Manning's legacy is a done deal now - Greatest only in regular season

[GoPats]

Wrong again. Just because a team makes it to the playoffs and loses doesnt mean they choked. its a choke if they are the favorites and the circumstances in which they lose. The only years the colts lost when they were favored was 05, 07 and 09' against the saints in the sb. Every other year they lost, they weren't projected to win. All those years the pats won they were the clear cut favorite and won.

Now lets examine Tom Brady. Each time he lost in the Super Bowl he was favored to win. Against the pitiful jets in 2010 they were favored. Against the ravens in 2009 they were favored. And I'm willing to bet for this game against the ravens (I haven't seen the spread yet) they are favored .

I see Peyton and Brady on almost equal footing in terms of playoff failures at this point.

 

I'm not sure you're correct about the Colts only being favored in those three games, but even giving you the benefit of the doubt on that, this is reaching.

 

Their respective win/loss records make that pretty clear. You're basing this entire argument on a blatant double standard.

 

To touch on the games you brought up...

 

Yes, the Patriots lost two Super Bowls to the Giants by a combined 7 points. In both games, late TDs by the Patriots' offense game them the lead. But I don't know a single NFL fan who would say objectively that the Giants didn't play out of their minds in both of those games. When the other team is hitting on all cylinders like that, it's tough to win.

 

The 2010 Jets? Yeah, pretty sure they went right through Manning and the Colts on their way to Foxboro.

 

The 2009 Ravens? They showed up, played a dang near perfect game, and won. Ray Rice took the opening snap 80 yards for a TD. They were prepared and they executed... more credit to them.

 

The Patriots, under Brady, have not suffered a playoff loss where the other team did not play near-perfect football. The lone exception is the 2006 AFCCG, but the Colts had a second half for the ages in that one.

 

I'm not even slightly attempting to discredit Manning here. He is a HOF player regardless of his postseason record. I'm only trying to counter your attempt to, for whatever reason, discredit Brady.

[tonychen]

How? By winning two games they were suppose to win anyway? I'm sorry but getting to the big game and not finishing the deal against clearly inferior teams is even worse .

 

Can you tell me in the past few yrs which team made the SB and lost to clearly inferior team?

[DILLIGAFER]

Think what you want. Personally.. Brady has had the one of the greatest football coaches ever in his back pocket.. dont you think just maybe that has had something to do with his success and the Patriots success as a team??

Just something to ponder there before the smack talk continues..

[Dustin]

Can you tell me in the past few yrs which team made the SB and lost to clearly inferior team?

The Patriots.

[GoPats]

Again I'll reiterate my point that one and dones are highly overrated. There's very little difference to me in losing in the divisional or losing the afc championship. You get one more pointless playoff win and lose one or two draft slots.

The pats 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 were all favorites to win.

The magnitude of those losses far outweigh any of mannings playoff loses. The only one that can really compare is 2005 when they were overwhelming favorites.

Manning didn't blow a 21-3 lead in the AFCCG , didn't have four turnovers in a home playoff game and get blown out, didn't lose at home to a team they beat 45-3 in the regular season, didn't score only 14 points in the Super Bowl to a underdog giants team after being the only undefeated team in the modern era to reach the super bowl, and didn't lose in similar fashion in the Super Bowl 4 years later to the same team. Brady did though. I suppose it's easier to brush aside Brady's playoff loses since most of them were lopsided anyway. Even though in fact, it makes them worse but easier to spread blame.

Some interesting stats:

-When Brady started 9-0, his YPA was 6.42. That would rank 50th out of 65 playoff QBs

-Peyton Manning has lost four postseason games when his team has led with 40 seconds left. Not all of the playoff losses fall on him apparently.

-Since 2000, Peyton Mannings receivers also have the most fumbled completions in the playoffs at five.

Also, if anyone believes that a 17-6 and 9-11 playoff record is a direct result of quarterbacking I suggest they do some research.

