Looks like the Pats backup QB buzz has worn off

[2006Coltsbestever]

52 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

For years the Patriots, Steelers, Colts dominated the AFC. Interesting fact from 2003-2011 1 of those teams won the AFC while in the NFC had a different team went every season with WildCard teams even winning the SB at times like the Giants and Packers.

Thanks for the like but the Giants actually went twice in that time frame  2007 and 2011 but it was interesting how 3 teams dominated the AFC for so long. Now it looks like Steelers/Patriots/Broncos as unfortunately my Colts are playing lousy right now.

[BloodyChamp]

I'll put the buzz back on just for the Brady homers if nobody minds. 3-1 would be 12-4 if the train kept rolling like it has, and 12-4 is better than 11-5. 

 

 

                            

[Bad Morty]

49 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

I'll put the buzz back on just for the Brady homers if nobody minds. 3-1 would be 12-4 if the train kept rolling like it has, and 12-4 is better than 11-5. 

 

If you saw yesterday's game at all, you'd understand that 12-4 (or 11-5) wouldn't be at all likely with Brisset. It would be more likely with a healthy Garrapolo, though even there it's a limited sample size. He played "fine" in the Arizona game...not great, but good. Opinions on his performance in that game were definitely boosted due to low expectations coming in. There was a lot of fear that he wasn't ready for this. When he played confidently and competently, it became easy to say "we found the next guy!"...then he absolutely lit it up for one quarter against a bad Dolphins team. So there it is...a game and a half. I'm not ready to say he's going to be Brady's heir apparent or that he could even be expected to have long term success based on that. What would happen when defensive coordinators had a chance to really study film on him and find his flaws?

[BloodyChamp]

Next guy or not they're 3-1 just like they were in 2008.

[Yehoodi]

18 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

Next guy or not they're 3-1 just like they were in 2008.

 

Yes they are 3-1 this season.  But . . .  

 

The Pats are 19-18 with BB and that "next guy or not"  (winning percentage 0.514)

 

and the Pats are 171-52 with BB and Brady.  (winning percentage 0.767)

0.767 is a full 0.250 percentage points above 0.514 . . . 
 

Just saying . . . 

 

And if i have my math correct 0.250 would convert to a full 4 wins per season over "that other guy"

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Yes they are 3-1 this season.  But . . .  

 

The Pats are 19-18 with BB and that "next guy or not"  (winning percentage 0.514)

 

and the Pats are 171-52 with BB and Brady.  (winning percentage 0.767)

0.767 is a full 0.250 percentage points above 0.514 . . . 
 

Just saying . . . 

 

And if i have my math correct 0.250 would convert to a full 4 wins per season over "that other guy"

Nice job going 3-1 Hoodi without Tom. I fully expect you guys will probably go 12-4 at worse. Possible losses are at Denver, at Pitt, and maybe at the Jets. I think 14-2 is even possible.

[Yehoodi]

I think a lot has been made back up QBs and talking heads getting all excited in recent weeks.  I have always have maintained that a solid back up QB will win about 2-5 fewer games then a great starter.   Just look at how the backups for the Broncos and Colts have fair in the last few years. 

 

Also, I think sometimes folks need to put things in perspective as a many times folks will react in the moment.

 

In 2001 we had a franchise QB (Bledsoe) who just signed a franchise deal in the off season and a coach that was 5-13 with this QB when he got injured.  BB was at the time a guy that was terse with the media and said cookie cutter answers which did not answer the question asked  and some folks and fans were tired of the act.  After going 5-13 with Bledsoe, in steps Brady and we go 11-3 the rest of the season, win a SB and win 3 SBs in 4 years.   

 

Now a knee jerk reaction is that Brady was he answer and he is great.  True Brady did perform well and was a major contributing factor to the success of the team.    However, there are a few qualifying factors, 2000 was BB first year, and we made some roster moves going into the 2001 season.   So those are there, but Brady did help the team go 11-3 none the less.

 

In 2008 we had a good portion of the team left over from the 16-0 season.  Yes Matt Cassell went 11-5 in that year (and he did the same in one year in KC btw), but we had an easy schedule.  Indeed, as reflective of this was the fact that the traditionally viewed weak AFC opponents had the most collective wins (27 total) since the start of the AFCE back in 2002 save for one year which was 2002.  So yes Cassell did win 11 games but at the same time one could say that he did not do more than the traditional 0.500 or below team, like the Fins, could do with the same schedule.   More often than not the Pats win the AFCE by 3-5 games.

