NEhomer
Well-Known Member
The 2013 Seahawks team would have crushed the Patriots in last year's SB.
So in your world you aren't allowed to make observations about the state of your favorite team?
Romo going down did more damage than the Boys could overcome. Dez being out would have been less of a problem if Romo was still on the field. Plus the leadership he commands on and off the field.
Sure we had late game melt downs....all..season...long, but we wouldn't have been in that position if we had better QB play/Romo on the field. I put blame on our coaches and general manager for not seeing what they had in their back ups. Both have other bleep up on the resume this year but back up QB play is right at the top.
Wrong. You are plotting an excuse if you get bounced. Everyone on these boards, including pats fans can see that.Yup, and clearly you do not.
So in your world you aren't allowed to make observations about the state of your favorite team?
Pats full strenth are one of the favs to win it all. Fact.
Pats at less than full strength, in particular without Edleman, Amendola, Hightower, Jones, et. al. have little shot of beating the list of teams that made the post season, particularly the likely opponents in the NFC. Fact.
You should work on understanding the difference between and obeservation based opinion and an excuse. See Green Bay as an example.
Wrong. You are plotting an excuse if you get bounced. Everyone on these boards, including pats fans can see that.
BTW - Hasn't Amendola played the past couple of weeks? The impact players you have lost are not as significant as you are making it out to be. Sure it is not ideal, and you are a better team when all are healthy, but give me a freaking break. Every team in the playoffs are a better team if you take away their injuries.
You and an excuse machine and everyone can see it.
Carry on.
Now I know why you were whining so much about me posting that ESPN playoff power ranking. It didn't focus on the Patriots enough for you.
Poor Patriots just can't catch a break.
Did I say they weren't significant? No. I said they aren't as significant as you are making them out to be. Lose Brady and/or Gronk, then come back and talk to me about significance.And in that one statement you showed you have have no idea what you are talking about when it ocmes to the Patriots. Edleman isn't significant? Hightower isn't? etc. Maybe you should just stick to the Cards, you clearly don't know jack about other teams.
And you still don't get the difference between an excuse and an opinion/predictions based on current conditions.
Longer when you're a Raven fanI remember Tgann saying it is a long season
Did I say they weren't significant? No. I said they aren't as significant as you are making them out to be. Lose Brady and/or Gronk, then come back and talk to me about significance.
A lot of teams could stack their injuries up to yours and be right on par.
Excuse machine. Everyone see's it except you.
Your whole "you don't know football" angle is kind of funny. I realize you are grasping at straws, but really?And another statement by you that shows you don't know shite about football and in particular the NE Patriots.
It also reinforces that fact you don't understand what and excuse is, and what an observation/opinion/prediction is.
So tell us, if the Pats are at full strength what are their chances of winning it all?
If the Pats field the same players they have fielded the last handful of weeks what are their chances of winning it all?
I'm sure you vast football knowledge should be insightful answering those two questions. Take your time, I know football is hard for you.
Your whole "you don't know football" angle is kind of funny. I realize you are grasping at straws, but really?
Now i'm gonna try and answer your insightful questions. These are tough, but here goes...
1) The pats, at full strength, have a better chance of winning it all than with their current injuries.
2) If the pats field the same players they have fielded the last handful of weeks their chances of winning it all are not as good than if at full strength.
Phew.. That was tough. I wonder if the same applies to EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.
You really need to quit. I have abused you long enough.So you repeated exactly what I said, why are you making excuses for the Pats?
You really need to quit. I have abused you long enough.
Context man. We all know what you are trying to do.Your grasp of the English language seems a bit limited.
The only thing you have done is show your hypocrisy on the matter.
If the Patriots have to field the same players they have over the last month or so, they will likely be one and done. That isn't an excuse, it's a factual observation/prediction.
Context man. We all know what you are trying to do.
Your whole "you don't know football" angle is kind of funny. I realize you are grasping at straws, but really?
Now i'm gonna try and answer your insightful questions. These are tough, but here goes...
1) The pats, at full strength, have a better chance of winning it all than with their current injuries.
2) If the pats field the same players they have fielded the last handful of weeks their chances of winning it all are not as good than if at full strength.
Phew.. That was tough. I wonder if the same applies to EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.
It's fairly obvious, shameful coming from a Pats fan. Pats fans were insistent that injuries were not to be used as excuses for losing after their Super Bowl win and I agreed with that.Context man. We all know what you are trying to do.
It's fairly obvious, shameful coming from a Pats fan. Pats fans were insistent that injuries were not to be used as excuses for losing after their Super Bowl win and I agreed with that.
YEP...pretty much how I followed that ball too.It's fairly obvious, shameful coming from a Pats fan. Pats fans were insistent that injuries were not to be used as excuses for losing after their Super Bowl win and I agreed with that.