EITHER THE BEST OR THE WORST

[quote="OUSOONERSOU"]

GDPofDRC wrote:

Team wise, I think the Pats have been more solid most years also, and the coaching. Those are close though too.

Bill>Dungy,Sean Peyton


You know the cheating videos also help....they don't beat the Rams without it.[/quote]

How's that? You do realize the infraction was simply the LOCATION of the camera right? Not the filming itself?

WinstonSmith wrote:

On the supposed taping issue,the NFL ruled,"NO COMPETITIVE EDGE GAINED."
You need to do better than that.

LOL yea because that is much easier then saying the team that lost in the Super Bowl is now the Champions, collect the rings...no, no, no it was cheating. They only won by 3 points, I'll use common sense and say it very well could have been the deciding factor.

[quote="marbleheadmaui"]

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

Team wise, I think the Pats have been more solid most years also, and the coaching. Those are close though too.

Bill>Dungy,Sean Peyton


You know the cheating videos also help....they don't beat the Rams without it.[/quote]

How's that? You do realize the infraction was simply the LOCATION of the camera right? Not the filming itself?

Yeah the angles just helped pickup signals...no big deal. It's not like it was a razor close game or anything...

[quote="OUSOONERSOU"]

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

Team wise, I think the Pats have been more solid most years also, and the coaching. Those are close though too.

Bill>Dungy,Sean Peyton


You know the cheating videos also help....they don't beat the Rams without it.[/quote]

How's that? You do realize the infraction was simply the LOCATION of the camera right? Not the filming itself?

Yeah the angles just helped pickup signals...no big deal. It's not like it was a razor close game or anything...

You STILL don't get it huh? NOBODY claims the films were used on the same day. The claim is they were used for FUTURE games. The entire issue has NOTHING to do with taping signals or "angles." It has to do with whether or not the was taping from under a roofed structure.

It was obviously wrong. But 17 wins in a row post the publicity kind of put to rest the competitive edge thing.

WinstonSmith wrote:

On the supposed taping issue,the NFL ruled,"NO COMPETITIVE EDGE GAINED."
You need to do better than that.

then why did NFL destroy all evidence

cover up ?

Birdofthad wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

On the supposed taping issue,the NFL ruled,"NO COMPETITIVE EDGE GAINED."
You need to do better than that.

then why did NFL destroy all evidence

cover up ?

More likely so that morons like us would have no reason to keep talking about it. The debate itself hurt the league's credibility.

It's all relative. Most people refuse to take into account the team and coaching around the QB (QB can't help what happens on defense, right?). Hypothetically swap players from team to team and see how they fare from an objective point of view. Does Manning win three rings with the Pats? Does Brady carry the Colts to more than one? One thing is for sure... The QB gets too much credit for team success and too much blame for team failure. This is why I unlike most others don't lean heavily on rings when talking all time greatness. Terry Bradshaw was a barely above average QB while Dan Fouts and Fran Tarkenton were amazing. Manning and Brady are both great... But being an old man and witnessing football that most of you haven't... I'm not sure I have ever seen a smarter and more talented QB than Manning... Montana included. But should I criticize him for his defense allowing an average of 27 points a game in their playoff losses? Should I criticize him for his coaching staff's inability to gameplan (Offensively and defensively) for the team they faced on those weekends and being outcoached and outplayed on both sides of the ball? Should I criticize him for not being able to overcome those things and expect him to put up 30+ every playoff game? Obviously he shoulders some of the blame for those failures, but like I said earlier... QB's get way too much blame, and credit.

Manning chokes in the playoffs too much for my taste

Montana is the best ever

[quote="marbleheadmaui"]

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

Team wise, I think the Pats have been more solid most years also, and the coaching. Those are close though too.

Bill>Dungy,Sean Peyton


You know the cheating videos also help....they don't beat the Rams without it.[/quote]

How's that? You do realize the infraction was simply the LOCATION of the camera right? Not the filming itself?

Yeah the angles just helped pickup signals...no big deal. It's not like it was a razor close game or anything...

You STILL don't get it huh? NOBODY claims the films were used on the same day. The claim is they were used for FUTURE games. The entire issue has NOTHING to do with taping signals or "angles." It has to do with whether or not the was taping from under a roofed structure.

It was obviously wrong. But 17 wins in a row post the publicity kind of put to rest the competitive edge thing.

So I'm just suppose to assume they are telling the truth? They did get busted with more tapes from other games. It wasn't a 1 time thing, it was cheating. It is a fair assumption that it could have made the difference in a game decided by a last min FG. I don't know if you are a Pats fan or just believe everything the NFL said, like they really had any other option. What could they really do? They are not going to rip away wins and re-write history when nothing is concrete, doesn't mean it wasn't a factor.