 

In 2016 we have one of our strongest team and perhaps save for 2014 and 2007 our best team since 2004. So it would be natural for a back-up to win a few games.   One win was against a team that can't win in prime time and missed a FG, another was against team (Hou) that is like 2 and whatever in prime time.  And our one loss we got shout out at home for the first time since 1993 and first time at Gillette.   So yes, we are 3-1 but one can qualify those wins too good and bad. 

 

So for me when i look at these things I do not get too amped up one way or the other and do not give 100% of the credit to one position good or bad.  Each set of games have points and qualifications.  But in the end of the day the Pats are 19-18 without Brady (0.514) and 171-52 with Brady (0.767).   

[Yehoodi]

24 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Nice job going 3-1 Hoodi without Tom. I fully expect you guys will probably go 12-4 at worse. Possible losses are at Denver, at Pitt, and maybe at the Jets. I think 14-2 is even possible.

 

Yes it was a solid job by BB without Tom.  BB is a great coach and knows how to manage things with the players he has on the field.  And I agree this is probably our best team since 2004, save for perhaps 2014 and 2007, and fortunately for Brady he has a solid team around him and a great coaching staff as the OC and DC did not leave.

 

I do see 14-2 in the cards and i gotta think we go at least 12-4.  But time will tell.   

 

Agree, i think the Pitt and Denver game are huge for us as those games will have seeding tiebreaker implications for the winner and loser. 

[BloodyChamp]

I think we all know the Bledsoe years aren't indicative of anything we're talking about. Nice try. Why don't you go ahead and count the Browns years to.

[shakedownstreet]

Man, I hate it when my QB buzz wears off 

[Valpo2004]

So glad I started the Buffalo defense against the Pats. 

[Yehoodi]

2 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

I think we all know the Bledsoe years aren't indicative of anything we're talking about. Nice try. Why don't you go ahead and count the Browns years to.

 

Why is it not relevant?  Did not BB go 5-12 in 2000/2001 with Bledsoe and 11-3 with Brady and won a SB with essentially the same team with a few additions and subtractions?

 

2000 seems pretty relevant to 2001 no?   And Brady and other's Pats QBs, the subject of this thread, was under center for most of 2001. 

 

I like to look at an entire body of work, other folks think cherry picking results is how one analyzes a career.   BB's career in NE with and without Brady did not start in 2007. 

 

As I mentioned in my expanded post in this thread, things that Brady and other QBs have done have pluses and minuses for each side in each sets of games.   

 

[BloodyChamp]

14 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Why is it not relevant?  Did not BB go 5-12 in 2000/2001 with Bledsoe and 11-3 with Brady and won a SB with essentially the same team with a few additions and subtractions?

 

2000 seems pretty relevant to 2001 no?   And Brady and other's Pats QBs, the subject of this thread, was under center for most of 2001. 

 

I like to look at an entire body of work, other folks think cherry picking results is how one analyzes a career.   BB's career in NE with and without Brady did not start in 2007. 

 

As I mentioned in my expanded post in this thread, things that Brady and other QBs have done have pluses and minuses for each side in each sets of games.   

 

 

It's the equivalent of saying O look at Peyton Manning ya know he went 3-13 and 6-10 once. It was around the same time to which means there's been a decade or 2 since of better results. You're the 1 cherrypicking.

[Yehoodi]

1 hour ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

It's the equivalent of saying O look at Peyton Manning ya know he went 3-13 and 6-10 once. It was around the same time to which means there's been a decade or 2 since of better results. You're the 1 cherrypicking.

 

No I am not cherry picking.  Cherry picking is selecting a sub class of an larger category to make a point while conveniently ignoring the larger category which does not fits one's argument.  Not sure how I am cherry picking when I am looking at the entire category, 2000-2016. 

 

And as we are looking at the entire career of a coach to determine how good he is with the pats and without Brady we need to look at his career to make that determination.    Yes he was 5-13 but things came back to the mean and he went 11-5 and 3-1 later in his career.   

