2007 New England Patriots

Options
1…4849515354…62

Comments

  • JSBE
    JSBE Posts: 1,078
    Flannel Shirt wrote:
    we play with dislocated shoulders. :)

    fuck stallworth. he sucks. yeah yeah yeah....he stinks.

    watson, fuck that fat bastard as well. non factor. you will need him to block.

    who on the pats didn't play due to injury?

    and keep smoking that crack to think that the giants can cover moss, welker, stallworth, gaffney, watson, faulk and maroney all at once.
  • JSBE
    JSBE Posts: 1,078
    Flannel Shirt wrote:
    yes, you got me on the field goals. fucktard deserved. harsh, but deserved. 2 out of 3. my bizzad.

    down by 11 is not in the game? whos the fucktard?

    apparently you for thinking that the pats won all three of their super bowls on last second field goals.

    down by 11 is not completely out of the game, but when you can't move the ball it doesn't help. find me a pats fan that was worried during the 2nd half of the pats/jags game.
  • LONGRD
    LONGRD Posts: 6,036
    Flannel Shirt wrote:
    we play with dislocated shoulders. :)

    fuck stallworth. he sucks. yeah yeah yeah....he stinks.

    watson, fuck that fat bastard as well. non factor. you will need him to block.
    You guys have who? Burress, a couple of mediocre backs, and a rookie receiver name Steve Smith.

    Samuel will have a lock-down on Burress.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • JSBE
    JSBE Posts: 1,078
    LongRd. wrote:
    Eli's mojo is cooling off at the moment right now. He'll become the old unreliable overrated QB again during game time.

    Eli = Rex Grossman, when game time starts.

    that's just kind of dumb (wishful) thinking. i don't know what has got into eli, but he's playing solid football over the past month.
  • rearviewmiror
    rearviewmiror Posts: 894
    Should be a good game, but the Pats are gonna win by 9. So take the Giants for gambling purposes only.
    9/7/98, 8/3/00, 9/4/00, 4/15/03, 7/1/03, 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 5/24/06, 5/25/06, 6/17/08, 6/22/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 5/17/10, 10/15/13, 10/16/13.
  • Flannel Shirt
    Flannel Shirt Posts: 1,021
    JSBE wrote:
    who on the pats didn't play due to injury?

    and keep smoking that crack to think that the giants can cover moss, welker, stallworth, gaffney, watson, faulk and maroney all at once.


    you are going to have moss, welker, stallworth, gaffney, watson, faulk, and maroney on the field all at the same time? if that was even legal, that leaves 3 guys to block?

    we covered owens, witten, crayton, barber. shut them down easy.
    All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
  • JSBE
    JSBE Posts: 1,078
    LongRd. wrote:
    You guys have who? Burress, a couple of mediocre backs, and a rookie receiver name Steve Smith.

    Samuel will have a lock-down on Burress.

    jacobs is a beast and bradshaw is one of those little pain in the ass running backs.

    when burress is on, he's a stud, but he's very inconsistent. burress vs. cowboys - 1 catch for 5 yards. burress vs. packers - 11 catches for 154. which burress will show up in the super bowl?

    toomer is solid, like a pats version of troy brown from a couple years ago. steve smith is good so far, but still a rookie and not someone i would want the qb throwing to in an important situtation.
  • jimed14
    jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    JSBE wrote:
    that's just kind of dumb (wishful) thinking. i don't know what has got into eli, but he's playing solid football over the past month.

    I think the grossman comparisons are a bit much (I watched last year's superbowl last night on NFL network, christ, poor bear fans they were actually down by two late int he 3rd then grossman started giving out pics like free blankets to the homeless).

    but, give belichick and crew two weeks to prepare for Eli ... recent experience against the giants ... and two weeks for the old geezer defense to rest up ... I think they come out and do a good job shutting down the giants offense.

    what the pats NEED to work on is speacial teams, Hixon has had some really nice run backs (including the TD vs the Pats) ... need to keep that dude in check.
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • LONGRD
    LONGRD Posts: 6,036
    JSBE wrote:
    that's just kind of dumb (wishful) thinking. i don't know what has got into eli, but he's playing solid football over the past month.
    You actually think Eli will be great in 5 straight games?
    He was good in week 17, great in 3 playoff games, but there's no way he's gonna continue the hot streak in the Super Bowl.

    Brady doesn't have to be great in the Super Bowl for the Pats to win it. But the Giants really needs Eli to have his A game on.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • Flannel Shirt
    Flannel Shirt Posts: 1,021
    LongRd. wrote:
    You actually think Eli will be great in 5 straight games?
    He was good in week 17, great in 3 playoff games, but there's no way he's gonna continue the hot streak in the Super Bowl.

    Brady doesn't have to be great in the Super Bowl for the Pats to win it. But the Giants really needs Eli to have his A game on.


    Run, run, run our way to the lombardi trophy. Eli only needed in spots. he throws the ball 20-25 times only. perfect.

