Guest Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 What do you mean it's not rooted in any logic? The Colts held the Chiefs to a touchdown, and the Ravens to two field goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audiodrama Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 In my opinion, the only reason the Patriots have gotten up to this point is that infamous "tuck-rule" game against the Raiders 5 years ago. That makes them posers in my book. Now look at them, more than half the team has moved on to other teams, including Adam Vinatieri, who now plays for the Colts....riiiiight. Subsequently winning three championships in the next four years makes them posers. And the fact that half their team has moved on strengthens their validity even more, since they're still one of the elite teams in the NFL. The Colts are posers until they win a title, pal. Not the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred T. Jane Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 ...riiiiight. Subsequently winning three championships in the next four years makes them posers. And the fact that half their team has moved on strengthens their validity even more, since they're still one of the elite teams in the NFL. The Colts are posers until they win a title, pal. Not the Pats.Do you honestly think that if that play would have been (correctly) called a fumble, that (1) the Patriots would have won the game, and go on to win Super Bowl XXXVI and (2) two of the next three Super Bowls? The Butterfly Effect would strongly suggest otherwise... [Croatia National Team Manager Slavan] Bilic then went on to explain how Croatia's success can partially be put down to his progressive man-management techniques. "Sometimes I lie in the bed with my players. I go to the room of Vedran Corluka and Luka Modric when I see they have a problem and I lie in bed with them and we talk for 10 minutes." Maybe Capello could try getting through to his players this way too? Although how far he'd get with Joe Cole jumping up and down on the mattress and Rooney demanding to be read his favourite page from The Very Hungry Caterpillar is open to question. --The Guardian's Fiver, 08 September 2008 Attention: In order to obtain maximum enjoyment from your stay at the CCSLC, the reader is advised that the above post may contain large amounts of sarcasm, dry humour, or statements which should not be taken in any true sort of seriousness. As a result, the above poster absolves himself of any and all blame in the event that a forum user responds to the aforementioned post without taking the previous notice into account. Thank you for your cooperation, and enjoy your stay at the CCSLC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OB33 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 While the tuck rule may have helped the Patriots win one game you can't take one call and lord it over the rest of their run. If the Patriots were posers they would've been exposed either by the higher-seeded Steelers or by the Rams who were, if I recall correctly, 14 point favorites.And while we're on the subject of betting lines, if the winner of the AFC title game is favored by more than a touchdown I'll scream. #CHOMPCHOMPCHOMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 While the tuck rule may have helped the Patriots win one game you can't take one call and lord it over the rest of their run. If the Patriots were posers they would've been exposed either by the higher-seeded Steelers or by the Rams who were, if I recall correctly, 14 point favorites.And while we're on the subject of betting lines, if the winner of the AFC title game is favored by more than a touchdown I'll scream.That spread was a bull:censored: line in the Super Bowl. I would have put money on the Pats to cover with that line, and I was mad at Vegas for giving them that motivational tool.Also, the awesome Patriot defense was awesome because they were allowed to do things to the Rams recievers that would net me 15 years in jail if I tried to do to someone in the street.That said, Fred T. Jane knows what he's talking about in regards to butterflies. Would FAs come to New England if ESPN has no winning culture to pimp? Would Belichek have a job after next season's finish out of the playoffs? Would they draft the same considering they lost? Would Tom Brady still have his system, or would his costly fumble go on to mar his career?Things to consider. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawg22 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Do you honestly think that if that play would have been (correctly) called a fumble, that (1) the Patriots would have won the game, and go on to win Super Bowl XXXVI and (2) two of the next three Super Bowls? The Butterfly Effect would strongly suggest otherwise...I'm a strong believer in the Butterfly effect, and I'm certainly no Pats apologist, but the play WAS called correctly according to the rulebook. It's the rule itself that was bull:censored:.That has to be the most strongly criticized correct call of all time.NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2: "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble." oh ,my god ,i strong recommend you to have a visit on the website ,or if i'm the president ,i would have an barceque with the anthor of the articel . