most people thought this was gonna rejuvenate his career. new team, new city. i have nothing against him, i was hoping he would do better (not against the eagles obviously).
8/28/98- Camden, NJ
10/31/09- Philly
5/21/10- NYC
9/2/12- Philly, PA
7/19/13- Wrigley
10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
10/21/13- Philly, PA
10/22/13- Philly, PA
10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
4/28/16- Philly, PA
4/29/16- Philly, PA
5/1/16- NYC
5/2/16- NYC
9/2/18- Boston, MA
9/4/18- Boston, MA
9/14/22- Camden, NJ
9/7/24- Philly, PA
9/9/24- Philly, PA
Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly. PA
Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly, PA
RNDM- 3/9/16- Philly, PA
Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.
I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.
I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
agree with this. same goes with coaches. as an Eagles fan i still don't get the hate Andy Reid gets.
I'd say organizational management. Not many weak links. Your starting QB can go down and you can still get a record that should get you in the playoffs. Unlike the Colts, where when Manning goes down the rest of the organization is exposed as incompetent. Brady doesn't have to pull all the team's weight, just a small fraction of it.
If Luck goes down, the Colts will be battling the Rams for the #1 pick
(oh wait, the Rams traded all their picks to the Colt's rivals for a practice team QB)
Agreed. It's that model of consistency that every team should strive for.
I assume the people in Tennessee are celebrating the shit show that is the Rams based on the fact they will probably begetting a top 5 pick in the first and second rounds. No way the Rams win more than 2 or 3 games. If it were not for the Browns the #1 pick could be in play.
Tom Brady & Donald Trump, BFF's Fuckus rules all Rob Seattle
Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.
I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.
I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm not talking about who had the better career or who is the better overall QB or even who is the better playoff QB. All I'm saying is if you have a guy who is 4-0 in Super Bowls and a guy who is 4-2 in Super Bowls (or 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6 etc)... the undefeated record, in the Super Bowl game itself, is more impressive than the one with losses. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
agree with this. same goes with coaches. as an Eagles fan i still don't get the hate Andy Reid gets.
Nor Donovan McNabb. That dude was a baller and actually had me rooting for a damn Philadelphia team for a while! It's a shame he & Andy never won a SB together.
Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.
I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.
I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm not talking about who had the better career or who is the better overall QB or even who is the better playoff QB. All I'm saying is if you have a guy who is 4-0 in Super Bowls and a guy who is 4-2 in Super Bowls (or 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6 etc)... the undefeated record, in the Super Bowl game itself, is more impressive than the one with losses. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
I get what you're saying, dude. It's not that hard to understand. Your logic suggests that Brady "had more chances" than Montana and Bradshaw and thus, for Montana and Bradshaw to maximize their chances by winning them all, they're better. But you don't just appear in the Super Bowl and have a Super Bowl career that's separate from the rest of your career. You seem to want to separate a Super Bowl Career from the rest of their career. Which is fine for you if ya wanna do that, but I'm not. So my argument is that Brady has earned more chances and shouldn't be penalized for that. And I'll be making this same argument for Lebron if he gets a 6th ring and folks of your ilk argue that "Jordan never lost a finals." Again, I get what you're saying. It's not hard to understand...at all. But I'm just not in agreement with your premise.
Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.
I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.
I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm not talking about who had the better career or who is the better overall QB or even who is the better playoff QB. All I'm saying is if you have a guy who is 4-0 in Super Bowls and a guy who is 4-2 in Super Bowls (or 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6 etc)... the undefeated record, in the Super Bowl game itself, is more impressive than the one with losses. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
I get what you're saying, dude. It's not that hard to understand. Your logic suggests that Brady "had more chances" than Montana and Bradshaw and thus, for Montana and Bradshaw to maximize their chances by winning them all, they're better. But you don't just appear in the Super Bowl and have a Super Bowl career that's separate from the rest of your career. You seem to want to separate a Super Bowl Career from the rest of their career. Which is fine for you if ya wanna do that, but I'm not. So my argument is that Brady has earned more chances and shouldn't be penalized for that. And I'll be making this same argument for Lebron if he gets a 6th ring and folks of your ilk argue that "Jordan never lost a finals." Again, I get what you're saying. It's not hard to understand...at all. But I'm just not in agreement with your premise.