 

And to bring Manning analogy full circle, when we look at Manning's great career we include his performances in 1998 and 2000, we don't just eliminate those years from the discussion of Manning's place in history, which btw includes most passing yards and TDs.    You can not say Manning is the all time leader in passing yards and TDs without referencing 1998 and 2000, even though those performances occurred 18 and 16 years ago.   

 

Every great QB needs a great/HOF coach and Brady has had the benefit of BB.  

 

 

[BloodyChamp]

28 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

No I am not cherry picking.  Cherry picking is selecting a sub class of an larger category to make a point while conveniently ignoring the larger category which does not fits one's argument.  Not sure how I am cherry picking when I am looking at the entire category, 2000-2016. 

 

By going excuse me excuse me excuse me let's look at these stats from 15 years ago because they're more important than the ones now...

 

28 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

And to bring Manning analogy full circle, when we look at Manning's great career we include his performances in 1998 and 2000, we don't just eliminate those years from the discussion of Manning's place in history, which btw includes most passing yards and TDs. 

 

 

 

 

Go find me the last topic about the 1998 Colts then.

[dynasty13]

14 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

By going excuse me excuse me excuse me let's look at these stats from 15 years ago because they're more important than the ones now...

 

He didn't say 'more important'...he's simply including it as relevant...which, you know, you SHOULD do when talking about a total body of work.

 

What if I only looked at the last 2 years of Peyton Manning's career, instead of looking, say, 10 years ago to try to make a case about him? It's the same point you are making, just to a lesser extreme.

 

If you include every season, instead of omitting a few that either helps or hurts the argument you are trying to make (whether 10 years ago or 10 days ago, it doesnt matter), you can't be criticized for 'cherry-picking'.

[BloodyChamp]

Are we talking about a whole body of work here or are we talking about Tom Brady? Exactly...but anyway it's not as relevant as you want it to be. It happened 15 years ago. Since then Bill has been faced with the same thing again twice and not missed a beat. Include that in the body of work if you must but if you do include how it happened forever ago and that it hasn't happened again in 2 similar situations. 

[Yehoodi]

1 minute ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

By going excuse me excuse me excuse me let's look at these stats from 15 years ago because they're more important than the ones now...

 

Go find me the last topic about the 1998 Colts then.

 

Bloody, whether something is "old" or not does not mean it not part of one's resume, there is no shelf life to records.   And agreed old stats are not more important that new stats.   And yes pats fans can not single out 2000 and say "see I told you so," he must also look at 08 and 16.

 

And yes the late 90s Pats were not the best but that does not change the fact that Brady help the pats go 11-3 with the essentially the same roster that went 5-12. 

 

We are not worried about the age of the stat or record but how does Bill do with and without Brady with essentially the same roster.  And whether the "same rosters" are 2000-2001, or 2007-2008 or 2008-2009 or 2014-2015-2016, etc., does not matter.   It the comparison of BB with and without Brady that is important, not when it happened.   

 

You can based BB's career with and without Brady starting in the mid 2000s, I choose to start it at 2000.  So we can agree to disagree.  

   

 

[BloodyChamp]

Go out there and make a poll with 2 options - Option 1: Brady Option 2: Bill. The question being Who Ya Got. Bill will win that poll on every forum (not to mention lockerroom). Then argue with that.

[Yehoodi]

17 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

Are we talking about a whole body of work here or are we talking about Tom Brady? Exactly...but anyway it's not as relevant as you want it to be. It happened 15 years ago. Since then Bill has been faced with the same thing again twice and not missed a beat. Include that in the body of work if you must but if you do include how it happened forever ago and that it hasn't happened again in 2 similar situations. 

 

I agree with you Bloody, and yes BB has coached with different QBs and has had success with two QBs, Cassell for 15 games and Jimmy G for a game and half (altho that is small sample size).

 

So maybe Bledsoe had an off year in 2000 skewing the stats, maybe Cassell played over his head in 2008. Maybe Jimmy G had the luck of a new QB with no book on him and was lights out for 5 qtrs and did not have to face teams who had a book on him, maybe Jimmy G is just like some of the other rookies QB this year and so on, and thus really is not that special.  Maybe Brady has benefited from a great coach and great team most of his career and so on. 

