.  they were never really in contention this year.



new england? overrated? have you forgotten the countless injuries?

This is off topic but the colts are not a playoff team. They do well during the regular season because they get 6 easy wins playing the texans, titans, and jags in their division plus a few other easy teams. They always CHOKE in the playoffs. The kicker was 6 for 6 in field goals at home this season and he misses WIDE RIGHT. CHOKE CHOKE CHOKE!


----------



## topolo (Jan 15, 2006)

I just got done rubbing one out.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

and the pats division of buffalo, miami, and new york is difficult? where they were 5-1 while indy went 6-0.

and yes. regardless of the injuries i think they were over rated as a team this year. i never considered them in contention for the superbowl this year.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> I just got done rubbing one out.



please dont make this a sexual thread john h will want to join


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> and the pats division of buffalo, miami, and new york is difficult? where they were 5-1 while indy went 6-0.
> 
> and yes. regardless of the injuries i think they were over rated as a team this year. i never considered them in contention for the superbowl this year.



They only played their starters for one series in the loss, and the Broncos managed to lose to the Dolphins.


----------



## dougnukem (Jan 15, 2006)

I concur with the title of this thread.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> They only played their starters for one series in the loss, and the Broncos managed to lose to the Dolphins.



but the broncos are still in contention for the superbowl, while the high and mighty pats are making excuses.


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Jan 15, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> maybe, but I thought is was funny that people actually thought they would come to Denver and win, number one we kicked their ass once already this season and number two we are 8-0 at home this year.


 
Yeah, it's "Funny" to have confidence in your home team who is also a World Champion dynasty, who overcame a ridiculous amount of injuries to earn a spot in the playoffs and win the division.

It just shows that you're so used to Denver getting spanked in the Playoffs that when *after* they win *one* game you have to talk all kinds of shit. That's a true football fan right there. 

As someone already brought up, the first win against us was when we were minus major pieces of both our off and def. And DEN only one by one score, so the Pats having a good chance in this one was by no means outrageous.

Last night, the PI call was no doubt BS, but that shit happens and you can't do anything about it (should be reviewable in the Post-Season however). We had too many TO's and Denver outplayed us and deserved to win. 

3 out 4 isn't bad. We had a good run and we'll be back next year.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

Goodfella9783 said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's "Funny" to have confidence in your home team who is also a World Champion dynasty, who overcame a ridiculous amount of injuries to earn a spot in the playoffs and win the division.
> 
> It just shows that you're so used to Denver getting spanked in the Playoffs that when *after* they win *one* game you have to talk all kinds of shit. That's a true football fan right there.
> 
> ...



nope, the dynasty is broken and so begins the fall. just like the cowboys of the 90's.  yes in the first game the win was by a touchdown, but the outcome was never in question as denver jumped to a 28-3 lead early on.  and as stupid as that PI call was it didnt change the outcome of the game.  the outcome was because of the 5 turnovers by the pats.  thats cool you can hold on to your 3 in 4 years. thats an accomplishment no doubt, but for denver fans we will hold onto the fact that we are still in the playoffs while the pats are talking about the past.  

and for the record denvers team of 98 would destroy any of the pats teams that won the superbowl.


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Jan 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> nope, the dynasty is broken and so begins the fall. just like the cowboys of the 90's. yes in the first game the win was by a touchdown, but the outcome was never in question as denver jumped to a 28-3 lead early on. and as stupid as that PI call was it didnt change the outcome of the game. the outcome was because of the 5 turnovers by the pats. thats cool you can hold on to your 3 in 4 years. thats an accomplishment no doubt, but for denver fans we will hold onto the fact that we are still in the playoffs while the pats are talking about the past.
> 
> and for the record denvers team of 98 would destroy any of the pats teams that won the superbowl.


 
Not living in past, as I said 3 out of 4 wasn't bad, it was a good run and we'll be back...

You're right about the turnovers, that was def. what lost us the game. The pi was shitty call but when you commit 5 TO's you can't blame one call.

As for the 98 team shit....isn't that talking about the past?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> and for the record denvers team of 98 would destroy any of the pats teams that won the superbowl.




Nope.  I love how people always say a team from such and such would have destroyed the current champs.  Not gonna happen.  Ironic we are on a fitness board.  The worst athlete in the NFL today is prolly as good as someone who was in the top 10 5+ years ago.  They had a story on this on some channel, I think NFL TV.  Whereas 10 years ago you would get 3 or so months off between seasons, the player of today is lucky to get a month off, and that is if they don't make the playoffs.



			
				bio-chem said:
			
		

> but the broncos are still in contention for the superbowl, while the high and mighty pats are making excuses.



For another 6 days at least.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Nope.  I love how people always say a team from such and such would have destroyed the current champs.  Not gonna happen.  Ironic we are on a fitness board.  The worst athlete in the NFL today is prolly as good as someone who was in the top 10 5+ years ago.  They had a story on this on some channel, I think NFL TV.  Whereas 10 years ago you would get 3 or so months off between seasons, the player of today is lucky to get a month off, and that is if they don't make the playoffs.
> 
> 
> 
> For another 6 days at least.




comparing the 98 broncos to the pats of 2000-2004 isnt that big of a stretch.
denver still has 6 players or so on their roster that were on the 98 team. i really fail to believe players of 5 years ago who were in the pro-bowl wouldnt compare to the worst players of today.  doesnt make sense.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 15, 2006)

And this is their first time coming back to the AFC championship game since then, so there is your answer, they don't compare.