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred T. Jane Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I'm a strong believer in the Butterfly effect, and I'm certainly no Pats apologist, but the play WAS called correctly according to the rulebook. It's the rule itself that was bull:censored:.That has to be the most strongly criticized correct call of all time.NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2: "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble."Rules, schmules. It was a fumble. [Croatia National Team Manager Slavan] Bilic then went on to explain how Croatia's success can partially be put down to his progressive man-management techniques. "Sometimes I lie in the bed with my players. I go to the room of Vedran Corluka and Luka Modric when I see they have a problem and I lie in bed with them and we talk for 10 minutes." Maybe Capello could try getting through to his players this way too? Although how far he'd get with Joe Cole jumping up and down on the mattress and Rooney demanding to be read his favourite page from The Very Hungry Caterpillar is open to question. --The Guardian's Fiver, 08 September 2008 Attention: In order to obtain maximum enjoyment from your stay at the CCSLC, the reader is advised that the above post may contain large amounts of sarcasm, dry humour, or statements which should not be taken in any true sort of seriousness. As a result, the above poster absolves himself of any and all blame in the event that a forum user responds to the aforementioned post without taking the previous notice into account. Thank you for your cooperation, and enjoy your stay at the CCSLC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawnM Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I like the Colts v. Bears match-up Best O v. Best D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJMorris3 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Colts or Patriots should be favored by 28 over the Bears or Saints. Relatively fair line, at least in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 What do you mean it's not rooted in any logic? The Colts held the Chiefs to a touchdown, and the Ravens to two field goals.BFD.Final NFL Rankings, Total OffenseChiefs = 16th Ravens = 17thSaints = 1st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 In the NFC, the Saints have the edge on karma (or voodoo, if you will). That, and a Bears defense that's been giving up a lot of points per game lately.In the AFC, if the game were in Foxboro I'd have given the Colts zero chance, but the Colts have been very tough to beat at home lately, and the Colts seem to have finally figured out that run defense thing. In fact, they showed last week in Baltimore that they can go a whole game without seeing the inside of an end zone and still win!So, Colts vs. Saints in Super Bowl XLI. There, the Colts should prove just a little too much gumbo for the Saints to swallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeytonManningRocks Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Obviously I'm hoping for Colts vs. either of the two NFC teams, with my Colts finally winning it all this year. But whatever matchup we get should be a great one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmered Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 ...riiiiight. Subsequently winning three championships in the next four years makes them posers. And the fact that half their team has moved on strengthens their validity even more, since they're still one of the elite teams in the NFL. The Colts are posers until they win a title, pal. Not the Pats.Do you honestly think that if that play would have been (correctly) called a fumble, that (1) the Patriots would have won the game, and go on to win Super Bowl XXXVI and (2) two of the next three Super Bowls? The Butterfly Effect would strongly suggest otherwise...You're assuming the Patriots don't still somehow find a way to beat Oakland that day.Or rather, like the Chargers last Sunday, the Raiders would have found a way to lose.It was DESTINY. Oh, and I've got a site.Footy Jumpers Dot Com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred T. Jane Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 You're assuming the Patriots don't still somehow find a way to beat Oakland that day.Or rather, like the Chargers last Sunday, the Raiders would have found a way to lose.It was DESTINY.Not hardly, Bob. Oakland gets the ball back on that play with 1:47 on the clock, they kneel it three times (IIRC New England only had a single timeout left, not enough to allow them a chance to get possession back), and play Pittsburgh for the AFC title, as they already had a 13-10 lead. [Croatia National Team Manager Slavan] Bilic then went on to explain how Croatia's success can partially be put down to his progressive man-management techniques. "Sometimes I lie in the bed with my players. I go to the room of Vedran Corluka and Luka Modric when I see they have a problem and I lie in bed with them and we talk for 10 minutes." Maybe Capello could try getting through to his players this way too? Although how far he'd get with Joe Cole jumping up and down on the mattress and Rooney demanding to be read his favourite page from The Very Hungry Caterpillar is open to question. --The Guardian's Fiver, 08 September 2008 Attention: In order to obtain maximum enjoyment from your stay at the CCSLC, the reader is advised that the above post may contain large amounts of sarcasm, dry humour, or statements which should not be taken in any true sort of seriousness. As a result, the above poster absolves himself of any and all blame in the event that a forum user responds to the aforementioned post without taking the previous notice into account. Thank you for your cooperation, and enjoy your stay at the CCSLC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgesL Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'm a strong believer in the Butterfly effect, and I'm certainly no Pats apologist, but the play WAS called correctly according to the rulebook. It's the rule itself that was bull:censored:.That has to be the most strongly criticized correct call of all time.NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2: "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble."Rules, schmules. It was a fumble. I remember that game vividly, and I've seen replays of that play that day, plus on other sports countdown shows on ESPN.Brady pump fakes, gets hit by a Raider defensive lineman, ball gets knocked out of his hand, falls on the ground, the Raiders pick it up......Yep, looks like a fumble to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 