 

It is tough to get a good grasp on the above and agree if any of it is true and to what extent  But we can see that BB did not miss a beat with he last two QBs but struggled a bit with the first QB.  And we have BB entire body of work to look at, and sometimes, the ups and downs, over time even out and we can get a view by looking at every thing.

 

I think you and i agree with respect to 2004-2016, it is just we differ about incjuding 2000-2001 that is all.  

[southwest1]

On October 2, 2016 at 2:53 PM, buffalo34 said:

The Patriots aren't going to go 19-0 now! They can't be hailed the best ever!

 

So the Bills lose the two games I expected them to win and win the two games I expected them to lose. So we still have a pulse.

 

Although it's hard to get too excited on the season when your #1 WR is out for the rest of the year.

I will confess that I believed Rex Ryan defense was gonna give either Jimmy G. or Brissett fits so I expected a loss here. Nothing to be ashamed of. I like Jimmy G. a lot & thought his running ability would have given Buffalo problems if his shoulder was okay. 

 

Congrats Rex, but stop pretending you beat NE at full strength because you didn't. Rex is a great DC but his antics tick me off & he needs to stop being a darn comedian. 

 

I've never seen BB throw his touch screen like that before. He was mad. Must be a Mac/apple guy vs a Microsoft guy I guess. Just joking! NE is still going win 12 games easy. They're just on another level. The only opponent on the AFC side they have to worry about is Denver period. 

[Yehoodi]

1 hour ago, BloodyChamp said:

Go out there and make a poll with 2 options - Option 1: Brady Option 2: Bill. The question being Who Ya Got. Bill will win that poll on every forum (not to mention lockerroom). Then argue with that.

 

Well . . . um . . . seeing that BB is 45-62 (one playoff win) without Brady and 171-52 (22-9 postseason, 4 rings) with Brady, its seems that the choice is clear.    .

 

Seriously, its a tough call.  It is very difficult to split the two.  All of the great QB or coaches needed a great counterpart to be great.  Very few, if any, have success outside of the other.  

 

I can see folks going with BB.  Also, a coach last longer than a player.  Will be interesting to see if either one has a significant number of games without the other.   

 

I do think both benefit from Kraft as an owner allowing things to flow how they flow among other things.

 

Also, I think both benefit from those humble and lovable Pats Fans. .

[BloodyChamp]

Everybody not in love with Tom Brady, including some Pats fans, are taking Bill. 

[Yehoodi]

5 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

Everybody not in love with Tom Brady, including some Pats fans, are taking Bill. 

 

i think it depends too on who is under center for Bill and who is Brady's coach and each surrounding cast.  

 

My money leans towards Brady.  

[southwest1]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Nice job going 3-1 Hoodi without Tom. I fully expect you guys will probably go 12-4 at worse. Possible losses are at Denver, at Pitt, and maybe at the Jets. I think 14-2 is even possible.

Uh huh. NE always has Big Ben's number. Brady will slice through that Steelers secondary like a Thanksgiving turkey. And the Jets under Fitzpatrick & Smith throw picks like most people chew gum. 

 

Broncos are Foxborough's only speed bump & if the Pats secure home field advantage, their likelihood for representing the AFC in the SB is very high. Defense always travels well, which aids orange crush. However, Ninkovich, Hightower, & Collins are fast, agile, & so darn smart. Plus, they all know if you can't get to Trevor or any other QB get your hands up. 

 

Going back to your old OL coach Dante Scarnecchia is huge too. I will confess that I mildly mocked how I thought Brady being sacked 20 times in the AFC Championship Game was more a reflection on a bad day at the office then their OL excuse, but I was wrong. Dante Scarnecchia is better than advertised & if you give Tommy time, he will make you pay. NE's line looks top notch this yr. I can't lie. 

 

Since INDY's line is still a work in progress under Joe Philbin for Luck, I always notice great lines & yes, I am jealous. I will own that. 

[BloodyChamp]

34 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

i think it depends too on who is under center for Bill and who is Brady's coach and each surrounding cast.  

 

My money leans towards Brady.  

 

This is just to easy...how can it depend on who is under center when all Bill does is win with whoever is under center lol your money or your wishes lean towards Brady (aka everybody not in love with Brady)...