 

I am generally a lot more respectful than this, but...

 

This entire post is laughable. I'll just address my favorite parts.

 

 

"There's very little difference to me in losing in the divisional or losing the afc championship."

 

Except, you know, the one or two playoff games that you actually won to get there. No words would even begin to capture the ridiculousness of your statement.

 

 

"The magnitude of those losses far outweigh any of mannings playoff loses..."

 

LOL, oh really? Yeah, Indy fans always seemed real, real happy after playoff losses. Did you invent some kind of device that measures the "magnitude" of losing a sporting event? I'll give you 18-1, that was as painful as it gets, but I'm guessing that you were not very old when the Colts and Manning exited the postseason prior to 2006.

 

 

"Peyton Manning has lost four postseason games when his team has led with 40 seconds left."

 

And Brady has been in two Super Bowls where his team lead with 2:42 and 3:46 left, in each case getting the ball back with well under a minute to go. You hammer Brady for those games but you give Manning a free pass? Yeah, that's objective.

 

"Also, if anyone believes that a 17-6 and 9-11 playoff record is a direct result of quarterbacking I suggest they do some research."

 

My, how very pretentious of you. I would "suggest" you search high and low for something resembling a clue!

[GoPats]

Think what you want. Personally.. Brady has had the one of the greatest football coaches ever in his back pocket.. dont you think just maybe that has had something to do with his success and the Patriots success as a team??

Just something to ponder there before the smack talk continues..

 

Yup, credit to anyone but Brady... because that's what a handful of you, for reasons I cannot fathom, do.

[bayone]

I am generally a lot more respectful than this, but...

 

This entire post is laughable. I'll just address my favorite parts.

 

 

"There's very little difference to me in losing in the divisional or losing the afc championship."

 

Except, you know, the one or two playoff games that you actually won to get there. No words would even begin to capture the ridiculousness of your statement.

 

 

"The magnitude of those losses far outweigh any of mannings playoff loses..."

 

LOL, oh really? Yeah, Indy fans always seemed real, real happy after playoff losses. Did you invent some kind of device that measures the "magnitude" of losing a sporting event? I'll give you 18-1, that was as painful as it gets, but I'm guessing that you were not very old when the Colts and Manning exited the postseason prior to 2006.

 

 

"Peyton Manning has lost four postseason games when his team has led with 40 seconds left."

 

And Brady has been in two Super Bowls where his team lead with 2:42 and 3:46 left, in each case getting the ball back with well under a minute to go. You hammer Brady for those games but you give Manning a free pass? Yeah, that's objective.

 

"Also, if anyone believes that a 17-6 and 9-11 playoff record is a direct result of quarterbacking I suggest they do some research."

 

My, how very pretentious of you. I would "suggest" you search high and low for something resembling a clue!

 

Do agree with most but as always said winning & losing is a team issue

[DILLIGAFER]

Yup, credit to anyone but Brady... because that's what a handful of you, for reasons I cannot fathom, do.

Do you read or just flame? So, you give no credit to your own coach?? pathetic.

[bayone]

Yup, credit to anyone but Brady... because that's what a handful of you, for reasons I cannot fathom, do.

agreed, I must go know have a good day

 

Reason may be bias or lack of rational thought out process & evaluation

 

Do agree though BB gets some credit , he is a pure genius and may be best coach of all time, lets not have a  thread arguing  on that issue too please

 

Its not only the medical issues that will curtail my time on forum , but some threads are just turnoffs & make me sicker

[GoPats]

Do you read or just flame? So, you give no credit to your own coach?? pathetic.

 

So explain to me, then, how I failed to "read" the gist of the post I quoted?

 

Of course BB has a ton to do with the Patriots' success. He's responsible for all football operations in New England, from personnel matters to coaching to contracts. But a football coach, even a great one, isn't on the field.