The athlete of today is far superior to the athlete of 8 years ago is my point, I was using dramatic effect.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> And this is their first time coming back to the AFC championship game since then, so there is your answer, they don't compare.
> 
> The athlete of today is far superior to the athlete of 8 years ago is my point, I was using dramatic effect.



and my point is i disagree. rod smith is in the pro-bowl this year like he was 8 years ago, but he was a better athlete then.  age is starting to catch him compared to what he was then, but what can you say when the guy makes another pro-bowl.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 15, 2006)

you guys are really going overboard comparing "dynasty" teams over the years. You can't compare at all. It's not realistic. There are too many variables involved that will not make sense. It's like comparing the current patriots team to the steelers team of the 70's. Players are much better, faster, stronger, and smarter today than it was back then.

I also hated how sportscenter was comparing USC to all of the "great" college teams in the past. The analysts would predict the outcome if they had played based on how good the team was and their offensive/defensive schemes and so forth. It was so stupid. Why talk about something like that if it's obviously never going to happen?

So really, you can't really compare teams now to those of the past because they would actually have to play each other to determine the results. Enough of this compare/contrast talk. 

Like the quote goes

Forget the past, stick to the present, look to the future.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 15, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> you guys are really going overboard comparing "dynasty" teams over the years. You can't compare at all. It's not realistic. There are too many variables involved that will not make sense. It's like comparing the current patriots team to the steelers team of the 70's. Players are much better, faster, stronger, and smarter today than it was back then.
> 
> I also hated how sportscenter was comparing USC to all of the "great" college teams in the past. The analysts would predict the outcome if they had played based on how good the team was and their offensive/defensive schemes and so forth. It was so stupid. Why talk about something like that if it's obviously never going to happen?
> 
> ...



sure the pats to the steelers of the 70's (or today) is no comparison.  but its no stretch to compare '98 to '02


----------



## Flex (Jan 15, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> of course they are better. both teams would pretty much shut down each others run game, except for probably a few big plays on denvers part. and while new england will generate more yards from their passing game denvers secondary is more opportunistic and will make those few crucial big plays. and thats how it will go down with both teams playing their A game. Denver still wins. Denver is still the better team no matter how you look at it.
> 
> New England has been over rated all year long. they were never really in contention this year.




Captain Obvious,

It's blatant you dislike the Pats, no one cares.

I'm glad we all got that straight that you never considered them in contention. Damn you should be on SportsCenter with all that spot on speculation you do. I bet if they both played again, both teams would shut down their run games except for a few big plays on Denver's part. Oh wait, those were your thoughts.


Bottom line:
All you Denver fans, go on and do all the shit talking you want. Wahoo, you won one playoff game! 
IF, AND ONLY IF, Denver wins the SB, does it even matter. 

I'll take 3 out of 4 rings over one playoff victory in the last 8 years ANY day.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 16, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I agree that they didn't play their game, but I do not agree that they are better.


 
Vegas thought the Broncos were better. But what do they know, those big ass casinos were built on winners.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 16, 2006)

Are you Pat fans SERIOUSLY suggesting that the six loss Patriots from a week division were better than the three loss Broncos from one of the strongest divisions? Or are you just bitter over the loss?


----------



## Arnold (Jan 16, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Are you Pat fans SERIOUSLY suggesting that the six loss Patriots from a week division were better than the three loss Broncos from one of the strongest divisions? *Or are you just bitter over the loss?*



I think your last sentence sums it up.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 16, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> nope, the dynasty is broken and so begins the fall. just like the cowboys of the 90's.


I wouldn't count on that.  I think they will be back next year kicking ass.



> yes in the first game the win was by a touchdown, but the outcome was never in question as denver jumped to a 28-3 lead early on.  and as stupid as that PI call was it didnt change the outcome of the game.


You never know on that.  It set the mood for the game.  That stupid PI call led to the bronco's first TD.  Lot's of things could have happened differently but after such a long time no-score on both sides, the first one to make a TD really sets the tone.  So if that PI Call was never made, like it shouldn't have, it could have been a completely different game.



> the outcome was because of the 5 turnovers by the pats.  thats cool you can hold on to your 3 in 4 years. thats an accomplishment no doubt, but for denver fans we will hold onto the fact that we are still in the playoffs while the pats are talking about the past.



Sure the Pat's didn't make it this year but do you really think you have a chance against Pitt's?  Denver didn't play that good Saturday, they just sucked less than the Pat's did.  Now the Steelers played well yesterday so Bronco need to step it up a notch if they think they have a chance.

As mentioned before, I'd take the 3 out of 4 SB's anyday over your single playoff game win especially when that will probably be Denver's only playoff win this year.



> and for the record denvers team of 98 would destroy any of the pats teams that won the superbowl.


  Ah another person looking in the past


----------



## Flex (Jan 16, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Are you Pat fans SERIOUSLY suggesting that the six loss Patriots from a week division were better than the three loss Broncos from one of the strongest divisions? Or are you just bitter over the loss?




The AFC East went 6-10 vs. the AFC West this year. That's not bad at all considering the vast injuries to the East. The Jets were without their starting QB for most of the year, and Miami and Buffalo mine were at times, too.

You can't call out the Patriots having a weak division when the Seahawks divisional competition is St. Louis, San Fran and mighty Arizona. 