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

It's all relative. Most people refuse to take into account the team and coaching around the QB (QB can't help what happens on defense, right?). Hypothetically swap players from team to team and see how they fare from an objective point of view. Does Manning win three rings with the Pats? Does Brady carry the Colts to more than one? One thing is for sure... The QB gets too much credit for team success and too much blame for team failure. This is why I unlike most others don't lean heavily on rings when talking all time greatness. Terry Bradshaw was a barely above average QB while Dan Fouts and Fran Tarkenton were amazing. Manning and Brady are both great... But being an old man and witnessing football that most of you haven't... I'm not sure I have ever seen a smarter and more talented QB than Manning... Montana included. But should I criticize him for his defense allowing an average of 27 points a game in their playoff losses? Should I criticize him for his coaching staff's inability to gameplan (Offensively and defensively) for the team they faced on those weekends and being outcoached and outplayed on both sides of the ball? Should I criticize him for not being able to overcome those things and expect him to put up 30+ every playoff game? Obviously he shoulders some of the blame for those failures, but like I said earlier... QB's get way too much blame, and credit.

The rules have changed in such a way that the QB is FAR more critical today than he was 30+ years ago. Back then a sound running game made QB's like Griese look sensational. Teams could make the playoffs with backup QB's. That no longer happens.

Manning should be criticized for not being able to get over the hump more often with both Marvin Harrison and Edgerrin James playing at the same time give what Brady accomplished with relative no names.

Manning should be criticized that in his eight playoff losses the Colts have score 16, 17, 0, 14. 3, 18, 24, 17 and 17 points. He didn't lose shootouts. He got his team to score over 20 points ONCE!

Is Manning great? You betcha! But the above are part of his resume too.

LA wrote:

Manning chokes in the playoffs too much for my taste

Montana is the best ever

Based on your massive personal experience of watching Montana, right? I'm not saying I don't agree (I do for now, but Manning will shed all doubt when all's said and done most likely), I'm just saying someone who was about 7 the last time Joe Cool strapped on a helmet (Far past his prime in KC) has nothing to go on but articles, stories, statistics and other's opinions when speaking of athletes from previous generations.

Again, you're saying HE chokes... What about Dungy? What about a left guard missing a DT on 3rd and 6 only giving Manning a half a second to release the ball? I guess Manning (Or Brady, or anyone else) should see that missed block while looking over the field and make the play regardless? What about the receivers who don't make better cuts and run cirsper plays to be more open? If it was an individual sport like golf or tennis, I'd buy the choke part. But not in a team sport like football where there's 53 guys and a dozen coaches taking part. Now if it was Favre who's made a career of throwing ill advised passes right between the numbers of defenders, then I'd buy a bit more that it's a personal choke. Manning's no Favre...

[quote="OUSOONERSOU"]

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

Team wise, I think the Pats have been more solid most years also, and the coaching. Those are close though too.

Bill>Dungy,Sean Peyton


You know the cheating videos also help....they don't beat the Rams without it.[/quote]

How's that? You do realize the infraction was simply the LOCATION of the camera right? Not the filming itself?

Yeah the angles just helped pickup signals...no big deal. It's not like it was a razor close game or anything...

You STILL don't get it huh? NOBODY claims the films were used on the same day. The claim is they were used for FUTURE games. The entire issue has NOTHING to do with taping signals or "angles." It has to do with whether or not the was taping from under a roofed structure.

It was obviously wrong. But 17 wins in a row post the publicity kind of put to rest the competitive edge thing.

So I'm just suppose to assume they are telling the truth? They did get busted with more tapes from other games. It wasn't a 1 time thing, it was cheating. It is a fair assumption that it could have made the difference in a game decided by a last min FG. I don't know if you are a Pats fan or just believe everything the NFL said, like they really had any other option. What could they really do? They are not going to rip away wins and re-write history when nothing is concrete, doesn't mean it wasn't a factor.

I went to my first Patriots game in 1972. What all the above means is your view is entirely speculative with no evidence behind it, that's all.

And your view is 100% fact because the NFL said so? It's OK, I wouldn't expect a homer to do anything but what you are doing now. But the rest of the world can use common sense and be a little more objective.

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

And your view is 100% fact because the NFL said so? It's OK, I wouldn't expect a homer to do anything but what you are doing now. But the rest of the world can use common sense and be a little more objective.

