 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » I am shocked
vurbil
Agreed.
But back to the topic at hand. After this latest debacle against the Dolphins, I'll have to say the haters can truly celebrate--the Patriots are not a very good football team. Tom Brady has done a 180 from the early 2000's. He used to be the guy that didn't put up the big numbers but always came through in the clutch. Now he's the guy that throws for 341 yards, but then throws 2 interceptions in the 4th quarter to more or less singlehandedly lose the football game. Basically he's turned into Peyton Manning.
December 06, 2009 at 09:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by shep1582
there's a big difference between insulting someone and telling them the truth. you are condescending and you do blow hard, that's the truth, not an insult.
no one likes you because of your attitude on here, but you are so smug you don't realize it.
some people don't like me because I don't drink the kool aid of the "progressive" movement, and because I don't knuckle under to the rants and insults of you and your P.A.L.'s.
you've ruined a good message board with your snide comments and pretentious attitude.
Agreed.
But back to the topic at hand. After this latest debacle against the Dolphins, I'll have to say the haters can truly celebrate--the Patriots are not a very good football team. Tom Brady has done a 180 from the early 2000's. He used to be the guy that didn't put up the big numbers but always came through in the clutch. Now he's the guy that throws for 341 yards, but then throws 2 interceptions in the 4th quarter to more or less singlehandedly lose the football game. Basically he's turned into Peyton Manning.
vurbil
December 06, 2009 at 09:17PM View BBCode
Oh sorry, Tom. You had 351 yards. Don't want to sell you short.
barterer2002
I think I clearly stated that there are haters.
You may believe that people hate the team because that they are successful, most fans tend to dismiss those folks and they go away when the team isn't successful. The difference here is that the Patriot fans have reached a Cowboyesque arrogance about their team which in term lends to a different hatred than just a "jealousy of them being good"
And Dirt and Shep, please knock off your bickering and keep this more on a civil level.
December 06, 2009 at 10:35PM View BBCode
Originally posted by vurbil
I can live with everything you stated except for one thing. You state that there aren't haters, just bad New England fans. But your comment itself indicates a bias. There is clearly a hatred out there that is reserved especially for the Patriots.
Originally posted by barterer2002
You realize of course that this is why there are haters.
I think I clearly stated that there are haters.
You may believe that people hate the team because that they are successful, most fans tend to dismiss those folks and they go away when the team isn't successful. The difference here is that the Patriot fans have reached a Cowboyesque arrogance about their team which in term lends to a different hatred than just a "jealousy of them being good"
And Dirt and Shep, please knock off your bickering and keep this more on a civil level.
Lou.
December 06, 2009 at 11:06PM View BBCode
I never imagined the message board as a place to be civil, but that's just my silliness talking.
tworoosters
Yeah, because Peyton Manning loses so many games, singlehandedly or otherwise.
December 06, 2009 at 11:14PM View BBCode
Originally posted by vurbil
Tom Brady has done a 180 from the early 2000's. He used to be the guy that didn't put up the big numbers but always came through in the clutch.
Now he's the guy that throws for 341 yards, but then throws 2 interceptions in the 4th quarter to more or less singlehandedly lose the football game.
Basically he's turned into Peyton Manning.
Yeah, because Peyton Manning loses so many games, singlehandedly or otherwise.
vurbil
He threw 4 interceptions against the Patriots in the playoffs in 2003, and in 2004 he managed to put 3 points on the board against them in the playoffs.
So yes, I think it is valid to peg Peyton Manning as not a big game or big situation quarterback.
Brady, on the other hand, did not used to put up incredible numbers. If you recall, the Patriots had a great defense and a good running game back then. But what he did invariably do was come through in the clutch.
Although he is throwing for a lot of yards these days, he has had several occasions now where he had the ball in his hands with a chance to win the game and went out with a wimper.
December 07, 2009 at 09:57AM View BBCode
I didn't want to over-explain because I thought everyone would get the reference. In the early 2000s, which I was referencing (and actually every year other than 2006) Peyton Manning has had great years statistically, but then played horrible in big games.He threw 4 interceptions against the Patriots in the playoffs in 2003, and in 2004 he managed to put 3 points on the board against them in the playoffs.
So yes, I think it is valid to peg Peyton Manning as not a big game or big situation quarterback.
Brady, on the other hand, did not used to put up incredible numbers. If you recall, the Patriots had a great defense and a good running game back then. But what he did invariably do was come through in the clutch.
Although he is throwing for a lot of yards these days, he has had several occasions now where he had the ball in his hands with a chance to win the game and went out with a wimper.