If it weren't for such a halfass NFC, Seattle wouldn't be shit.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 16, 2006)

we should all become sports analysts .. we'd make big bucks with valid points


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 16, 2006)

Flex said:
			
		

> The AFC East went 6-10 vs. the AFC West this year. That's not bad at all considering the vast injuries to the East. The Jets were without their starting QB for most of the year, and Miami and Buffalo mine were at times, too.
> 
> You can't call out the Patriots having a weak division when the Seahawks divisional competition is St. Louis, San Fran and mighty Arizona.
> 
> If it weren't for such a halfass NFC, Seattle wouldn't be shit.



True, the NFC does not compare to the AFC whatsoever. Same with baseball. The AL dominates the NL. Why do you think the redsox and white sox won the world series in 4 games? 

East > West


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 16, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Vegas thought the Broncos were better. But what do they know, those big ass casinos were built on winners.



They were favored by 3 at home, hardly what you would expect of a team that was heads and tails better.

The Pats had 6 losses because they played an actual schedule, not every team gets a cake schedule like the Seahawks.  

All I am saying is that if the Pats that played their last 5 games (save for the one where they rested starters) showed up in Denver, it would have been a different story.  I s'pose an argument can be made that good teams come to play when they need to, and I would agree with that, the Pats never showed up and the Broncos capitailzed on that.  If the Pitt team that played in Indy comes into Denver this weekend and the Carolina team from thiss weekend shows up in Seattle, well, I think we all know what will happen.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 16, 2006)

Not that this has to do with NE but I just wanted to say that I was sorta pleased that Manning choked yesterday, I figured he would too.  He's a good regular season QB but he can't make it as a championship QB.  Maybe someday he will get there but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 16, 2006)

Flex said:
			
		

> The AFC East went 6-10 vs. the AFC West this year. That's not bad at all considering the vast injuries to the East. The Jets were without their starting QB for most of the year, and Miami and Buffalo mine were at times, too.
> 
> You can't call out the Patriots having a weak division when the Seahawks divisional competition is St. Louis, San Fran and mighty Arizona.
> 
> If it weren't for such a halfass NFC, Seattle wouldn't be shit.


 
Are we talking about Seattle or Denver/New England?

If you want to talk Seattle, fine, Seattle would be favored against your beloved Patriots.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl05.htm


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 16, 2006)

The Patriots outplayed the Broncos in every aspect of the game and as much as i hate saying it "should've, would've, could've" won that game; however there two penalties that gave the ball to Denver on the one, and then the missed call on the Champ Bailey interception which should have been a touchback.

The Patriots were hosed by the referees in this game, but never should have been in that situation in the first place had they not turned the ball over five times.

Oh well, the "dynasty" does not end because they lost, and it will be continued next season when the defensive backfield and running back positions are upgraded through the draft.


----------



## Flex (Jan 16, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Are we talking about Seattle or Denver/New England?



Both.

You sling shit at N.E., so I'm just responding that neither Denver or Seattle are as good as you think they are. (watch both make the SB haha)

We could honestly go on argueing about this shit forever. Alls I'm gonna say is this....N.E. should've beat Denver, period.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 16, 2006)

I am not slinging shit at NE. I think they are a good football team. Maybe not as good as YOU think they are. I think Denver is better. The gamblers agree me, the power ratings agree with me.

I am not taking one thing away from the Patriots they have dominated in a system that is set up to prevent teams from dominating. As as Seahawks fan, I'd never sling shit at the Patriots. Seattle aint done shit.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 16, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> The Patriots outplayed the Broncos in every aspect of the game and as much as i hate saying it "should've, would've, could've" won that game; however there two penalties that gave the ball to Denver on the one, and then the missed call on the Champ Bailey interception which should have been a touchback.
> 
> The Patriots were hosed by the referees in this game, but never should have been in that situation in the first place had they not turned the ball over five times.



This is absurd, and I am a Pats fan.  How can you have dominated a team in every aspect of the game by dropping 3 balls (Drop, they were hardly forceds fumbles) and throwing 2 picks.  You can't fault the Broncs because they capitalized on dumb shit the Pats did.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 16, 2006)

The Bronco cheerleaders were hot too.

Just sayin'


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 16, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> This is absurd, and I am a Pats fan. How can you have dominated a team in every aspect of the game by dropping 3 balls (Drop, they were hardly forceds fumbles) and throwing 2 picks. You can't fault the Broncs because they capitalized on dumb shit the Pats did.


 
im not faulting the broncos by any means, i just think the patriots outplayed the broncos and the statistics agree.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 16, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> im not faulting the broncos by any means, i just think the patriots outplayed the broncos and the statistics agree.


 
Other than:
The score
turnovers
time of possession
rushing yards
FG made %
third down efficiency
completion percentage

You are absolutely correct!


----------



## Pepper (Jan 16, 2006)

Another way to say it is that the Patriots had more passing yards.  Which is expected from a trailing team.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 16, 2006)

Opps...the Patriots did have more average yards per punt. Sorry.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 16, 2006)

Held them to under 100 yds rushing too, certainly not expected.

Most news reporters are saying the Pats were the better team during the game, I don't see how you can say that, the Broncos obviously had the better game.  Even Woodrow said so, and he picked the Broncs.  I guess I am just a bottom line guy.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 16, 2006)

Look, it ain't about the numbers, who the players are, who the coaches are, what the statistics are, what the line spread from vegas is or any other bullshit.

All that matters is what was accomplished in the last 4 years. The patriots won 3 superbowls and set a lot of new records. Not to mention, tom brady is the youngest quarterback to ever have 3 rings and he will be around for another 5+ years. Saying that the "dynasty" is broken is bullshit. All you haters just accept the fact that new england had a good year despite all the injuries. Take a look at their schedule. Tough? Indeed, especially with half the team having 2nd-3rd stringers when the starters were hurt. 10-6 is not bad. Dont forget they were 14-2 the previous 2 seasons. 