Making stuff up is now "objective?"

bwhahahahahah

Here is the thing your theory can't account for. 17 straight wins after the tapes were destroyed...oh wait...maybe they weren't (cue the black helicopters)

marbleheadmaui wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

It's all relative. Most people refuse to take into account the team and coaching around the QB (QB can't help what happens on defense, right?). Hypothetically swap players from team to team and see how they fare from an objective point of view. Does Manning win three rings with the Pats? Does Brady carry the Colts to more than one? One thing is for sure... The QB gets too much credit for team success and too much blame for team failure. This is why I unlike most others don't lean heavily on rings when talking all time greatness. Terry Bradshaw was a barely above average QB while Dan Fouts and Fran Tarkenton were amazing. Manning and Brady are both great... But being an old man and witnessing football that most of you haven't... I'm not sure I have ever seen a smarter and more talented QB than Manning... Montana included. But should I criticize him for his defense allowing an average of 27 points a game in their playoff losses? Should I criticize him for his coaching staff's inability to gameplan (Offensively and defensively) for the team they faced on those weekends and being outcoached and outplayed on both sides of the ball? Should I criticize him for not being able to overcome those things and expect him to put up 30+ every playoff game? Obviously he shoulders some of the blame for those failures, but like I said earlier... QB's get way too much blame, and credit.

The rules have changed in such a way that the QB is FAR more critical today than he was 30+ years ago. Back then a sound running game made QB's like Griese look sensational. Teams could make the playoffs with backup QB's. That no longer happens.

Manning should be criticized for not being able to get over the hump more often with both Marvin Harrison and Edgerrin James playing at the same time give what Brady accomplished with relative no names.

Manning should be criticized that in his eight playoff losses the Colts have score 16, 17, 0, 14. 3, 18, 24, 17 and 17 points. He didn't lose shootouts. He got his team to score over 20 points ONCE!

Is Manning great? You betcha! But the above are part of his resume too.

I don't disagree with that at all. I'm just saying that those receivers, running backs, linemen and coaches are also at fault. Think back to those games and remember why the Colts were forcing things in the fourth... Because they were behind. They (This is where coaching comes in) hadn't done anything to solve the the opposition enough on either side of the ball to be in the games. My God, the Jets had 32 on the board before the Colts knew they were in a football game on '02. It's the coach and OC's job to gameplan and the offense as a whole's job to execute it. Not just the QB.

Hell, while we're on the subject of the rules changing the game... This is another area that makes it tough to compare era's. What would those great QB's of the 60's 70's 80's and 90's have done with these rules? We don't even know if Brady or Manning would still be in the league if they were taking shots like they took in the day...

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

And your view is 100% fact because the NFL said so? It's OK, I wouldn't expect a homer to do anything but what you are doing now. But the rest of the world can use common sense and be a little more objective.

Making stuff up is now "objective?"

bwhahahahahah

Here is the thing your theory can't account for. 17 straight wins after the tapes were destroyed...oh wait...maybe they weren't (cue the black helicopters)

So those 17 wins somehow justify that Super Bowl win YEARS earlier? Come on man your fandom is getting in the way. It's not just guys in basements wearing tin foil hats that think the Pats MAY have gained an advantage from those tape. But then again the NFL said so and destroyed any evidence that MAY have shown otherwise. But hey you 100% right because years later your team beat a completely different team and the NFL covered up...err I mean "declared" it was not an advantage.

I understand, I really do. I use to say Irvin is better then Rice and Smith is better then Sanders. Now really I know neither is true but fandom effects the brain and having an open discussion about your team. No need to waste anymore time on this.

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

It's all relative. Most people refuse to take into account the team and coaching around the QB (QB can't help what happens on defense, right?). Hypothetically swap players from team to team and see how they fare from an objective point of view. Does Manning win three rings with the Pats? Does Brady carry the Colts to more than one? One thing is for sure... The QB gets too much credit for team success and too much blame for team failure. This is why I unlike most others don't lean heavily on rings when talking all time greatness. Terry Bradshaw was a barely above average QB while Dan Fouts and Fran Tarkenton were amazing. Manning and Brady are both great... But being an old man and witnessing football that most of you haven't... I'm not sure I have ever seen a smarter and more talented QB than Manning... Montana included. But should I criticize him for his defense allowing an average of 27 points a game in their playoff losses? Should I criticize him for his coaching staff's inability to gameplan (Offensively and defensively) for the team they faced on those weekends and being outcoached and outplayed on both sides of the ball? Should I criticize him for not being able to overcome those things and expect him to put up 30+ every playoff game? Obviously he shoulders some of the blame for those failures, but like I said earlier... QB's get way too much blame, and credit.