Originally posted by tworoosters
Originally posted by vurbil
Tom Brady has done a 180 from the early 2000's. He used to be the guy that didn't put up the big numbers but always came through in the clutch.
Now he's the guy that throws for 341 yards, but then throws 2 interceptions in the 4th quarter to more or less singlehandedly lose the football game.
Basically he's turned into Peyton Manning.
Yeah, because Peyton Manning loses so many games, singlehandedly or otherwise.
barterer2002
December 07, 2009 at 01:21PM View BBCode
Of course the issue you're covering with the QB like the early Peyton and the current Brady is that they had pretty poor defenses and so knew they had to do more to win and so had to force some things that they might not otherwise do if they could trust their defense
dirtdevil
I didn't want to over-explain because I thought everyone would get the reference. In the early 2000s, which I was referencing (and actually every year other than 2006) Peyton Manning has had great years statistically, but then played horrible in big games.
He threw 4 interceptions against the Patriots in the playoffs in 2003, and in 2004 he managed to put 3 points on the board against them in the playoffs.
So yes, I think it is valid to peg Peyton Manning as not a big game or big situation quarterback.[/quote]
what you say is true. but it's probably also fair to point out that most of manning's playoff meltdowns came against some pretty good patriots teams. even in that upset loss against the (eventual super bowl champion) steelers, manning had his team in position for the game-tying field goal at the end if the game. he can't really be responsible for his kicker missing. (although one could certainly make the argument that his offence 'should' have put up more points prior to that)
the truth is, manning's colts have lost out in the playoffs to a remarkable number of teams who went on the win the super bowl. so i don't think it's really fair to use the pat's championship pedigree as proof of both their own success in the clutch and manning's lack of it. the pats won those games because they were, at that point in time, the superior football team. but i don't think anyone could make that statement with a straight face at this particular moment in time.
December 07, 2009 at 02:32PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by vurbil[/i]
I didn't want to over-explain because I thought everyone would get the reference. In the early 2000s, which I was referencing (and actually every year other than 2006) Peyton Manning has had great years statistically, but then played horrible in big games.
He threw 4 interceptions against the Patriots in the playoffs in 2003, and in 2004 he managed to put 3 points on the board against them in the playoffs.
So yes, I think it is valid to peg Peyton Manning as not a big game or big situation quarterback.[/quote]
what you say is true. but it's probably also fair to point out that most of manning's playoff meltdowns came against some pretty good patriots teams. even in that upset loss against the (eventual super bowl champion) steelers, manning had his team in position for the game-tying field goal at the end if the game. he can't really be responsible for his kicker missing. (although one could certainly make the argument that his offence 'should' have put up more points prior to that)
the truth is, manning's colts have lost out in the playoffs to a remarkable number of teams who went on the win the super bowl. so i don't think it's really fair to use the pat's championship pedigree as proof of both their own success in the clutch and manning's lack of it. the pats won those games because they were, at that point in time, the superior football team. but i don't think anyone could make that statement with a straight face at this particular moment in time.
thatrogue
December 07, 2009 at 03:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevilFixed :lol:
...
the pats won those games because they were, at that point in time, the superior football team. but i don't think anyone (except certain Patriots fans, who cannot accept reality) could make that statement with a straight face at this particular moment in time.
vurbil
December 07, 2009 at 04:07PM View BBCode
What Patriots fans are you referring to? I know a lot of Patriots fans, and I know of none that think the Patriots are a superior football team right now. So I think you are making a strawman argument.Originally posted by thatrogue
Originally posted by dirtdevilFixed :lol:
...
the pats won those games because they were, at that point in time, the superior football team. but i don't think anyone (except certain Patriots fans, who cannot accept reality) could make that statement with a straight face at this particular moment in time.
barterer2002
I don't think Pearly is a straw man.
December 07, 2009 at 04:27PM View BBCode
Originally posted by bpearly69
the Colts aren't the better team,
I don't think Pearly is a straw man.
dirtdevil
this guy probably isn't, either.
December 07, 2009 at 06:45PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Originally posted by bpearly69
the Colts aren't the better team,
I don't think Pearly is a straw man.
this guy probably isn't, either.