As for pepper, u have no room to talk. Your team hasn't done shit. When seattle wins 3 superbowls in 4 years, come back and talk to me. The fact they play arizona, 49ers, and st louis every year in a weak division whereas the win vs washington was their FIRST PLAYOFF WIN is absolutely pathetic. If carolina keeps up the momentum, they will run all over them.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 16, 2006)

Like i said before, football is football. Anything can happen. An athlete can be really hot one week and really cold the next. Statistics do not mean shit when it comes to a big game. It only determines who is mvp, who is the defensive player of the year, rookie of the year .. so forth.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 16, 2006)

I don't think the dynasty is broken either, especially since they are matched up against the NFC North next year.  But, the only thing that matters is now, and they are not one of the 4 teams in contention.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 16, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> Look, it ain't about the numbers, who the players are, who the coaches are, what the statistics are, what the line spread from vegas is or any other bullshit.
> 
> All that matters is what was accomplished in the last 4 years. The patriots won 3 superbowls and set a lot of new records. Not to mention, tom brady is the youngest quarterback to ever have 3 rings and he will be around for another 5+ years. Saying that the "dynasty" is broken is bullshit. All you haters just accept the fact that new england had a good year despite all the injuries. Take a look at their schedule. Tough? Indeed, especially with half the team having 2nd-3rd stringers when the starters were hurt. 10-6 is not bad. Dont forget they were 14-2 the previous 2 seasons.
> 
> As for pepper, u have no room to talk. Your team hasn't done shit. When seattle wins 3 superbowls in 4 years, come back and talk to me. The fact they play arizona, 49ers, and st louis every year in a weak division whereas the win vs washington was their FIRST PLAYOFF WIN is absolutely pathetic. If carolina keeps up the momentum, they will run all over them.



i thought all that matters is what happened in your last game. which was a denver win and a new england loss

and which ever person on this thread is mad at the officiating (other than the PI call) is retarded.  there was no evidence either way on the champ bailey fumble. you have to go with the ruling on the field. that one was too hard to call.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 16, 2006)

and to all you new england die hards.... 

this is our thread in response to the thread earlier last week about jake plummer shitting himself when he learned he had to play the pats.  it's not like we are new england haters we just like to have fun in response to all the shit that was talked leading up to the game.  so relaxe a little, understand this is all in fun. and understand i was right when i said new england had angered the football Gods by not playing for the win in their last regular season game.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 16, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> and to all you new england die hards....
> 
> this is our thread in response to the thread earlier last week about jake plummer shitting himself when he learned he had to play the pats.  it's not like we are new england haters we just like to have fun in response to all the shit that was talked leading up to the game.  so relaxe a little, understand this is all in fun. and understand i was right when i said new england had angered the football Gods by not playing for the win in their last regular season game.




Do you think Shanahan wouldn't have done the same thing if the last game was meaningless.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 16, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Do you think Shanahan wouldn't have done the same thing if the last game was meaningless.



our last game was meaningless. by the time we played we already had the 2nd seed clinched.


----------



## Egoatdoor (Jan 16, 2006)

I think it shows a lack of class to say the Patriots "suck". It is a class organization with classy players. So they finally lost a playoff game? If they "suck", then 31 other teams in the NFL also "suck".

Show some class and stop being a poor winner.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 16, 2006)

Egoatdoor said:
			
		

> I think it shows a lack of class to say the Patriots "suck". It is a class organization with classy players. So they finally lost a playoff game? If they "suck", then 31 other teams in the NFL also "suck".
> 
> Show some class and stop being a poor winner.



Listen to him. Thread closed.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 16, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> our last game was meaningless. by the time we played we already had the 2nd seed clinched.




They rested 4 of their starters


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 16, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> They rested 4 of their starters




who all had injuries and could use the rest. all 4 pro-bowlers played however.  including the qb who now incedentally is also in the pro-bowl


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 16, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> Listen to him. Thread closed.



dont go away mad..............just go away


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jan 16, 2006)

Yea Thatrs Tru But John Elway Didnt Win Till Early Thirties But He Did Go To Couple Super Bowls I Believe


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 17, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> who all had injuries and could use the rest. all 4 pro-bowlers played however.  including the qb who now incedentally is also in the pro-bowl




All of the people NE sat were on the injury report as well.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 17, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> who all had injuries and could use the rest. all 4 pro-bowlers played however.  including the qb who now incedentally is also in the pro-bowl


Who gives a rats ass about Jake Plummer.  1. he isn't all that great.  2. he is severely overrated and  3.  He's a sex offender and women beater.


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 17, 2006)

Yesterday 08:25 PMshiznit2169Quote:
Originally Posted by *Egoatdoor*
_I think it shows a lack of class to say the Patriots "suck". It is a class organization with classy players. So they finally lost a playoff game? If they "suck", then 31 other teams in the NFL also "suck".

Show some class and stop being a poor winner._


Listen to him. Thread closed. 


I really don't know whats the big deal, it was a harmless jab.
I hear that all the time about my teams and I don't get all worked up about it, I mean you hear worst things at a game. 

I would probably be in jail for all the times I hear the Mets, Jets or Knicks suck. I heard the Yankees suck all the time from everyone (No one likes them) especially from Boston. Do I get mad....no. We won so many WS it doesn't matter what people say.
The Patriots are a great team and your going to have to expect people saying that. It's no big deal.