Let me take another specific stat... interceptions.
Brett Favre threw more interceptions than every other QB who ever played the game. In no way am I then saying that every other QB who ever played the game had a better career than Brett Favre. It just means he was better than all of them at throwing INTs.
Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.
I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.
I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm not talking about who had the better career or who is the better overall QB or even who is the better playoff QB. All I'm saying is if you have a guy who is 4-0 in Super Bowls and a guy who is 4-2 in Super Bowls (or 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6 etc)... the undefeated record, in the Super Bowl game itself, is more impressive than the one with losses. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
I get what you're saying, dude. It's not that hard to understand. Your logic suggests that Brady "had more chances" than Montana and Bradshaw and thus, for Montana and Bradshaw to maximize their chances by winning them all, they're better. But you don't just appear in the Super Bowl and have a Super Bowl career that's separate from the rest of your career. You seem to want to separate a Super Bowl Career from the rest of their career. Which is fine for you if ya wanna do that, but I'm not. So my argument is that Brady has earned more chances and shouldn't be penalized for that. And I'll be making this same argument for Lebron if he gets a 6th ring and folks of your ilk argue that "Jordan never lost a finals." Again, I get what you're saying. It's not hard to understand...at all. But I'm just not in agreement with your premise.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all.
Well you're saying that a perfect winning percentage with four rings is better than a non-perfect winning percentage with four rings. You underlined "they're better" stressing you don't mean that. So you mean it's "more impressive" rather than "they're better" I guess. Or something. Whatever.
actually might be the dumbest call. he just made this idiot go viral - which you proved by posting the video.
maybe Kaepernick can protest that too
He should.....I didn't watch the game but when there's a game that boring and out of hand I don't blame him one bit to make that call. It's not only fans that can feel or see the boredom coming from that game, the announcers see it as well. I hope the guy thinks it was worth it spend the night or two in the clink.
Peace
Post edited by g under p on
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
The LA Rams have not scored since the 2nd Quarter on Christmas Eve 1994. Last point was scored by Tony Zendejas on a PAT. Jerome Bettis had 48 yards rushing.
Ha! This winner of a human being was on that team as well. I lived a short walk from the Coli at the time, attending USC. (Not a walk you made after dark, however.)
Did anyone who watches that game last night think the issue in Buffalo is their play calling? Overwhelmingly, the issue is a defense that blows giant schlongs. They couldn't stop NY without NY shooting themselves in the foot. A few questionable play calls but Taylor overthrew lots of open receivers.
The problem here is clear - Lapband has to go. He is the "defensive genius" and his defense was awful last night.
Comments
10/31/09- Philly
5/21/10- NYC
9/2/12- Philly, PA
7/19/13- Wrigley
10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
10/21/13- Philly, PA
10/22/13- Philly, PA
10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
4/28/16- Philly, PA
4/29/16- Philly, PA
5/1/16- NYC
5/2/16- NYC
9/2/18- Boston, MA
9/4/18- Boston, MA
9/14/22- Camden, NJ
9/7/24- Philly, PA
9/9/24- Philly, PA
Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly, PA
RNDM- 3/9/16- Philly, PA
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
He could play for the Rams.
maybe Kaepernick can protest that too
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Brett Favre threw more interceptions than every other QB who ever played the game. In no way am I then saying that every other QB who ever played the game had a better career than Brett Favre. It just means he was better than all of them at throwing INTs.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
(-3.5) Sea vs Rams
In comparison:
(-14) Carolina vs 49ers
Where the Seahawks in a plane crash that I've yet heard of?
(I think Seattle destroys the Rams. In fact, I think everyone destroys the Rams.)
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
This winner of a human being was on that team as well. I lived a short walk from the Coli at the time, attending USC. (Not a walk you made after dark, however.)
Did anyone who watches that game last night think the issue in Buffalo is their play calling? Overwhelmingly, the issue is a defense that blows giant schlongs. They couldn't stop NY without NY shooting themselves in the foot.
A few questionable play calls but Taylor overthrew lots of open receivers.
The problem here is clear - Lapband has to go. He is the "defensive genius" and his defense was awful last night.
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
we will find a way, we will find our place