NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?!! - Post SuperBowl

[Wiglaf]

He did shake his hand, then he left before the kneeldown. SCANDAL1!!

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

BESIDES, he walked off WITHOUT shaking Coughlin's hand. The clock may have hit zero, but you usually shake the opposing coach's hand and say good job and all that stuff.

He shook his hand, or hugged him, at least. I saw it, I'm sure I did.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Then what was the video I just saw on ESPN of Belichick congratulating Coughlin in the middle of a crowd of players?

Honest question...I stopped watching as soon as the 4th down pass was dropped, so I didn't see it.

I guess he ran out before the play was run then. I didn't see it... but I did see him leaving before the last play was run.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Jaguar
The real reason why those broken-sack plays always result in big completions is that it's simply impossible to cover all the receivers for that long. Remember the Jags-Pats game, where Brady had all the time in the world and completed a billion passes?

Sure, the broken-sack plays look like a disaster for the offense because the blocking has broken down, but they're usually the plays where the QB holds onto the ball longest. And that means that people will be open.

I know, it just seems like NE has a disproportionate number of them...which would make sense given that a lot of their pass coverage depends on getting quick pressure. Their secondary is, uh, not so good. But I certainly could be wrong, since I'm generally only watching NE anyway.

[snoopy369]

Even Rex Grossman can make some incredible plays on broken sack plays

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What, moronically? Beli is smarter than that.

At times...other times though he lets his ego get in the way and, as I said, overthinks things.

Again, that was the claim, but I suspect the players had the same reaction a lot of the fans did: What, this again?

So, what... before the game, oooh, this is going to piss them off sooo much. But when they lose, it was a "negative influence"?

Uh...when did I say that?

You have literally no clue what a bandwagon is.

Or this is just another category of "sore-loserdom", ie, claiming an anti-X team bandwagon began well before it actually happened to claim some sort of victim mentality.

Hint... after the 2001 team won the SB, everyone aside from a handful of Pats fans thought it was a fluke... they were STILL underdogs... also evidenced by the next season when they failed to make the playoffs.

No, the victim mentality comes from all the spygate bull**** and is perfectly justified (not going to argue it again right now, see previous arguments if you feel like reviewing.) The bandwagon bit is exactly what it says on the label--identifying a group of people that join a cause because it's popular. The last time it wasn't popular to hate the Pats was 2001. Even by the next SB people were complaining they were tired of them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the victim mentality comes from all the spygate bull**** and is perfectly justified

Getting caught for doing something wrong, after the league warned you not to do it = justified victim mentality.

Oooooook.

The bandwagon bit is exactly what it says on the label--identifying a group of people that join a cause because it's popular. The last time it wasn't popular to hate the Pats was 2001.

Wow, you are so full of crack you ain't making sense no more. It was popular to hate the Pats in 2002? In what universe?

Even by the next SB people were complaining they were tired of them.

Er... no. Maybe you are thinking of a SB later.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the victim mentality comes from all the spygate bull**** and is perfectly justified

Getting caught for doing something wrong, after the league warned you not to do it = justified victim mentality.

Oooooook.

No, that was ok, and the punishment was even justifiable after a fashion. It was all the other bull**** that went with it that was the problem. Coaches and players pretending they'd never heard of such horrible behavior. Media running stories two days before the Superbowl that amount to unattributed and non-disprovable rumor, but that are treated like gospel. Fans spending the season putting up asterisks despite the fact that NE has been under such a microscope this year that it's almost unthinkable they could have done anything illegal. Belichick did something wrong and got slapped for it. If it had been the Cardinals instead of the Pats, the whole thing dies in a week. Instead we have the friggin' gentleman from Pennsylvania wanting to subpoena everybody from the starting quarterback to a tape guy who was fired before the walkthrough he allegedly taped even took place.

The bandwagon bit is exactly what it says on the label--identifying a group of people that join a cause because it's popular. The last time it wasn't popular to hate the Pats was 2001.

Wow, you are so full of crack you ain't making sense no more. It was popular to hate the Pats in 2002? In what universe?

This one. I was here. I don't know where you were. It was not as popular then as it would be the next year or up through now, but it had begun.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Ah...there's that old feeling. It had been gone for a couple of years, but now its back.

Thank you, New York, for letting us have a few years feeling like champions. I can see you've decided time's up.

I was too young to remember Bill Buckner. Now, I fully understand.

(Then again, I was also too young to remember Bird, Parrish, and McHale. Go Celtics!)

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon


You'd be wrong. According to a recent Peter King MMQB, he has no regrets about retiring.

All that was said before the Super Bowl.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
He did shake his hand, then he left before the kneeldown. SCANDAL1!!

It's as big of a scandal as Randy Moss leaving the field with 2 seconds left a few years ago.

Meaning, none.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi


No, that was ok, and the punishment was even justifiable after a fashion. It was all the other bull**** that went with it that was the problem. Coaches and players pretending they'd never heard of such horrible behavior.

Yep, that was the problem, especially the Pats coaches and players.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Coaches and players pretending they'd never heard of such horrible behavior.

You mean like a handful of coaches and players who the Pats whined like stuck pigs about?

Media running stories two days before the Superbowl that amount to unattributed and non-disprovable rumor, but that are treated like gospel.

In this case the "media" was the BOSTON media! It was run by a Boston newspaper, probably under the belief that it'd fire up the Pats.

If it had been the Cardinals instead of the Pats, the whole thing dies in a week.

But if it had been the Steelers or Colts it wouldn't have been (no one gives a damn about the Cards... not even in Arizona).

Instead we have the friggin' gentleman from Pennsylvania wanting to subpoena everybody from the starting quarterback to a tape guy who was fired before the walkthrough he allegedly taped even took place.

For destroying the tapes.

This one. I was here. I don't know where you were. It was not as popular then as it would be the next year or up through now, but it had begun.

Is this what happens when you adopt the victim mentality? All I remember was a celebration of david beating goliath and how it was great that Martz had to suffer defeat and how fitting it was that the Patriots won the first SB after 9/11.

The fact that even reismark, someone rooting for the Pats pegged it as after the third SB win, says something.

Why in the Hell would there be a bandwagon for hating a team that pulled off one of the biggest upsets in SB history, against a seemingly unstoppable team with an arrogant as Hell coach (stop me when you see the similarities )? I mean that's like saying a bandwagon of hatred is building up against the Giants for beating the Pats in this SB.

[SlowwHand]

Didn't hear it here.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
If it had been the Cardinals instead of the Pats, the whole thing dies in a week.

Koy, that has the same cause as the reason that the Pats have so much positive coverage - they're from NE, so ESPN covers them more - positively and negatively. If the Cardinals were in the super bowl, they'd get a lot less coverage than the Pats do as well