Is this a common thing in New England to be so sensative about their sports?

If so ......the Red sox Sucks, the Patriots suck.....who else


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 17, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> He's a sex offender and women beater.




Surely you jest.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 17, 2006)

Don't you guys know me better than this by now.  I wouldn't post something like that out of fun.

Jake Plummer was charged 9 years ago for 4 counts of sexual abuse.  Also, he kicked 2 women in a bar and then paid them each 300K to keep their mouths shut.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 17, 2006)

Not knowing the particulars of the story, i can't comment, but I would let Jake Plummer kick me in the nuts for $300k.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 17, 2006)

Like hell if I would.  He would lose his package and I'd feed it to one of my dogs.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 17, 2006)

You would never be able to catch Jake the Snake...Never.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 17, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Jake Plummer was charged 9 years ago for 4 counts of sexual abuse.  Also, he kicked 2 women in a bar and then paid them each 300K to keep their mouths shut.



as long as he keeps performing the way he has this year I don't care. 

Arizona football fans are just pissed because Jake turned out to be a great quarterback once he got on a good team with good coaches!


----------



## Jodi (Jan 17, 2006)

I still don't think he's really that good.  

I don't like the Cardinals- I just like living here.  I like getting cheap football tickets though   Coaches here are awful.

I'm a true diehard NE fan.  Always have been and always will be.  Same goes for the Red Sox and other sport teams in NE (except I don't watch hockey or basketball).


----------



## tucker01 (Jan 17, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> (except I don't want hockey).


 

Booo


----------



## Arnold (Jan 17, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> I still don't think he's really that good.



he is good, but not great like a John Elway or Joe Montana.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 17, 2006)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Booo


  I use to follow the Bruins but I got bored with it


----------



## Jodi (Jan 17, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> he is good, but not great like a John Elway or Joe Montana.


Or Tom Brady 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6878104/


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 17, 2006)

For the record, NFL VP of Officiating Mike Pereira said that the Champ Bailey fumble should have been a touchback, and made a comment on WFAN radio in New York that in a 10-6 game, and the Patriots with the ball on the 20, that that play should have gone down in history as one of the greatest plays in history.


----------



## Triple Threat (Jan 17, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> For the record, NFL VP of Officiating Mike Pereira said that the Champ Bailey fumble should have been a touchback, and made a comment on WFAN radio in New York that in a 10-6 game, and the Patriots with the ball on the 20, that that play should have gone down in history as one of the greatest plays in history.



Was that also announced officially?  I've only seen the Polamalu non-interception announcement.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 17, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> For the record, NFL VP of Officiating Mike Pereira said that the Champ Bailey fumble should have been a touchback, and made a comment on WFAN radio in New York that in a 10-6 game, and the Patriots with the ball on the 20, that that play should have gone down in history as one of the greatest plays in history.




I don't know that you can blame that on the refs can you?  I mean, it was a bad call, but there was no replay view that was conclusive.  Plus, there was no way there was a ref on that goal line to see it.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 17, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> For the record, NFL VP of Officiating Mike Pereira said that the Champ Bailey fumble should have been a touchback, and made a comment on WFAN radio in New York that in a 10-6 game, and the Patriots with the ball on the 20, that that play should have gone down in history as one of the greatest plays in history.


 
Link or STFU.

The coaches is not crying about it, so give it up:


> There were certainly some very questionable decisions in that game that I'm surprised that was a playoff crew," Belichick said a day after the 27-13 defeat. "But that didn't decide the outcome of the game. I think it would've been a lot worse if it had come down to one play and that play had been a questionable call or something like that. That really wasn't the case."


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 17, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> For the record, NFL VP of Officiating Mike Pereira said that the Champ Bailey fumble should have been a touchback, and made a comment on WFAN radio in New York that in a 10-6 game, and the Patriots with the ball on the 20, that that play should have gone down in history as one of the greatest plays in history.


Do you also get the WFAN in your location?
Mike and The Mad dog are great.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 17, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I don't know that you can blame that on the refs can you? I mean, it was a bad call, but there was no replay view that was conclusive. Plus, there was no way there was a ref on that goal line to see it.



I rarely, if ever, blame losses on referees.  thats not what i'm doing here.  i've already stated that the five turnovers were more the reason the game ended than any bad call in this game, and there were many.

with that being said, it was a horrible call, worse than the polamalu call for one reason.  while the polamalu play is a judgement call on the opinion of that one official, there should be no judgement on this play, considering that if he was pushed out of bounds on the six inch line as stated by the referee, the laws of physics prove that "something in motion, will stay in motion, until a greater force acts upon it."  with that very simple knowledge, if baily "went out on the six inch line" the ball had to have gone forward a greater distance than six inches, and therefore should have been ruled a touchback.

keep in mind this is the opinion of Mike Pereira himself.

again though, this is not why the patriots lost the game, they'd still have been down even though that denver touchdown never should have been scored in the first place.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 17, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Link or STFU.
> 
> The coaches is not crying about it, so give it up:



you cannot be serious.  do you really think a class act like bill belichick is going to say anything more than he said?  if you do, your an absolute buffoon.

there is no link that i've found, but here is a direct quote from him:
"If I had to guess, it's in the end zone for a touchback," Pereira told WFAN in New York. The Patriots were trailing 10-6 at the time. If they got the ball back at the 20 and went on to win, Watson's play may have gone down as one of the all time NFL moments

it's amazing how one-sided the officiating has been in these playoffs, i just hope carolina is given a chance this weekend so that the actual best team in the NFC will be represtenting that league, not to mention shutting you up for a change.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 17, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Do you also get the WFAN in your location?
> Mike and The Mad dog are great.



it's funny, i get WBZ 1030 out of Boston here in the midwest perfectly, but can only get WFAN very scratchy.

i believe they both have the same wattage, and boston is obviously farther east than new york.

oh well...