Originally posted by vurbil
Now, I am a Patriots fan and I do believe the Patriots are a better team than Indianapolis.
bpearly69
I was probably the only one in my town who watched the celtics and bruins before they even got good, and actually got excited watching the young prospects play, it's all fine, but that patriots defense is definitely further away then I thought
December 07, 2009 at 07:33PM View BBCode
It's my opinion, record doesn't show it, but IMO they are better, can call me a homer all you want, as far as Brady being responsible for them losing, not really true, it's the fact that as someone said, they can't trust their defense and have to force everything, defense once again can't stop the pass, and we have the raiders first rounder for next year i believe, but as I've said, if you disagree with my opinion fine but don't try and bash on me, homer fans who only like them when they win don't know crap about the team and just cheer them when they win and are gone when they don't, that's not me, that's what pisses me off about it because I support my team whether they are winning or losing, sports is just fun for me, I do have my favorite teams as everyone does, and obviously I'm gonna believe they are better then they really are at times because that's the team I see all the time, I do agree that right now they are just a good team, I apologize for not saying who it was that pointed this out, but they are the type of team that can compete with a top team and still lay a stinker.I was probably the only one in my town who watched the celtics and bruins before they even got good, and actually got excited watching the young prospects play, it's all fine, but that patriots defense is definitely further away then I thought
tworoosters
December 07, 2009 at 07:59PM View BBCode
0-5 in away games played in North America, might be a bit of a concern.
dirtdevil
i'm a cowboys fan, and have been since i was a kid in the mid-70's. like you i watched them go through some good years and bad ones. which is admirable, i guess, but doesn't give me any real god-given right to overestimate their capabilities. after watching the game yesterday i feel that they looked like the better team for most of it and i think that tony romo went a long way towards proving that he could play effectively in december. but at the end of the day they still lost the game and even at 8-4 i have to say that they're now in very great danger of missing the playoffs, given their remaining schedule. saying that in no way makes me less of a fan, makes me less confident that they could, potentially, pull it off or means that i am not supporting them. but at some point realism does have to enter into the equation, and i don't see that it does, for you and the patriots.
[Edited on 12-7-2009 by dirtdevil]
December 07, 2009 at 08:10PM View BBCode
pearly, no one disputes your right to support, cheer for and believe in your team. but if you truly feel that the 7-5 pats are a superior team to the 12-0 colts at this point in the season with a head-to-head loss already in the books, then i have to say that you've got your head in the sand.i'm a cowboys fan, and have been since i was a kid in the mid-70's. like you i watched them go through some good years and bad ones. which is admirable, i guess, but doesn't give me any real god-given right to overestimate their capabilities. after watching the game yesterday i feel that they looked like the better team for most of it and i think that tony romo went a long way towards proving that he could play effectively in december. but at the end of the day they still lost the game and even at 8-4 i have to say that they're now in very great danger of missing the playoffs, given their remaining schedule. saying that in no way makes me less of a fan, makes me less confident that they could, potentially, pull it off or means that i am not supporting them. but at some point realism does have to enter into the equation, and i don't see that it does, for you and the patriots.
[Edited on 12-7-2009 by dirtdevil]
rollman1
The Pats are not as good as Indy. Could they beat Indy on any given day, sure, are they better - absolutely not. Did I censored and moan that night amongst my friendly pats fans about how they were better, they were robbed on calls, sure...but I have to agree with all these other folks - Indy is the better team right now (really so far this season). Could the Pats figure it out, step it up, and outshine Indy to prove that they are the better team some time later down the road, sure.
December 07, 2009 at 08:20PM View BBCode
I have to jump in here. I am a Patriots fan. Have been for a long time (I still get teary eyed when I think about heading to Foxboro and seeing Scotty Z beat the Jets at home in the freezing cold.The Pats are not as good as Indy. Could they beat Indy on any given day, sure, are they better - absolutely not. Did I censored and moan that night amongst my friendly pats fans about how they were better, they were robbed on calls, sure...but I have to agree with all these other folks - Indy is the better team right now (really so far this season). Could the Pats figure it out, step it up, and outshine Indy to prove that they are the better team some time later down the road, sure.
thatrogue
How quickly they forget...
December 08, 2009 at 12:10AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by barterer2002
Originally posted by bpearly69
the Colts aren't the better team,
I don't think Pearly is a straw man.
this guy probably isn't, either.
Originally posted by vurbil
Now, I am a Patriots fan and I do believe the Patriots are a better team than Indianapolis.
How quickly they forget...
Jon
December 08, 2009 at 03:56AM View BBCode
What the hell happened in this thread? God knows I'm not going to read all those words.
tworoosters
Ok, here we go.
Pat's fan, bpearly, questions why Belichick isn't getting heat on the board for the "go for it on 4th down" versus Colts in week 10.
Several opinions are expressed, a common theme among Pat's fans being that New England are still better than Indianapolis. A common theme among others is "but Indy beat you and no one has beaten Indy".
Pat's continue to lose, Pat's fans continue to contend they are still better than Indy.
In the midst shep jumps on dirtdevil, DD jumps back. Vurbil, a Pat's fan and apparent DD hater jumps in with some brilliant observations about "Pat's haters" including the always classic "Did you even watch the Game ?"