[dynasty13]

56 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

This is just to easy...how can it depend on who is under center when all Bill does is win with whoever is under center lol your money or your wishes lean towards Brady (aka everybody not in love with Brady)...

This is just easier.

 

Maybe sometimes it has to do with who they're playing??? As hoodie said, the 2008 Patriots had one of the easiest schedules of recent memory, 7 months removed from having a roster making up one of the greatest teams of all time. 

 

Just to to play your 'Brady-only' game...let's 'cherry pick' and use only 2008 and the start of 2016: in 2008 the Patriots were 3-4 against teams above .500. They were 8-1 against teams at or below .500. In 2016, the Patriots are 1-0 against teams above .500, and 2-1 against teams at or below. 

 

Let me do the math for you so that there is no confusion:

WITHOUT TOM BRADY

Patriots vs teams above .500: 4-4

Patriots vs teams at or below .500: 10-2

 

I know I know, you're a Colts fan so you aren't used to beating the teams you are supposed to...but for everyone else, that record vs those opponents isn't the anti Brady 'trump card' you think it is, sorry.

 

There are Brady lovers and Brady haters all over the place...let's wait until his career is over before we start calling him overrated, shall we? Heck, as we all saw last year, if you have a great defense, maybe all you have to do is show up...so who knows...maybe he'll be able to collect a few more rings before he hangs em up.

[BloodyChamp]

I'm not even a Colts fan. If the 2008 Pats had such an easy schedule then how we're they the only 11-5 team to never make the playoffs? Even the cellar team of that division won 7 games iirc. 

 

This forum has also had some heated discussions about a guy named Aaron Rodgers. When I talk about his much worse record against .500 or better teams nobody wants to hear it, and they have the easiest schedule in the league most years. As for Brady's backups, those aren't bad numbers in big games when you consider that there is usually no preparation for them since the plan is never to not have Brady. Then this year when they did have that plan for 4 games it still got sabotaged and the won every game but 1.

[Gramz]

On 10/2/2016 at 3:14 PM, Jules said:

The savior arrives in a week back from deflate gate heaven.

 

BARF  

[Jules]

On the plus side it's nice to see some of our Pats fan friends back again posting.

 

Welcome back guys!!!

[dynasty13]

12 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

If the 2008 Pats had such an easy schedule then how we're they the only 11-5 team to never make the playoffs? Even the cellar team of that division won 7 games iirc. 

Thats exactly the point. Even the dreadful AFC East was able to rise up and capitalize! 

 

Brady haters love to point to how the Patriots somehow managed to win 11 games without him in '08 and here in 2016 somehow managed to win 3 without him and that somehow proves how he isn't great (kind of exactly the same point that could be made about how the broncos are 4-0 with a rookie after PM btw)...but the Patriots literally....played....crap....teams...during...those...wins.

 

It proves that a pretty darn good team can have a pretty...well...capable backup...and still beat the teams that it should.

 

No more, no less. Simply put, that's it. 

 

Bradys back. Time to make another run.

[BloodyChamp]

6 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

Thats exactly the point. Even the dreadful AFC East was able to rise up and capitalize! 

 

Brady haters love to point to how the Patriots somehow managed to win 11 games without him in '08 and here in 2016 somehow managed to win 3 without him and that somehow proves how he isn't great (kind of exactly the same point that could be made about how the broncos are 4-0 with a rookie after PM btw)...but the Patriots literally....played....crap....teams...during...those...wins.

 

It proves that a pretty darn good team can have a pretty...well...capable backup...and still beat the teams that it should.

 

No more, no less. Simply put, that's it. 

 

Bradys back. Time to make another run.

 

What? A 7-9 4th place team doesn't = crap teams. They also stomped the Cardinals who went to the SB that year.

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 hours ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Yes it was a solid job by BB without Tom.  BB is a great coach and knows how to manage things with the players he has on the field.  And I agree this is probably our best team since 2004, save for perhaps 2014 and 2007, and fortunately for Brady he has a solid team around him and a great coaching staff as the OC and DC did not leave.

 

I do see 14-2 in the cards and i gotta think we go at least 12-4.  But time will tell.   

 

Agree, i think the Pitt and Denver game are huge for us as those games will have seeding tiebreaker implications for the winner and loser. 