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 17, 2006)

pepper, u sure talk a lot of shit for a team that has never really won anything


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't think he is talking shit, they lost, and they deserved to lose.  No ref's call could change that.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 17, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> pepper, u sure talk a lot of shit for a team that has never really won anything


 
Show me one post where I was talking shit?

Just said the Broncos are the better team. If you think that is talking shit, you have a problem.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 17, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> you cannot be serious. do you really think a class act like bill belichick is going to say anything more than he said? if you do, your an absolute buffoon.
> 
> there is no link that i've found, but here is a direct quote from him:
> "If I had to guess, it's in the end zone for a touchback," Pereira told WFAN in New York. The Patriots were trailing 10-6 at the time. If they got the ball back at the 20 and went on to win, Watson's play may have gone down as one of the all time NFL moments
> ...


 
Interesting how no single media outlet has run this. This after non-stop commenting on the Pitt/Indy call.

Watson's play was awesome. He blew Champ up.

Why the fuck are you getting so worked up? I think the call was not the reason the Pats lost and I am buffoon?


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 17, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Interesting how no single media outlet has run this. This after non-stop commenting on the Pitt/Indy call.
> 
> Watson's play was awesome. He blew Champ up.
> 
> Why the fuck are you getting so worked up? I think the call was not the reason the Pats lost and I am buffoon?


 
it really is interesting, i'm sure the quote that i heard was just something some reporter asked him after he made it abundantly clear the pitt/indy incident was in fact a mistake.

Yea, I love the kid, i think he's someone who has Antonio Gates-like potential for some reason... its funny because on draft day i was blowing up after the Pats passed up on Ben Troupe...

i'm not getting worked up, i just happen to believe the better team did not win the game, and thats where were going to have to agree to disagree.  also, i want to make it clear i didnt call you a buffoon, but if you expected a man of belichicks stature or any coach with class to come out and blame the loss on the referees, thats just insanity.  we're not talking about usc's pistol pete here, ha...


----------



## Flex (Jan 17, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Most news reporters are saying the Pats were the better team during the game, I don't see how you can say that, the Broncos obviously had the better game.



That's because the Pats WERE the better team *in* the game, but the Broncos played the better game. It's analogous to Indy being the "better team" (I think everyone in America would agree), yet Pitt happened to play better and beat them this certain week.  

This is where "Any given Sunday" comes into play.


----------



## Flex (Jan 17, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I would let Jake Plummer kick me in the nuts for $300k.



I did.


now I'm RICH BEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTCH


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 17, 2006)

Flex said:
			
		

> Dale Mabry said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 17, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> Flex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jodi (Jan 17, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> Indy might be the better team in the regular season, but please tell me none of you took Peyton Manning to win a big game...


Not me - I knew he would choke 

Peyton doesn't have what it takes to be a championship QB yet.


----------



## Flex (Jan 17, 2006)

You 3 are funny.

Trust me when I say this, by NO MEANS WHATSOEVER do i like the Colts, nor do i like Peyton Manning. In fact, I was thrilled to see Pitt beat Indy when they were major dogs.

But to say "Payton can't win a big game" and "he doesn't have what it takes to win a championship" is such bullshit.

Granted he has the most to work with (awesome recieving corps, top 4 RB, great OLine), but football is a TEAM GAME in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THE WORD. As much of a factor as a QB is, they can only do so much. Peyton doesn't line up to rush the opposing QB. Peyton doesn't kick game winning (or losing) field goals. Peyton plays Quarterback, and the guy is the best QB in the game, hands down. 
Keep in mind, this is coming from a DIEHARD, Bleed Silver/Blue/Red Patriots fan, one who thinks Brady is a descendant of Jesus. 

Does Brady have 3 rings, sure. But Brady was on a team who made big plays when they mattered.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again...Any Given Sunday. Colts just so happened to not make plays this week, just as our Pats did, and they both lost.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 17, 2006)

Yeah I agree Flex - I think Manning 's a great QB but his history proves repeatedly that Colts always choke in the playoffs.  It is all about the team but he doesn't ever seem to be a team player.  He blamed everyone but himself for Sunday's performance.  That's not a Team.  Pat's are a TEAM and I prefer the Pat's to be there instead of the Steelers or Bronco's but out of our remaining choices, I'm happy it's the Steelers. and they really deserve where they are.

BTW - Brady is a descendant of Jesus - I heard this for a fact


----------



## Egoatdoor (Jan 17, 2006)

Flex said:
			
		

> But to say "Payton can't win a big game" and "he doesn't have what it takes to win a championship" is such bullshit.
> 
> Granted he has the most to work with (awesome recieving corps, top 4 RB, great OLine), but football is a TEAM GAME in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THE WORD. As much of a factor as a QB is, they can only do so much. Peyton doesn't line up to rush the opposing QB. Peyton doesn't kick game winning (or losing) field goals. Peyton plays Quarterback, and the guy is the best QB in the game, hands down.



I wouldn't agree with this. Peyton has had several games( 3 against the Pats and now last week) in the playoffs where he looked like a deer in the headlights. I would definitely put him in the "can't win a big game" category until he proves me wrong and he hasn't yet.

