The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread

UnitedIrishman

Eire-Dearg wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HmfATSZ0E

Get on it, doubt it's gonna last long.

Watched it there a couple of days ago (will put up another link if that's taken down). Whilst informative enough (especially with regards how much the average Joe Soap player makes), seems to just drag on and it's not an awful more than we didn't already know - young players with a lot of cash do stupid things. Amazing some of the stupid things players do but then again, if you're that young and that rich you pretty much think it'll never end.

---

Off topic from that, any idea where a man could find the documentary film 'Undefeated' about that American football team? Exhausted pretty much every avenue. PM me if needs be!

Chucky the tree

mongoman wrote: »

Thankfully no, but maybe ask yourself that question. It is you after all, that hasn't seemed able to grasp the point Corvus was making in his posts on Brady.

No, I think it's pretty obvious he used week 5 to demonstrate a seminal moment in Patriot history during the chargers game. He didn't say nothing about defense or blame them for their woes.

He made it clear they were 1-3, on the verge of going 1-4 with the game nearly over and then Brady stepped up and started the first of many famous game winning comeback drives.

I mean how clearer can this be?



Short of using Ladybird books, I don't think it can be any clearer.

It's very clear here what he meant.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

But in 2001 when Brady took over, their was a huge improvement in the Pats win loss record to 11-5. It was the same system, same coaches, just a new young gifted QB on the field.

Seems to me he was implying that the only difference was Tom Brady.

mongoman

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Seems to me he was implying that the only difference was Tom Brady.

But when you look at the wider quote in it's proper context....

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

This is what I said.
In 2000, the Patriots under the leadership of Bledsoe, had a shocking 5-11 season. Actually 23 teams had a superior win-loss record. Superbowl caliber you said, you sure?

But in 2001 when Brady took over, their was a huge improvement in the Pats win loss record to 11-5. It was the same system, same coaches, just a new young gifted QB on the field.

Isn't it clear it's a contrast between Brady and Bledsoe's performance? The Patriot's roster changes certainly didn't account for it. Antowain Smith added more yards to the ground game and that's it. Bledsoe was a well respected and very good QB, Brady comes along and the few revisionists try to make out "Oh he was only a game manager." but apparently Bledsoe wasn't. Yet Brady out performs him in the same system. Supreme talent is the reason and its been the reason ever since imo.

Chucky the tree

mongoman wrote: »

But when you look at the wider quote in it's proper context....

Isn't it clear it's a contrast between Brady and Bledsoe's performance? The Patriot's roster changes certainly didn't account for it. Antowain Smith added more yards to the ground game and that's it. Bledsoe was a well respected and very good QB, Brady comes along and the few revisionists try to make out "Oh he was only a game manager." but apparently Bledsoe wasn't. Yet Brady out performs him in the same system. Supreme talent is the reason and its been the reason ever since imo.

So your also of the opinion that it was all down to Brady? To me it isn't that obvious, 1 extra TD, 2 less Ints, 1,000 less yards don't explain such a swing in records.

Syferus

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Watched it there a couple of days ago (will put up another link if that's taken down). Whilst informative enough (especially with regards how much the average Joe Soap player makes), seems to just drag on and it's not an awful more than we didn't already know - young players with a lot of cash do stupid things. Amazing some of the stupid things players do but then again, if you're that young and that rich you pretty much think it'll never end.

---

Off topic from that, any idea where a man could find the documentary film 'Undefeated' about that American football team? Exhausted pretty much every avenue. PM me if needs be!

Been the same for me since the Oscar nominations. Some bloody Sarah Palin documentary of the same has muddied the waters as well, I can't count how many times have I excitedly clicked a link to find a picture of a hockey mom staring back at me.

mongoman

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So your also of the opinion that it was all down to Brady? To me it isn't that obvious, 1 extra TD, 2 less Ints, 1,000 less yards don't explain such a swing in records.

Not correct, it was 448 less yards actually, 1 less Int, a completion rate of 63.9% and a superior QB rating of 86.5. Against Bledsoe's QB rating of 77.3 in 2000 and completion ratio of 58.8%.

SantryRed

SantryRed wrote: »

Lads,

Where can I buy an American Football in Dublin? Close to Santry preferably

Anyone?

Chucky the tree

mongoman wrote: »

Not correct, it was 448 less yards actually, 1 less Int, a completion rate of 63.9% and a superior QB rating of 86.5. Against Bledsoe's QB rating of 77.3 in 2000 and completion ratio of 58.8%.