This sounds contradictory, but under the rules it wasn't a fumble, though clearly it was (i.e. should have been) a fumble. If that call goes the other way, two things happen:1. the Brady mystique hits a serious pothole, and2. the Raiders get one more nice swirl around the sink before sailing right down the drain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharos04 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 And lest everyone forgets, yet again, the Raiders were in Super Bowl XXXVII the following year and got demolished by Tampa Bay. So they had a chance and completely blew it. The rule was interpreted correctly. I was there. Physically there. No team gets lucky for 6 years. What is it that Tony Dungy say? One time is luck, twice is a coincidence, 4-5 times is a pattern. So quit hating and deal with it. As i said in a previous post, no one seemed to be this uptight when the Niners or the Cowboys were dominant. We'll return to the gutter in our own due time, i'm sure of it. right now it's the high life and we'll run with it till it stalls, which happens to all dynasties. on the main subject of this topic, i think the Saints will make it to the Super Bowl. They need this and deserve this so much more than the Bears. I'll play my homer card and go with the Pats for the AFC. Talk about being in the Dome and home field and all that, but the last time we played there in, what 2003? We won there too so we'll just have to see what happens. Can't wait to see the Manning Face though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 What do you mean it's not rooted in any logic? The Colts held the Chiefs to a touchdown, and the Ravens to two field goals.BFD.Final NFL Rankings, Total OffenseChiefs = 16th Ravens = 17thSaints = 1stUm, when a so-called porous defense shuts down Larry Johnson AND Jamal Lewis, yes, that is a BFD, you knob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 , i think the Saints will make it to the Super Bowl. They need this and deserve this so much more than the Bears.Oh, no. No no no. Who are you crapping? Don't tell me that they "deserve it more" than the Bears. That's ESPN's bull . Who deserves it more? The players? They've all worked hard to get this far. They both equally deserve to reach the Super Bowl, but only one team can go, unfortunately. They don't "need it more," either. Idiots across America are being fed these tales of how the Saints are "revitalizing New Orleans." They're not. If the Saints beat the Bears, nothing will change. If the Bears beat the Saints, nothing will change. New Orleans will not be revitalized by the Saints, or really, much of anything. The city as we knew it is gone. The metropolis that could support a pro football team is gone. They're being ridiculously subsidized by local and state government to play football in a disaster, as if it's more important to have a football team than houses for people who lost them, and that's sickening. Sports are great, but they're not THIS important that they should be such a drain on the state and get in the way of the problems that REALLY need fixing. Besides, we're looking at a sleazy owner who is probably going to move the team anyway, making it all for naught. As a team that has sucked for 40 years and is just now having a good season, that's impressive, but everyone is making this to be bigger than it really is, and it's absolutely sickening.Everyone has this idea that the Saints are this team of destiny, and everyone should just expect the Bears to roll over and play dead for them so the Saints can fulfill their storybook ending. That's not going to happen. Now the Saints may win, they may not, it'll be a hell of a game. But don't expect the Bears to go "well, you guys deserve it more than we do" and take a dive. That's a travesty to the sport, and it's a travesty that you'd actually say something as ludicrous as "they need this and deserve this so much more than the Bears." Just horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Everyone has this idea that the Saints are this team of destiny, and everyone should just expect the Bears to roll over and play dead for them so the Saints can fulfill their storybook ending. That's not going to happen. Now the Saints may win, they may not, it'll be a hell of a game. But don't expect the Bears to go "well, you guys deserve it more than we do" and take a dive. That's a travesty to the sport, and it's a travesty that you'd actually say something as ludicrous as "they need this and deserve this so much more than the Bears." Just horrible.If the Bears do like I highly suspect another team whose name you can look for in this thread, probably due south of this post, and take a dive in this game, then I will be highly pissed with you. I want the Saints to win, but I want them to get there knowing full well that they were the better team and triumphed in situations where the Bears did not. I don't want the Bears to lie down, and I certainly don't want the refs getting involved, as they seem to love doing in the playoffs, and mostly in favor of the "team of destiny."-start tangent-You can't tell me that the officiating is somewhat biased in situations where there is a media darling. The tuck rule speaks for itself, Super Bowl XXXVI was revealed to have a PLETHORA of officiating mistakes and no-calls in the Pats favor, more recently, last year's AFC Divisional between the Colts and the Steelers was a complete debacle, and apparently the NFL refs decided that Super Bowl XL would be the game that they would make it up to the Steelers in probably the worst officiated Super Bowl in recent memory. So yeah, what I'm saying is, I hope that the Bears do not lie down or become a victim of NFL refs deciding to give another team the game. Because if they do, I will seriously doubt the legitamacy of the NFL from then on out and no longer figure that poor officiating as just a case of "that's how the cookie crumbles."-end tangent- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.