And it seems like you have a lethal combination in Indy with a quarterback who can't win a big game and a COACH who can't win a big game. How many playoff games has Tony Dungy lost as a favorite in Tampa and now in Indy? I put him in the Marty Schottenheimer club. Can lead a team to the brink of the promised land, but never knocks the door down.

Also, I would take Tom Brady as my quarterback any day over Peyton Manning. Big stats don't make one the best QB in the game. Brady has the stats, the big game wins and the RINGS!


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 17, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> All of the people NE sat were on the injury report as well.



denvers starters finished the game


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 17, 2006)

peyton proved that this lose was not on his shoulders. his acuracy and touch on his passes was great throughout the game and his leadership and decision making was excellent (the fourth down play where he waved off the punt team)  the team lost the game.  

truthfully i think pitt just went out and took it. they proved they were better coached, better prepared and just went out and played a hell of a game against a very good indy team


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 18, 2006)

i don't really understand why its bullshit considering he has never been able to step up in a big game ever and therefore hasn't been able to win a championship.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 18, 2006)

alright, it may be a little harsh to say that peyton chokes in big games

How about we just say the "Indianapolis Colts" chokes in big games. The whole team and coaching staff.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 18, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> alright, it may be a little harsh to say that peyton chokes in big games
> 
> How about we just say the "Indianapolis Colts" chokes in big games. The whole team and coaching staff.




first time we have agreed on this thread


----------



## Flex (Jan 18, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> i don't really understand why its bullshit considering he has never been able to step up in a big game ever and therefore hasn't been able to win a championship.



Well, again, he doesn't kick FG's, sack opposing QB's, pick off passing attempts or take handoffs from the QB b/c he is the QB, and when he is the QB, he does a pretty damn good job.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 18, 2006)

while i agree that he doesn't do all those things, the colts as a team played well enough to win, peyton manning did not.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 18, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> while i agree that he doesn't do all those things, the colts as a team played well enough to win, peyton manning did not.




what could he have done better?

 new england sucks!


----------



## god hand (Jan 18, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> Denver was the better team based on the result - a win
> 
> The patriots are still clearly the better team overall
> 
> But hey, it doesn't end here. Denver still has two games to go. If they lose the AFC Championship or the superbowl, this game clearly means nothing.


Your an idiot. The NFL has been lackluster for the last 5 years. You probably think Brady is better than Montana and that the patriots 3 out of 4 is better than the Cowboys that won 3 out of 4


----------



## god hand (Jan 18, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Ah another person looking in the past


Denver would of killed any of those Patriot teams.


----------



## god hand (Jan 18, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> They were favored by 3 at home, hardly what you would expect of a team that was heads and tails better.
> 
> The Pats had 6 losses because they played an actual schedule, not every team gets a cake schedule like the Seahawks.


Jets, Miami, and the Bills?


----------



## soxmuscle (Jan 18, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> Your an idiot. The NFL has been lackluster for the last 5 years. You probably think Brady is better than Montana and that the patriots 3 out of 4 is better than the Cowboys that won 3 out of 4


 
in the last five years the nfl has come out with its own network, branched over to playing a game in japan, and besides monday night football has had overall better ratings than the five years prior.

brady is up there with montana, probably not better yet, but he's also got 8-10 years left in his career and even if his career ended tommorow, he'd go down as one of the greatest quarterbacks ever.

and yes, patriots>cowboys


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 18, 2006)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> in the last five years the nfl has come out with its own network, branched over to playing a game in japan, and besides monday night football has had overall better ratings than the five years prior.
> 
> brady is up there with montana, probably not better yet, but he's also got 8-10 years left in his career and even if his career ended tommorow, he'd go down as one of the greatest quarterbacks ever.
> 
> and yes, patriots>cowboys


you have to be retarted to really think the patriots are better than the cowboys of the 90's


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 18, 2006)

Flex said:
			
		

> As much of a factor as a QB is, they can only do so much. Peyton doesn't line up to rush the opposing QB.




The kicker and Linebackers didn't go like 3 for 15 in the first half.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 18, 2006)

The Steelers of the 70's are better than both, and this is coming from a guy who  believes that the worst athlete of the 2000's, is better than some of the elite from the 90's.


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 18, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> The Steelers of the 70's are better than both,


----------



## SuperFlex (Jan 18, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> *HA HA HA HA HA *
> 
> everyone that said they would kick Denver's ass can eat those frick'n words now!


 
         ...


----------



## Flex (Jan 18, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> The kicker and Linebackers didn't go like 3 for 15 in the first half.




Payton also didn't drop all 8 of the miscued passes either.


----------



## Flex (Jan 18, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> Your an idiot. The NFL has been lackluster for the last 5 years.




No, you're the idiot. 
There has been SO much parity over the last 5 years it's not even funny.

Baltimore won a SB. TB won a SB. Now Bmore is awful. And both didn't even make the playoffs. St. Louis went to shit. Green Bay went to shit.
Phili has been awesome EVERY year with the exception of this year. Indy was awesome EVERY year. Pitt was always up there. Carolina's consistent. Look at this year.......Cinci was awesome. Seattle was awesome. NYG were awesome. Chicago was awesome. With the exception of Seattle all those teams came out of nowhere. 


That's why what NE did with so much consistency is incredible. We got so used to them winning that we took for granted the sheer greatness of their accomplishments.

Nevermind 3 of 4 SBs, how bout them winning 23 games in a row, and like 25 of 27


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 18, 2006)

He was off like the rest of them in the entire 1st half.