 

There is one player - one - remaining on the roster who has three rings. Despite turning over 52 of 53 spots in a decade-plus (most spots more than once), they'll be playing on Sunday for the privilege of going to another Super Bowl. Granted they've done a great job of retooling the roster over the years, but your refusal to just say, "Yes, Tom Brady is the main reason for the Patriots' run of success" is what is truly pathetic. And aside from a handful of Pro-Manning, Anti-Brady haters who are right there with you, everyone knows it.

[GoPats]

agreed, I must go know have a good day

 

Reason may be bias or lack of rational thought out process & evaluation

 

Do agree though BB gets some credit , he is a pure genius and may be best coach of all time, lets not have a  thread arguing  on that issue too please

 

Its not only the medical issues that will curtail my time on forum , but some threads are just turnoffs & make me sicker

 

Agreed Barry, you're passionate but what makes you a great poster is you're reasonable and objective. As you know this is a bit out of character for me, but there are some ridiculous things being tossed around in this thread!

 

Have a good day my friend, hope it improves and we'll be here when you're back.

[bayone]

Agreed Barry, you're passionate but what makes you a great poster is you're reasonable and objective. As you know this is a bit out of character for me, but there are some ridiculous things being tossed around in this thread!

 

Have a good day my friend, hope it improves and we'll be here when you're back.

 

will post occasional article am sent, but once u comment u can get into an endless mindless diatribe i just dont want to partake in & its not like me to back down so best not to start

[tonychen]

The Patriots.

 

You really think those Giants teams were inferior? Come on! Those were all very talented teams failing to get better regular season records because of their mentality issues. When they were focued they were at least as good as the Pats.

[GoPats]

will post occasional article am sent, but once u comment u can get into an endless mindless diatribe i just dont want to partake in & its not like me to back down so best not to start

 

I hear you on that, I have mixed feelings about my own involvement, lol...

;)

 

Usually it's just not worth it. I start off by trying to "correct" inaccuracies but there have been some posts in this thread that were just like... wow. Seriously?

[Dustin]

You really think those Giants teams were inferior? Come on! Those were all very talented teams failing to get better regular season records because of their mentality issues. When they were focued they were at least as good as the Pats.

Alright dude, at this point I cant even tell if you're trolling or not. Yes, the 2007 18-0 New England Patriots with the best offense in NFL history and a top 5 defense were better than the 10-6 Wild Card New York Giants. And yes the 2011 14-2 Patriots with the 2nd best offense in the NFL were better than the 10-6 Giants that didn't make it to the playoffs the year before or year after.

[tonychen]

Alright dude, at this point I cant even tell if you're trolling or not. Yes, the 2007 18-0 New England Patriots with the best offense in NFL history and a top 5 defense were better than the 10-6 Wild Card New York Giants. And yes the 2011 14-2 Patriots with the 2nd best offense in the NFL were better than the 10-6 Giants that didn't make it to the playoffs the year before or year after.

 

The 07 meeting strongly favored pats no doubt, but I don't think in 11 pats ever thought they had any advantage going into the SB. One of the two losses they had in the regular season were given by the Giants at Foxboro and these Giants at that time already eliminated the Packers which were very similar to the yrs Pats on all aspects - great passing offense with little run support and bad pass defense. As far as they went that far, in today's salary capped systems, all the super bowl teams are battle-tested and it's very hard to tell which team is obviously superior/inferior.

[Yehoodi]

Again I'll reiterate my point that one and dones are highly overrated. There's very little difference to me in losing in the divisional or losing the afc championship. You get one more pointless playoff win and lose one or two draft slots.

The pats 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 were all favorites to win.

The magnitude of those losses far outweigh any of mannings playoff loses. The only one that can really compare is 2005 when they were overwhelming favorites.