So that was the difference and nothing else?

davyjose

Might as well be bangin your head off a brick wall, Chucky. Apparently Tom Brady is the greatest QB ever since his first ever snap. No learning curve whatsoever... :rolleyes:

curry-muff

kmart6 wrote: »

Ah I remember hen you could come into this thread and find some interesting tidbits instead of page after page of arguments of QB standards and who's better, something that could have just been given a separate thread, like it has many times before!

I think I may be able to combine the two, apologies if it stretches the page a lot though :pac:

davyjose

ROFLMAO

Tristram

curry-muff wrote: »

I think I may be able to combine the two, apologies if it stretches the page a lot though :pac:

Back to normality!

mongoman

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So that was the difference and nothing else?

The superior rating might be just one of many clues, or even just the tip of the iceberg. But then it's pretty obvious at this stage that you don't even see the iceberg.

davyjose wrote: »

Apparently Tom Brady is the greatest QB ever since his first ever snap. No learning curve whatsoever... :rolleyes:

No one said that here. But according to you, I thought that was Manning?

davyjose wrote: »

Manning stepped into the worst team in the league. And had to build from scratch.

To build from scratch - Definition: To start from the beginning; to start without resources or any other advantages.

So the implication/suggestion here is that Manning had no team. So therefore Manning was essentially the entire team then? Christ if anyone made such a claim about Brady it would probably start WW3.


Chucky - I think you just need to let go of the Brady hate, because it's really clouding your judgement. Reading into things that were never said by other posters. Spin it whatever way you want, Corvus bitched slapped you earlier. I just felt it was right to call you out on it, because the continuing delusion was becoming a joke.

My apologies to other users, for having to put up with this clogging the thread. But sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

frostie500

Guys just calm it down a bit. There's no issue with a heated discussion but there's been a couple of times where the poster has been attacked rather than the post. It's hardly a new argument that is ongoing so there isnt too much need to try and revisit history. Just look in any of the other threads relating to this topic....

davyjose

mongoman wrote: »

The superior rating might be just one of many clues, or even just the tip of the iceberg. But then it's pretty obvious at this stage that you don't even see the iceberg.



No one said that here. But according to you, I thought that was Manning?



To build from scratch - Definition: To start from the beginning; to start without resources or any other advantages.

So the implication/suggestion here is that Manning had no team. So therefore Manning was essentially the entire team then? Christ if anyone made such a claim about Brady it would probably start WW3.


Chucky - I think you just need to let go of the Brady hate, because it's really clouding your judgement. Reading into things that were never said by other posters. Spin it whatever way you want, Corvus bitched slapped you earlier. I just felt it was right to call you out on it, because the continuing delusion was becoming a joke.

My apologies to other users, for having to put up with this clogging the thread. But sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

grow the fcuk up will ya? I don't know who you think you are, but we're well able to conduct an adult conversation without stooping to immature sh1t like that on this forum.

I still fail to see how Chucky lost the argument, but I'm not getting into it with someone who thinks I claimed Manning literally took the field alone 1998. That's fcuking idiotic tbh and I don't have time for kiddie semantics.

Chucky the tree

mongoman wrote: »

The superior rating might be just one of many clues, or even just the tip of the iceberg. But then it's pretty obvious at this stage that you don't even see the iceberg.

No one said that here. But according to you, I thought that was Manning?

To build from scratch - Definition: To start from the beginning; to start without resources or any other advantages.

So the implication/suggestion here is that Manning had no team. So therefore Manning was essentially the entire team then? Christ if anyone made such a claim about Brady it would probably start WW3.


Chucky - I think you just need to let go of the Brady hate, because it's really clouding your judgement. Reading into things that were never said by other posters. Spin it whatever way you want, Corvus bitched slapped you earlier. I just felt it was right to call you out on it, because the continuing delusion was becoming a joke.

My apologies to other users, for having to put up with this clogging the thread. But sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

The fact you think it was down to Brady as well and had nothing to do with the defense is a comical. I don't have any Brady hate. He's arguably the best QB of all time I' just not stupid enough to realise he was the only person who had a hand in the changes that season.


A defense that switched from a 3-4 to a 4-3 and included 4 new starters. The defense let up 4 less points per game, had 10 extra sacks, 12 extra Interceptions(5 returned for TDs compared to 0 the previous year) which went for 422 yards compared to 161 the previous year. Pretty improved everywhere on defense.

Really is quite incredible to claim this had zero effect on the teams wins and losses, and that was all down to Brady.

spiralism

It's hard to argue with the Pats mafia on this board though, Brady is basically the son of God around here and God help you lest you challenge his achievements.