----------



## Egoatdoor (Jan 18, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> peyton proved that this lose was not on his shoulders. his acuracy and touch on his passes was great throughout the game


???? He was losing 21-3 and he was doing great??????????


----------



## Egoatdoor (Jan 18, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> what could he have done better?


He could have brought his team out of the box and drove them down the field early for a touchdown or two. Instead, he did nothing, the  Steelers scored early, took the crowd out of the game and forced the Colts to play catch up for the last three quarters.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 18, 2006)

that loss is not on payton's shoulders.  IMO


----------



## god hand (Jan 18, 2006)

Flex said:
			
		

> No, you're the idiot.
> There has been SO much parity over the last 5 years it's not even funny.
> 
> Baltimore won a SB. TB won a SB. Now Bmore is awful. And both didn't even make the playoffs. St. Louis went to shit. Green Bay went to shit.
> Phili has been awesome EVERY year with the exception of this year. Indy was awesome EVERY year. Pitt was always up there.


Idiot by lackluster I meant there havent been any good teams in the league. Just look at the NFC for crying out loud!


----------



## Jodi (Jan 20, 2006)

NFL Newsletter

Post Season League Leaders 
DeShaun Foster 	Rushing 	Yds
1. D. Foster CAR 	205
2. J. Bettis PIT 	98
*3. C. Dillon NE 	97*
4. W. Parker PIT 	97
5. N. Goings CAR 	97


Tom Brady 	Passing 	Yds
*1. T. Brady NE 	542*
2. J. Delhomme CAR 	459
3. B. Roethlisberger PIT 	405
4. P. Manning IND 	290
5. M. Brunell WAS 	283

Steve Smith 	Receiving 	Yds
1. S. Smith CAR 	302
*2. D. Branch NE 	189*
3. D. Jackson SEA 	143
4. S. Moss WAS 	121
5. C. Wilson PIT 	104


Willie McGinest 	Sacks 	No.
*1. W. McGinest NE 	4.5*
2. J. Farrior PIT 	2.5
3. M. Strahan NYG 	2
4. J. Porter PIT 	2
5. J. Carstens CAR 	2

That's all I have to say about that.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 20, 2006)

Stats are irrelevant when you lose.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 20, 2006)

Yes, I understand..........however, I'm just showing that we still have the greatest players.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 20, 2006)

the greatest players sitting at home watching sports center and thinking about next year. the greatest teams are getting ready to play


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 20, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Yes, I understand..........however, I'm just showing that we still have the greatest players.




Honestly, with their schedule next year, the current team they have will get 12 wins.  I foresee with Matt Light and Rodney Harrison back you could tack on a couple more.  They will have what Indy had this year, a JV schedule which should seem them very healthy throughout.


----------



## Flex (Jan 20, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> Idiot by lackluster I meant there havent been any good teams in the league. Just look at the NFC for crying out loud!




Sure, the NFC sucks.

But considering Indy nearly went undefeated (and could have had they played their starters fully), and condsidering there were so many teams that barely missed out on a playoff spot due to another team winning or losing, I'd say there are many good teams.


----------



## Flex (Jan 20, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> Idiot by lackluster I meant there havent been any good teams in the league. Just look at the NFC for crying out loud!




And next time you're going to use the word lackluster to describe the NFC of this year, please refer to that instead of generalizing to the last 5 years of the entire NFL so we know what you're talking about, Idiot.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 20, 2006)

Flex said:
			
		

> Sure, the NFC sucks.
> 
> But considering Indy nearly went undefeated (and could have had they played their starters fully), and condsidering there were so many teams that barely missed out on a playoff spot due to another team winning or losing, I'd say there are many good teams.




He's from Dallas, you won't convince him.  Compare NFL Combine numbers from 94 to now, I believe the 225 bench test record has been beat by like 8 or 9 reps.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 20, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> the greatest players sitting at home watching sports center and thinking about next year. the greatest teams are getting ready to play


Diarrhea of the Mouth  

We'll see when Pitt's smothers the Bronco's this weekend.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 20, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> the greatest players sitting at home watching sports center and thinking about next year. the greatest teams are getting ready to play



sitting at home watching sportscenter with 3 rings. The teams that are still in the playoffs are not the "greatest" teams, they're good but not "great".


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 20, 2006)

THE RED SOX Sucks!!


----------



## min0 lee (Jan 20, 2006)

OOPS....wrong thread ...


----------



## Triple Threat (Jan 20, 2006)

Don't worry, min0.   That's appropriate for any thread.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 21, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Honestly, with their schedule next year, the current team they have will get 12 wins. I foresee with Matt Light and Rodney Harrison back you could tack on a couple more. They will have what Indy had this year, a JV schedule which should seem them very healthy throughout.


 
Any schedule in the AFC is a "JV" schedule.:wink:


----------



## Pepper (Jan 21, 2006)

I think the "weakness" of the NFC is probably the most overstated thing I have seen on IM in a while.

just sayin'


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 21, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I think the "weakness" of the NFC is probably the most overstated thing I have seen on IM in a while.
> 
> just sayin'




Have you been watching the NFL the last 5 years?  Do you not remember the 8-8 record being playoff caliber for 2 teams last year?


And the most overstated things on IM are True Story, Banned, and owned.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jan 21, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I think the "weakness" of the NFC is probably the most overstated thing I have seen on IM in a while.
> 
> just sayin'



If you look at the nfl power rankings on espn, there are always at least 6-8 AFC teams in the top 10.


----------