Manning didn't blow a 21-3 lead in the AFCCG , didn't have four turnovers in a home playoff game and get blown out, didn't lose at home to a team they beat 45-3 in the regular season, didn't score only 14 points in the Super Bowl to a underdog giants team after being the only undefeated team in the modern era to reach the super bowl, and didn't lose in similar fashion in the Super Bowl 4 years later to the same team. Brady did though. I suppose it's easier to brush aside Brady's playoff loses since most of them were lopsided anyway. Even though in fact, it makes them worse but easier to spread blame.

Some interesting stats:

-When Brady started 9-0, his YPA was 6.42. That would rank 50th out of 65 playoff QBs

-Peyton Manning has lost four postseason games when his team has led with 40 seconds left. Not all of the playoff losses fall on him apparently.

-Since 2000, Peyton Mannings receivers also have the most fumbled completions in the playoffs at five.

Also, if anyone believes that a 17-6 and 9-11 playoff record is a direct result of quarterbacking I suggest they do some research.

For some reason this website will not allow me to bold, but if I could I would bold your last comment regarding doing research . . . [sorry for the long post but felt it necessary to get my points across]

First off, it is very difficult to compare results that are so much different as you are fighting an uphill battle. Invariably whenever you try to mitigate one thing on one side of the fence you will find an equal mitigation on the other side of the fence . . . it would be one thing if we had a small body of work, like three games and those three/four games are a Trent Dilfers type SB run and he is 3-0 and say a “better” qb is in the playoff for 3 years and wins just one game and thus has a record of 1-3 and will look worse, however the 2000s ravens D comes around once a generation and with such a small sample the weaker QB likes great compare to the better QB . . . but with a larger sample size 12 and 9 playoff appearances respectively, those individual spikes, if any in the QB resume, will be mitigated by the longer playoff resume . . .

Second, when we compare players or teams and use standards of reference in our research it is prudent and right to apply the same standard to both entities to get a better picture . . . for instance if Brady won just one championship and did so with the 85 Bears D then later in the decade Manning did it with an 85 bears D, I cannot water down Manning accomplishment say “he had the 85 bears D” without equally watering down Brady’s achievement . . .

Third, yes the Pats have had some marquee losses, but for what it is worth here are a few points . . . yes we beat the Jets 45-3 in that season but then again lost to them 28-18 earlier in the season, so we were 1-1 against them going into the playoffs . . . and on a side note, the Jets were going to do anything to beat us, even dropping down three times during the game, but more importantly had bought in a lot of free agents in ’09 with the specific effort to beat us with a disregard for their future and salary cap, so sure they beat us, but are now suffering from their 09-10 run . . .

Fourth, you mentioned the 5 reception fumbles by Manning receivers . . . I like that stat and find it interesting as it is an indication of his teammates contribution on offense . . . however it is only part of the equation, if one wants to get a real stat on this we need to look at all of the fumbles by his teammate, including the RBs . . . whether the QB passes the ball to a WR who runs three yards and fumbles or hands the ball to a RB and he runs three yards and fumbles, it’s the same thing a teammate on offense has the ball and fumbles . . . so altho I like the stat is only shows part of the equation that it is trying to present, turnovers by his offense teammates . . .

Fifth, and most importantly, you brought up a stat in regards to Manning having the lead late in the 4th qtr and then seeing his team yield the lead and loose . . . and you stated “not all of the playoff losses fall on him apparently” . . . I could not agree with this point more . . . I have consistently stated that one needs to qualify a QB contribution when he basically is sitting on the sidelines late in the game having to see his D yield the lead and loose . . . I will point out tho, just as I did above, we need to apply this theory to Brady too . . . the stat you quoted does not deal with the time in which the team got the ball but the time which they scored . . . but regardless let apply this equally to both players . . . I have always made a point to people with regard to three of Brady’s losses, the 06 AFCCG, SB 42 and 46 . . . and just like manning in those four games you wish to mitigate, Brady was on the sidelines in the final minute leading only to see his D yield a winning score . . . the times are 2006 AFCCG (60 seconds), SB42 (39 seconds) and SB46(57 seconds), so just like manning in his 4 mitigated looses, Brady also was sitting on the sidelines in the final minute watching the D yield the lead . . . so Randell, if you want to be consistent, you cannot target these Brady’s losses as you did in your second paragraph of your post, then later try to mitigate 4 of Manning looses without apply the same standard to both sets of looses . . . it works both ways, we need to be consistent with our analysis when we compare things . . . just saying . . .