The rules have changed in such a way that the QB is FAR more critical today than he was 30+ years ago. Back then a sound running game made QB's like Griese look sensational. Teams could make the playoffs with backup QB's. That no longer happens.

Manning should be criticized for not being able to get over the hump more often with both Marvin Harrison and Edgerrin James playing at the same time give what Brady accomplished with relative no names.

Manning should be criticized that in his eight playoff losses the Colts have score 16, 17, 0, 14. 3, 18, 24, 17 and 17 points. He didn't lose shootouts. He got his team to score over 20 points ONCE!

Is Manning great? You betcha! But the above are part of his resume too.

I don't disagree with that at all. I'm just saying that those receivers, running backs, linemen and coaches are also at fault. Think back to those games and remember why the Colts were forcing things in the fourth... Because they were behind. They (This is where coaching comes in) hadn't done anything to solve the the opposition enough on either side of the ball to be in the games. My God, the Jets had 32 on the board before the Colts knew they were in a football game on '02. It's the coach and OC's job to gameplan and the offense as a whole's job to execute it. Not just the QB.

Hell, while we're on the subject of the rules changing the game... This is another area that makes it tough to compare era's. What would those great QB's of the 60's 70's 80's and 90's have done with these rules? We don't even know if Brady or Manning would still be in the league if they were taking shots like they took in the day...

Toughness in a QB and a receiver has never been less important that it is today. I think the rule changes have been so dramatic and the numbers have become so disconnected that the only real ways to compare QB's and receivers across eras is how many times did you lead the league in various categories, were you named all-pro etc.

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

And your view is 100% fact because the NFL said so? It's OK, I wouldn't expect a homer to do anything but what you are doing now. But the rest of the world can use common sense and be a little more objective.

Making stuff up is now "objective?"

bwhahahahahah

Here is the thing your theory can't account for. 17 straight wins after the tapes were destroyed...oh wait...maybe they weren't (cue the black helicopters)

So those 17 wins somehow justify that Super Bowl win YEARS earlier? Come on man your fandom is getting in the way. It's not just guys in basements wearing tin foil hats that think the Pats MAY have gained an advantage from those tape. But then again the NFL said so and destroyed any evidence that MAY have shown otherwise. But hey you 100% right because years later your team beat a completely different team and the NFL covered up...err I mean "declared" it was not an advantage.

No the 17 wins demonstrate the tapes weren't essential to the Pats success. But good luck with proving the moon landings didn't happen

LOL I admire your fandom. Seems like you are the one in denial about this bud. The tapes REALLY happend, it wasn't a myth. If those wins YEARS later somehow give you comfort or validation who am I to take that from you? Keep cheering your team bud, that's what makes sports great.

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

LOL I admire your fandom. Seems like you are the one in denial about this bud. The tapes REALLY happend, it wasn't a myth. If those wins YEARS later somehow give you comfort or validation who am I to take that from you? Keep cheering your team bud, that's what makes sports great.

Nothing to be taken. The Pats tapes had no meaningful impact.

Now if you want a serious debate, ask how much steroids helped my beloved Red Sox win the 2004 and 2007 titles.

My answer? A LOT!

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

LOL I admire your fandom. Seems like you are the one in denial about this bud. The tapes REALLY happend, it wasn't a myth. If those wins YEARS later somehow give you comfort or validation who am I to take that from you? Keep cheering your team bud, that's what makes sports great.

Nothing to be taken. The Pats tapes had no meaningful impact.

Now if you want a serious debate, ask how much steroids helped my beloved Red Sox win the 2004 and 2007 titles.

My answer? A LOT!

Says the Pats fan LOL

Now to part 2. Really? Do you honestly think there were more Sox then Yanks on roids that year? EVERYONE was still on roids at the time. It played no more part in their season then it did for every other team that year. I see no competitive advantage in that because they other teams had the same advantages canceling everything out. LOL how bout that? I say NO COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE for the Sox

marbleheadmaui wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

It's all relative. Most people refuse to take into account the team and coaching around the QB (QB can't help what happens on defense, right?). Hypothetically swap players from team to team and see how they fare from an objective point of view. Does Manning win three rings with the Pats? Does Brady carry the Colts to more than one? One thing is for sure... The QB gets too much credit for team success and too much blame for team failure. This is why I unlike most others don't lean heavily on rings when talking all time greatness. Terry Bradshaw was a barely above average QB while Dan Fouts and Fran Tarkenton were amazing. Manning and Brady are both great... But being an old man and witnessing football that most of you haven't... I'm not sure I have ever seen a smarter and more talented QB than Manning... Montana included. But should I criticize him for his defense allowing an average of 27 points a game in their playoff losses? Should I criticize him for his coaching staff's inability to gameplan (Offensively and defensively) for the team they faced on those weekends and being outcoached and outplayed on both sides of the ball? Should I criticize him for not being able to overcome those things and expect him to put up 30+ every playoff game? Obviously he shoulders some of the blame for those failures, but like I said earlier... QB's get way too much blame, and credit.