    18-1

    off to lunch.

    peace.

    fuck the patriots.

    see you tomorrow and probably every day thereafter for two weeks.
    All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
  • LONGRD
    LONGRD Posts: 6,036
    Flannel Shirt wrote:
    Run, run, run our way to the lombardi trophy. Eli only needed in spots. he throws the ball 20-25 times only. perfect.

    18-1

    off to lunch.

    peace.

    fuck the patriots.

    see you tomorrow and probably every day thereafter for two weeks.
    the Giants were lucky to even be in the big game. Brett Favre became the old crappy QB he was between '03-'06 and gave you guys that win.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • JSBE
    JSBE Posts: 1,078
    LongRd. wrote:
    You actually think Eli will be great in 5 straight games?
    He was good in week 17, great in 3 playoff games, but there's no way he's gonna continue the hot streak in the Super Bowl.

    Brady doesn't have to be great in the Super Bowl for the Pats to win it. But the Giants really needs Eli to have his A game on.

    i didn't think he would have been good enough to beat the cowboys, let alone the packers, so we're in uncharted terratory with eli right now.
  • Flannel Shirt
    Flannel Shirt Posts: 1,021
    LongRd. wrote:
    the Giants were lucky to even be in the big game. Brett Favre became the old crappy QB he was between '03-'06 and gave you guys that win.
    I assume you are trying to get a rise out of me.

    Had to comment on this before lunch...

    If you are not, and you really believe that, you are nuts. check the stats. the giants dominated them. dominated. 1 first down in the 4th qtr. 25 rushing yards. one big play when a defender fell (was thrown) down. two missed field goals. a td called back because of imaginary holding.

    later, for real.
    All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
  • LONGRD
    LONGRD Posts: 6,036
    JSBE wrote:
    i didn't think he would have been good enough to beat the cowboys, let alone the packers, so we're in uncharted terratory with eli right now.
    The 'Boys self-destruct and Favre lost it for the Cheeseheads.
    The G-men are LUCKY!

    He's doomed to have a poor game. Brady just had his against the Bolts.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • JSBE
    JSBE Posts: 1,078
    Flannel Shirt wrote:
    you are going to have moss, welker, stallworth, gaffney, watson, faulk, and maroney on the field all at the same time? if that was even legal, that leaves 3 guys to block?

    we covered owens, witten, crayton, barber. shut them down easy.

    thankfully brady is not romo - in football or in taste in women.

    pats will line-up 4 wideouts - moss, welker, stallworth and gaffney. faulk or maroney in the backfield with brady - that's 6 players, light, kaczur, mankins, koppen and neal. that's 11. are the giants going to cover moss with one guy or double him? can they stop welker from the underneath route? what about the screen pass to faulk? wait...stallworth and gaffney could be open too.
  • LONGRD
    LONGRD Posts: 6,036
    Flannel Shirt wrote:
    I assume you are trying to get a rise out of me.

    Had to comment on this before lunch...

    If you are not, and you really believe that, you are nuts. check the stats. the giants dominated them. dominated. 1 first down in the 4th qtr. 25 rushing yards. one big play when a defender fell (was thrown) down. two missed field goals. a td called back because of imaginary holding.

    later, for real.
    The only stat I care about is the scoreboard and I wouldn't call a 20-20 tie in regulation time, domination.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • JSBE
    JSBE Posts: 1,078
    Flannel Shirt wrote:
    I assume you are trying to get a rise out of me.

    Had to comment on this before lunch...

    If you are not, and you really believe that, you are nuts. check the stats. the giants dominated them. dominated. 1 first down in the 4th qtr. 25 rushing yards. one big play when a defender fell (was thrown) down. two missed field goals. a td called back because of imaginary holding.

    later, for real.

    the packers play like garbage and the giants capitalized...barely. i watched the whole game and i did not see domination. that's just my opinion. i would say the chargers dominated the pats more than the giants did the packers.
  • JSBE
    JSBE Posts: 1,078
    LongRd. wrote:
    The only stat I care about is the scoreboard and I wouldn't call a 20-20 tie in regulation time, domination.

    exactly. i really don't see the giants winning with eli going 12-18 with 2 tds and no picks like he did against the cowboys and 21-40 with no tds or picks like he did against the pack isn't going to get it done either.
  • NY PJ1
    NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    come vote kids
  • jimed14
    jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    JSBE wrote:
    thankfully brady is not romo - in football or in taste in women.

    pats will line-up 4 wideouts - moss, welker, stallworth and gaffney. faulk or maroney in the backfield with brady - that's 6 players, light, kaczur, mankins, koppen and neal. that's 11. are the giants going to cover moss with one guy or double him? can they stop welker from the underneath route? what about the screen pass to faulk? wait...stallworth and gaffney could be open too.


    best thing about this ... if it's not working, like on Sunday ... fuck it, bring in two tight ends and let Maroney run it for a buck twenty five and beat 'em that way ...

    I don't care if Brady ends up "managing the game" and the Pats win 17-14 ... a win is a win.
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez

Categories