I will further point out that this theory mitigates 3 of Brady’s 6 losses (50%) but only mitigates 4 of Manning’s 11 looses (36%), leaving him with 8 more losses to Brady’s 3 additional . . . but this goes to my point of an uphill battle, invariably there will be mitigating circumstances, but there will be on both sides of the equation, just as both players have benefited from lucky bounces in their wins . . . but when you have a wide gap as we have, you can’t mitigate away enough stuff to catch up or to pull the other guy back . . . indeed this theory only changes the equation by a plus/minus of one loss . . .

As for the YPA, we were never a down the field throwing team back then . . . and also have always ran WR screens with the WR starting with 0 yards before the yac . . . and further it does not matter to me if one move the changes with two short passes or one medium pass, just so long as he moves the chains . . .

And lastly, I don’t buy your one and dones are highly overrated on not . . . a win is a win and a loss is a loss, just that in the playoffs you are generally playing tougher teams . . . and in 20 games (which is more than a full season) Manning is 9-11 and in 23 games Brady is 17-6 . . . look at it like a season, if one team loose 4 in a row, then wins 3, losses 1, then wins 2, loses 1 and so on and goes say 7-9 and another team wins 6 in a row, loses one, then wins 3 in a row, the looses one, then wins 2 and looses on and so on and goes 13-3, you are going to say that the team that won 13 games over a 16 game period is more likely than not doing better that the team that just won 7 games over the number of games. . . the fact that they happened in Sept or Jan does not make them not a game, and if we play our games week to week or have to wait the next year to play our next game is not relevant, bottom line over a 20 game period Manning is 9-11 and Brady is 17-6 over a 23 game period . . .

[jvan1973]

Why is this thread still open.. Nobody is going to change their mind

[tonychen]

Why is this thread still open.. Nobody is going to change their mind

 

Nobody ever changed their minds in all these yr on this forum (except me recently changed my mind on Manning) but discussions are still going on around ;)

[Yehoodi]

Alright dude, at this point I cant even tell if you're trolling or not. Yes, the 2007 18-0 New England Patriots with the best offense in NFL history and a top 5 defense were better than the 10-6 Wild Card New York Giants. And yes the 2011 14-2 Patriots with the 2nd best offense in the NFL were better than the 10-6 Giants that didn't make it to the playoffs the year before or year after.

yes, but the Gmen matched up well against us . . . yes we were favorite in 2007, and more than likely would of beaten them last year . . . but then again they beat us in Foxboro during the regular season, which if I remember was the last home regular season loss for Brady since 2006, about 5 years . . . so yes as against other teams in the lead were still better than the Gmen in 2011, but due to match ups the gap was closer in 2011 than a 9-7 and 13-3 teams . . .

I always said I blame Farve (2007) and Smith (2011) for not knocking off the Gmen inthe AFCCG for us . . . . . . i like our chances better against teh '07 Packers and '11 49ers . . . but it did not happen and we lost twice

[tonychen]

yes, but the Gmen matched up well against us . . . yes we were favorite in 2007, and more than likely would of beaten them last year . . . but then again they beat us in Foxboro during the regular season, which if I remember was the last home regular season loss for Brady since 2006, about 5 years . . . so yes as against other teams in the lead were still better than the Gmen in 2011, but due to match ups the gap was closer in 2011 than a 9-7 and 13-3 teams . . .