Yeah right now the Jets are playing poorly but always seem to give the Patriots trouble in NY, Jets beat them last season in NY. Playing at Buffalo wont be easy either but I cant see you guys getting swept by them.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, dynasty13 said:

This is just easier.

 

Maybe sometimes it has to do with who they're playing??? As hoodie said, the 2008 Patriots had one of the easiest schedules of recent memory, 7 months removed from having a roster making up one of the greatest teams of all time. 

 

Just to to play your 'Brady-only' game...let's 'cherry pick' and use only 2008 and the start of 2016: in 2008 the Patriots were 3-4 against teams above .500. They were 8-1 against teams at or below .500. In 2016, the Patriots are 1-0 against teams above .500, and 2-1 against teams at or below. 

 

Let me do the math for you so that there is no confusion:

WITHOUT TOM BRADY

Patriots vs teams above .500: 4-4

Patriots vs teams at or below .500: 10-2

 

I know I know, you're a Colts fan so you aren't used to beating the teams you are supposed to...but for everyone else, that record vs those opponents isn't the anti Brady 'trump card' you think it is, sorry.

 

There are Brady lovers and Brady haters all over the place...let's wait until his career is over before we start calling him overrated, shall we? Heck, as we all saw last year, if you have a great defense, maybe all you have to do is show up...so who knows...maybe he'll be able to collect a few more rings before he hangs em up.

Actually in the Andrew Luck era we have always beat the teams we are supposed too with the exception of this season so far. We haven't been able to beat the Patriots which was our main problem in Andrew's first 4 seasons. They eliminated us twice in the Playoffs as well. Against teams below .500 Andrew has pretty much destroyed them like our Divisional opponents, etc..

[Yehoodi]

13 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

This is just to easy...how can it depend on who is under center when all Bill does is win with whoever is under center lol your money or your wishes lean towards Brady (aka everybody not in love with Brady)...

 

It does depend on who is under center for BB and who is coaches Brady and the surrounding cast.  

 

For instance, I would take:

 

Tom Brady

Mike McCarthy

2016 Packers 

 

over

 

Drew Bledsoe (or Matt Cassell)

Bill Belichick

2016 Patriots

 

But if Brady played for say Cleveland or LA Rams I would take the Pats team above.  And so on and so on.  If Brady goes on to play with a great team and wins a SB, does that mean he is the bees knees now?  I do not think so, just that he a great QB that is playing on another great team and was able to help them get over the top.   

 

As neither person has played/coach a significant time without the other it is really tough get a chicken and the egg gauge on the two.   One could look at Cleveland and BB but that team was not a great team.   

 

And often times we will make these judgments on the number of rings and we all have seen that both great coaches and great players not perform in the playoffs, if BB is saddled with a great regular season QB and not so good playoff QB he would likely not win a ring, and thus is legacy is one of a great DC and solid regular season coach.    

 

In the end we will never know what BB could of done in the last 16 years without Brady.  I do not see it as clear cut as some.    We would get a clearer picture perhaps iif either ones players with the other and wins a ring.  

[Yehoodi]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah right now the Jets are playing poorly but always seem to give the Patriots trouble in NY, Jets beat them last season in NY. Playing at Buffalo wont be easy either but I cant see you guys getting swept by them.

 

Yah the Jets do play us tough and if Fitzy is on his game the Jets could split with us.  As for the Bills game in Buffalo, that is going to be pressure one for us and we can not afford to loose that one as we will loose the tiebreaker.

 

I think we will be able to out pace the other teams in the AFCE in the other games we play so we should be okay.  Nice to see that our back-ups gave is the lead 3-1 at the start of the season, and we are fortunate to date that our division rivals have started off with a slow start.    

[BloodyChamp]

Regardless of what you would take, 90% of everybody in the entire world would take Bill so...

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

On 10/2/2016 at 3:19 PM, oldunclemark said:

Colts need to fire the coach and the GM and prosecute the owner

 

Fixed

[Yehoodi]

7 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

Regardless of what you would take, 90% of everybody in the entire world would take Bill so...

 

I would say that the number is closer to 86% percent but who is counting.   .    Then again can I help that 48% of them them are wrong.  .    Like Yogi said, the Pats are 90% Brady and the other half is BB.  .

 

Those who live east of the Hudson River have the number at or below 50%.  .