Vurbil then turns on Brady after the loss to Miami and brings up the old standard "but Peyton Manning is a choker" despite the fact that Manning's only really bad playoff game since 2004 was in a win against Baltimore.
pearly reiterates his opinion that New England, even post Miami meltdown, are still a better team than Indianapolis.
I reiterate that New England are 0-5 on the road in games played in North America, a major fact if you aren't going to be a #1, or even likely a #2 seed.
Jughead opines that shep and vurbil are one and the same (not likely, their writing styles aren't very close).
To sum up:
Some Pat's fans still think the Pats are better than Indy, some don't.
All Pat's fans agree that Peyton Manning is a choker and that criticism of the Patriots means you are "a hater". All Pat's fans also agree that Sam Adams is "wicked awesome".
Shep and DirtDevil don't like each other. Vurbil doesn't like DirtDevil, or me either I suspect. Vurbil also doesn't like Tom Brady much these days.
bpearly is a serious Pat's fan.
Logic is not essential to be a fan. This is a good thing unless it gets out of control.
December 08, 2009 at 04:54AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Jon
What the hell happened in this thread? God knows I'm not going to read all those words.
Ok, here we go.
Pat's fan, bpearly, questions why Belichick isn't getting heat on the board for the "go for it on 4th down" versus Colts in week 10.
Several opinions are expressed, a common theme among Pat's fans being that New England are still better than Indianapolis. A common theme among others is "but Indy beat you and no one has beaten Indy".
Pat's continue to lose, Pat's fans continue to contend they are still better than Indy.
In the midst shep jumps on dirtdevil, DD jumps back. Vurbil, a Pat's fan and apparent DD hater jumps in with some brilliant observations about "Pat's haters" including the always classic "Did you even watch the Game ?"
Vurbil then turns on Brady after the loss to Miami and brings up the old standard "but Peyton Manning is a choker" despite the fact that Manning's only really bad playoff game since 2004 was in a win against Baltimore.
pearly reiterates his opinion that New England, even post Miami meltdown, are still a better team than Indianapolis.
I reiterate that New England are 0-5 on the road in games played in North America, a major fact if you aren't going to be a #1, or even likely a #2 seed.
Jughead opines that shep and vurbil are one and the same (not likely, their writing styles aren't very close).
To sum up:
Some Pat's fans still think the Pats are better than Indy, some don't.
All Pat's fans agree that Peyton Manning is a choker and that criticism of the Patriots means you are "a hater". All Pat's fans also agree that Sam Adams is "wicked awesome".
Shep and DirtDevil don't like each other. Vurbil doesn't like DirtDevil, or me either I suspect. Vurbil also doesn't like Tom Brady much these days.
bpearly is a serious Pat's fan.
Logic is not essential to be a fan. This is a good thing unless it gets out of control.
Jon
December 08, 2009 at 07:15AM View BBCode
So, in other words: Pats fans are still ginormous douchebags.
bpearly69
As far as Peyton, only team I really remember him struggling against was New England.
December 08, 2009 at 01:27PM View BBCode
lol, well there u go, that's what puts it out of hand.. when have I once insulted anyone? no one, I am still just debating, it's fun for me and haven't taken anything but Jon, that's not neccassary, seriously.. anyway, I do believe the Pats are in trouble, they do have a soft schedule to finish out, but I still see them losing 2 of those games, I believed they were a great team, they obviously have proven they are just good right now.As far as Peyton, only team I really remember him struggling against was New England.
barterer2002
December 08, 2009 at 01:43PM View BBCode
You're over the top on that one Benne, try to keep the public forums more polite. This isn't the OGL
vurbil
You can't take statements made based on a set of facts that were valid at the time, and then try to apply those statements to a different set of facts that exist now just to try to make people look bad.
December 08, 2009 at 02:12PM View BBCode
Okay, I stand corrected if Pearly still thinks they are better than Indianapolis. I do not. I guess I should only speak for myself. You base your opinion on what you see. Right after the Colts game, I saw a team that had outplayed the Colts for most of a game that was played in Indianapolis. They lost on the road, to an undefeated team, by 1 point in a game that had some bad breaks go against them. So after that I believed they were still an elite team, and if they played Indianapolis 10 times, it might go their way 5 times. However, based on their performance in subsequent games I am forced to re-evaluate the situation. Now it seems more likely that the Patriots played a particularly good game or the Colts played particularly poorly in that game, and that if they played each other 10 times the Colts would probably win the majority of the games.You can't take statements made based on a set of facts that were valid at the time, and then try to apply those statements to a different set of facts that exist now just to try to make people look bad.