I always said I blame Farve (2007) and Smith (2011) for not knocking off the Gmen inthe AFCCG for us . . . . . . i like our chances better against teh '07 Packers and '11 49ers . . . but it did not happen and we lost twice

 

Exactly as the match up thing is a major factor. Also all teams reaching the biggest stage are battle-tested, and none of them should be overlooked. Even the 08 Cardinals played a great game and could have won had Big Ben and Holmes not connect on that tip-toe one.

[Yehoodi]

Why is this thread still open.. Nobody is going to change their mind

Yes some may not change their minds . . . both other might and have . . . it is a fluid concept that can change some from year to year, just like the MVP race can change throughout the 16 game year . . .

Surely it would be great to wait till their careers are over to see the entire body of work, but as we are nearing the end of the two great careers with 3-5 years left in each, some just want to extrapolate the last years . . . surely one or the other could win 3 SBs or 3 MVPs or something, but it is unlikely that is all . . .

The good news is that Manning and the Broncos are prime for a great run the next few years and very easily could have a “this ones for John” moment, maybe 2 or three . . . as the AFC could be a little wide open with Hou trying to get their first prime time win, indy still in a little transition, Pitt floating a little, and Baltimore perhaps the only one with an elite pedigree outside of NE and Den . .

So it will be a fun few years, but as the years are going down, time is running out to add to ones resume . . .

Also it is always fun to have some General Store talk were folks discuss who has the better player or tractor, we are just doing it over the internet as opposed to meeting at Sam Drucker’s store whilst Uncle Joe plays checkers with Floyd Smoot (a Petticoat Junction/Green Acres reference for those who do not know the shows)

[tonychen]

Yes some may not change their minds . . . both other might and have . . . it is a fluid concept that can change some from year to year, just like the MVP race can change throughout the 16 game year . . .

Surely it would be great to wait till their careers are over to see the entire body of work, but as we are nearing the end of the two great careers with 3-5 years left in each, some just want to extrapolate the last years . . . surely one or the other could win 3 SBs or 3 MVPs or something, but it is unlikely that is all . . .

The good news is that Manning and the Broncos are prime for a great run the next few years and very easily could have a “this ones for John” moment, maybe 2 or three . . . as the AFC could be a little wide open with Hou trying to get their first prime time win, indy still in a little transition, Pitt floating a little, and Baltimore perhaps the only one with an elite pedigree outside of NE and Den . .

So it will be a fun few years, but as the years are going down, time is running out to add to ones resume . . .

Also it is always fun to have some General Store talk were folks discuss who has the better player or tractor, we are just doing it over the internet as opposed to meeting at Sam Drucker’s store whilst Uncle Joe plays checkers with Floyd Smoot (a Petticoat Junction/Green Acres reference for those who do not know the shows)

 

Well said. And it is also interesting to notice that most of the Pats fans hanging on here are polite and supporting their opinions with analysis while there are some Colts fans only shooting their assertions without any reasoning, which is not very convincing. There will be people changing their minds after reading these posts.

[jvan1973]

Well said. And it is also interesting to notice that most of the Pats fans hanging on here are polite and supporting their opinions with analysis while there are some Colts fans only shooting their assertions without any reasoning, which is not very convincing. There will be people changing their minds after reading these posts.

No there will not.. A message board will not change anyone mind

[ViriLudant]

Why is this thread still open.. Nobody is going to change their mind

Jules did.

[jvan1973]

Jules did.

I don't think her opinion was changed due to a thread on the internet. Do you think i could convince pats fans that bb is a cheater if i started a thread on spygate on a pats board?

[tonychen]

No there will not.. A message board will not change anyone mind

 

Depends on how you deliver your message. A msg like "A is better than B *!" surely will do nothing persuasive but irritating people but a msg "A is better than B because..." is going to be much more useful.

[jvan1973]

Depends on how you deliver your message. A msg like "A is better than B *!" surely will do nothing persuasive but irritating people but a msg "A is better than B because..." is going to be much more useful.