I mean, hes one of the best ever sure but its an insult to Belichick, his staff and players like Milloy, McGinest and Bruschi to say that it was Brady and only Brady that turned everything around for them. For years he was more of a gritty winner than a superstar. I'm sure the Steelers don't pin two superbowls since 2006 down to Ben, even though he got it done in the same way.

davetherave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhrPl1Tj5xA

Robbie Goulds brother lays a solid hit on the return man.


Hooch on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

mongoman

davyjose wrote: »

grow the fcuk up will ya? I don't know who you think you are, but we're well able to conduct an adult conversation without stooping to immature sh1t like that on this forum.

Very ironic that, people are asked to calm down and you start your post with grow the fcuk up.

davyjose wrote: »

I still fail to see how Chucky lost the argument.

Well that isn't exactly a revelation now is it? When you compare and contrast his posts with the other posters, it is pretty clear who won. The repetitive virtual one line response, indicates a clear inability to argue with the reality and facts the other poster was clearly presenting to him.

kinda like a child who keeps shouting or trying not to listen when they are being told something they don't like. They just keep on and on. This is the reason I joined in here, because of the pure incredulity of it all.

davyjose wrote: »

but I'm not getting into it with someone who thinks I claimed Manning literally took the field alone 1998.

According to you Manning had to start from scratch and Brady had a Super bowl winning team ready to go. Both are factually incorrect. In 2000 they were 23 teams above the Pats with a superior win-loss record. In 2011 terms, they had the same record as the Jacksonville Jaguars. And are they a Superbowl winning team? Obviously not right now.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I don't have any Brady hate. He's arguably the best QB of all time I' just not stupid enough to realise he was the only person who had a hand in the changes that season.

But why do you keep going on about something that no one has even suggested here? Rather than diagnosing me as being stupid, it would be better for you to digest what has actually been posted.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

My point all along was to illustrate the impact Brady had on the team, it's in the stats, it's in the archives. I never said Brady WAS the team, but he brought that immeasurable to the Pats that Bledsoe never had.

Can you not see the focus on the underlined words there? The guy was comparing and talking about Brady and Bledsoe (the offense). I mean how much clearer can that be? I think that’s the second time I've quoted that btw. Do you even read posts?

spiralism wrote: »

It's hard to argue with the Pats mafia on this board though, Brady is basically the son of God around here and God help you lest you challenge his achievements.

You can take the persecution complex somewhere else, because I'm not even a Pats fan. Most of my family are fanatical Pats, so I couldn't avoid noticing Brady's talent down the years. I'm actually a 49ers fan, but really from the Montana era.

Brady’s achievements speak for themselves. keep ganging up all ye want, because it doesn't bully or intimidate me. I exposed outlandish interpretations and nothing more. And comparing Brady to Ben is like comparing Champagne to cider, you just can’t and don’t do it.

Chucky the tree

So you'd agree that the change from 2000 to 2001 wasn't all down to Brady? Corvus originally said this:

But in 2001 when Brady took over, their was a huge improvement in the Pats win loss record to 11-5. It was the same system, same coaches, just a new young gifted QB on the field.

Nothing about referring to just the offense. He simply said that Brady become QB and the Pats went to 11-5 and the only thing that changed was a new young QB. Strongly implying that the reason they went 11-5 was down to the QB.

mongoman

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Nothing about referring to just the offense. He simply said that Brady become QB and the Pats went to 11-5 and the only thing that changed was a new young QB. Strongly implying that the reason they went 11-5 was down to the QB.

Corvus finished up with this point on the offense.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

My point all along was to illustrate the impact Brady had on the team, it's in the stats, it's in the archives. I never said Brady WAS the team, but he brought that immeasurable to the Pats that Bledsoe never had.

That was posted after the quote you used. Looking at the sequence of posts, it should be pretty clear to anyone, that he was having to spell things out very clearer for you. In the light of your willful and ongoing deliberate misinterpretations. And you're still at it today, banging the pots and pans doesn't make it go away you know.

SantryRed

Will yis piss off arguing about fcuking Brady and Manning so I can find out where to get a new American Football!!!

Chucky the tree

mongoman wrote: »

Corvus finished up with this point on the offense.


That was posted after the quote you used. Looking at the sequence of posts, it should be pretty clear to anyone, that he was having to spell things out very clearer for you. In the light of your willful and ongoing deliberate misinterpretations. And you're still at it today, banging the pots and pans doesn't make it go away you know.