The rules have changed in such a way that the QB is FAR more critical today than he was 30+ years ago. Back then a sound running game made QB's like Griese look sensational. Teams could make the playoffs with backup QB's. That no longer happens.

Manning should be criticized for not being able to get over the hump more often with both Marvin Harrison and Edgerrin James playing at the same time give what Brady accomplished with relative no names.

Manning should be criticized that in his eight playoff losses the Colts have score 16, 17, 0, 14. 3, 18, 24, 17 and 17 points. He didn't lose shootouts. He got his team to score over 20 points ONCE!

Is Manning great? You betcha! But the above are part of his resume too.

I don't disagree with that at all. I'm just saying that those receivers, running backs, linemen and coaches are also at fault. Think back to those games and remember why the Colts were forcing things in the fourth... Because they were behind. They (This is where coaching comes in) hadn't done anything to solve the the opposition enough on either side of the ball to be in the games. My God, the Jets had 32 on the board before the Colts knew they were in a football game on '02. It's the coach and OC's job to gameplan and the offense as a whole's job to execute it. Not just the QB.

Hell, while we're on the subject of the rules changing the game... This is another area that makes it tough to compare era's. What would those great QB's of the 60's 70's 80's and 90's have done with these rules? We don't even know if Brady or Manning would still be in the league if they were taking shots like they took in the day...

Toughness in a QB and a receiver has never been less important that it is today. I think the rule changes have been so dramatic and the numbers have become so disconnected that the only real ways to compare QB's and receivers across eras is how many times did you lead the league in various categories, were you named all-pro etc.

Agree whole-heartedly. It spans to most areas of offense. You can't tell me that the rules being the way they are for the QB and WR's aren't effecting the run game. The average YPG for the top-20 RB's continues to climb every year. The rules are taking the game out of the defenses hands, and that's too bad. They say that offense and scoring is what sells tickets and air time, but I disagree. Everyone I know would rather see a helmet separating hit than an uncontested TD pass...

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

LOL I admire your fandom. Seems like you are the one in denial about this bud. The tapes REALLY happend, it wasn't a myth. If those wins YEARS later somehow give you comfort or validation who am I to take that from you? Keep cheering your team bud, that's what makes sports great.

Nothing to be taken. The Pats tapes had no meaningful impact.

Now if you want a serious debate, ask how much steroids helped my beloved Red Sox win the 2004 and 2007 titles.

My answer? A LOT!

Says the Pats fan LOL

Now to part 2. Really? Do you honestly think there were more Sox then Yanks on roids that year? EVERYONE was still on roids at the time. It played no more part in their season then it did for every other team that year. I see no competitive advantage in that because they other teams had the same advantages canceling everything out. LOL how bout that? I say NO COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE for the Sox

Manny and Ortiz drove that team. Without those two in top steroid form the Sox don't get close. The Yanks weren't nearly as reliant on just two guys.

Pats are still gold, my beloved Sox? Not so much [grumble, grunmble]

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

LOL I admire your fandom. Seems like you are the one in denial about this bud. The tapes REALLY happend, it wasn't a myth. If those wins YEARS later somehow give you comfort or validation who am I to take that from you? Keep cheering your team bud, that's what makes sports great.

Nothing to be taken. The Pats tapes had no meaningful impact.

Now if you want a serious debate, ask how much steroids helped my beloved Red Sox win the 2004 and 2007 titles.

My answer? A LOT!

Says the Pats fan LOL

Now to part 2. Really? Do you honestly think there were more Sox then Yanks on roids that year? EVERYONE was still on roids at the time. It played no more part in their season then it did for every other team that year. I see no competitive advantage in that because they other teams had the same advantages canceling everything out. LOL how bout that? I say NO COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE for the Sox

Manny and Ortiz drove that team. Without those two in top steroid form the Sox don't get close. The Yanks weren't nearly as reliant on just two guys.

Pats are still gold, my beloved Sox? Not so much [grumble, grunmble]

Yea what about the pitching for the Yanks? Roger and Andy are the only 2 that juiced on the roster? Highly unlikely. I agree your 2 sluggers are huge but isn't Curt just as big of a factor? It was still a team effort. It's not like the Yanks didn't have STAR players also juicing at the time. Your Sox didn't cheat anymore then the Yanks, I don't believe that for 1 second.