Ok, dungy was better than bb because he won without cheating.

[Yehoodi]

I don't think her opinion was changed due to a thread on the internet. Do you think i could convince pats fans that bb is a cheater if i started a thread on spygate on a pats board?

it all depends on the facts you have and the conclusions you draw from those facts . . . for example, if one were reported that BB had walk through tapes of his three SB opponents and BB confirmed this fact and then you went on to make, say, an argument along the lines of "since he had knowledge of some of the potential plays in the game he had an unfair advantage pregame?" you don't think you can convince some pats fans that the Pats had an unfair advantage going into those games?

Facts can change, look at Lance Armstrong's recent admission, or can be added too, if Brady wins a few more SBs and MVPs and ends his career will higher career numbers than manning, or vice versa . . . you don't think some people might hop the fence to the otherside?

[DILLIGAFER]

Excuses... never ends.. gotta say though.. pats fans are reluctant to give it up. I however, am sick of it and am done. Adios to this thread. (Thank goodness)

[tonychen]

Ok, dungy was better than bb because he won without cheating.

 

Sure this is a good point. +1 credit to you

[ViriLudant]

I don't think her opinion was changed due to a thread on the internet. Do you think i could convince pats fans that bb is a cheater if i started a thread on spygate on a pats board?

No, because the facts wouldn't back you up.

The facts of Brady > Manning do back Jules up.

[jvan1973]

No, because the facts wouldn't back you up.

The facts of Brady > Manning do back Jules up.

Actually the facts do back me up. The pats haven't won a super bowl since they were caught cheating. Fact

[braveheartcolt]

Just jumped in a time machine, and now back from the year 2022. Andrew Luck was officially annointed GOAT by Skip Bayless after winning his 7th Super Bowl in 10 years, 3 more than any other QB, and the Indianapolis Colts were crowned the greatest Dynasty in the history of sports. Although Tom Brady actually won 5 SB's, his first three did not count because he had a good Defense.

 

I thank you, now stop bickering...

[GoPats]

It's really a shame that a couple of people are too insecure about their football heroes, and misguidedly antagonistic to boot, to be able to participate in a lively discussion like this one.

 

So knock it off, Wallace. ;)

[Thewholefnshow28]

It's really a shame that a couple of people are too insecure about their football heroes, and misguidedly antagonistic to boot, to be able to participate in a lively discussion like this one.

 

So knock it off, Wallace. ;)

My quarterback is better than your quarterback because he wears different laundry than yours!111!!!1

[Snowglobe]

Actually the facts do back me up. The pats haven't won a super bowl since they were caught cheating. Fact

 

That's like saying the Colts haven't won a SB since piping in crowd noise into the RCA dome. How stupid does that sound? 

[jvan1973]

That's like saying the Colts haven't won a SB since piping in crowd noise into the RCA dome. How stupid does that sound?

One was proven, one was not. Not only that, the colts did win after the steelers made that accusation

[dynasty13]

That's like saying the Colts haven't won a SB since piping in crowd noise into the RCA dome. How stupid does that sound? 

 

Except that's a stupid comparison because the 'pumping in crowd noise' complaint turned out to be nothing. Spygate DID happen, and the fact is, the Patriots haven't won the Superbowl since the story broke.

 

Now with that said, I don't think throwing that line out there is quite the 'trump card' many opposing fans think it is. It's hard to win in this league, and you simply cant win every year. The Patriots have a chance to get back to their third Superbowl in the 6 years since Spygate broke, and hopefully this time they can silence the spygate clingers once and for all.

[bayone]

It's really a shame that a couple of people are too insecure about their football heroes, and misguidedly antagonistic to boot, to be able to participate in a lively discussion like this one.

 

So knock it off, Wallace. ;)

Just checked in 4 a second, Unbelievable, that's why I just cant get into these back & forth utterances by many

 

anyway back to my reality