Glad that we all agree.

DDC1990

SantryRed wrote: »

Will yis piss off arguing about fcuking Brady and Manning so I can find out where to get a new American Football!!!

Sportsdirect have 3 Typres of American Footballs:

http://www.sportsdirect.com/wilson-nfl-extreme-american-football-804007
http://www.sportsdirect.com/wilson-nfl-american-football-800052
http://www.sportsdirect.com/wilson-nfl-duke-american-football-800053

Between 14 and 17 Euro.

Delivery is Pricey though, but if you were doing a Shop there, then those prices aren't too bad.

CoachTO

Certain posts in this thread are not the general consensus of ALL Pats fans. Christ on a bike some of the posts are embarrassing.

Brady made a difference to a certain extent back in 2000/2001 but the Pats had a very very good defense and very good offense and BB created a working balanced unit. It was an easy transition for Brady to come in and do any job. And lets face it you give a kid with talent those working tools he will shine.

I still think myself Bledsoe had he stayed fit could have taken us close also. Thats how good the team was as a unit. But one thing Brady added was young fresh leadership and like the Tebow effect in Denver players welcome the fresh young spark and rallied around him and of course Tom Brady is Tom Brady the kid had the spark to rally troops around him.

spiralism

CoachTO wrote: »

Certain posts in this thread are not the general consensus of ALL Pats fans. Christ on a bike some of the posts are embarrassing.

Brady made a difference to a certain extent back in 2000/2001 but the Pats had a very very good defense and very good offense and BB created a working balanced unit. It was an easy transition for Brady to come in and do any job. And lets face it you give a kid with talent those working tools he will shine.

I still think myself Bledsoe had he stayed fit could have taken us close also. Thats how good the team was as a unit. But one thing Brady added was young fresh leadership and like the Tebow effect in Denver players welcome the fresh young spark and rallied around him and of course Tom Brady is Tom Brady the kid had the spark to rally troops around him.

+1, would have to agree there. He provided a spark but the fuel was there. He didnt singlehandedly turn them from being an also ran into a dynasty, that's ludicrous

davetherave

SantryRed wrote: »

Will yis piss off arguing about fcuking Brady and Manning so I can find out where to get a new American Football!!!

Argos have/had one if you're not too worried about quality. Otherwise amazon or online. Get a baden one if you can stretch to it, league uses them.

SantryRed

davetherave wrote: »

Argos have/had one if you're not too worried about quality. Otherwise amazon or online. Get a baden one if you can stretch to it, league uses them.

Picked one up in Argos in the end. Thanks Dave!!

mongoman

CoachTO wrote: »

Certain posts in this thread are not the general consensus of ALL Pats fans. Christ on a bike some of the posts are embarrassing.

Which particular Pats fans are you referring to there? I’ve already pointed out that I’m a 49ers fan. And I’m sure your views don’t represent the sentiments of ALL pats fans either.

CoachTO wrote: »

Brady made a difference to a certain extent back in 2000/2001 but the Pats had a very very good defense and very good offense and BB created a working balanced unit.

Defensively in 2000 they conceded more TD’s than they scored, they gave up more offensive yards than they gained and conceded more sacks than they dished out.

(2000 Stats) Total TD’s scored 22 : Total TD’s conceded 35. Yards gained 4851 : Yards conceded 5525. Sacks for 29 : Sacks against 48.
Bledsoe was sacked 45 times in 2000 and Brady was sacked 41 times in 2001. Not impressive work by any offensive lines standards and indicates it was still very much a work in progress in 2001.

The same can be said of the defence, but they improved as the 2001 season progressed. But to suggest either the offense or Defence were already the finished article is not true.

CoachTO wrote: »

I still think myself Bledsoe had he stayed fit could have taken us close also.

Look at the hard results in 1997 they went 10-6. In 1998 they went 9-7. In 1999 they went 8-8 and in 2000 they went 5-11. Now if that’s not a clear backwards slide, then I don’t know what is.

It clearly suggests to me that things were going backwards for the Pats under Bledsoe. Brady got them back to winning ways in 2001 when they finished 11-5. And he has kept them there ever since.

I don't think anyone would dispute the coaching genius that Belichick is. And his team was still under construction when Brady became the starter. To suggest that it was all done and dusted when Brady stepped in is wrong. I mean the poor fúcker took 41 sacks in his first season.

Others and myself included have compared Brady-Bledsoe, NOT Brady Vs the team. Yet others have chosen for their own reasons, to read it that way.

Justin10

This is still going on???