Super Bowl 2006

[Rover]

Its pretty obvious that both Bruce and Shrader are suffering from "championship envy". :D Somehow though, I think Patriots nation will live on even though some Minnesota guy doesn't think they're a dynasty. :rolleyes:

Anyway, to Schroeder's ;) post of an editorial from Buffalo, I have heard that Owens couldn't go deep, and that could mean they got to hide a lesser cover man on him. I didn't really pay too much attention to who was covering who however, and I think the Pats covered up any problems in the secondary with a really good pass rush. They were in the backfield all day.

[shrader]

Why do New England fans have to add the word "Nation" to everything?

Rover, I think that Owens' numbers are enough proof that he didn't hurt the team. Anyway, there were two main things from that letter that were absurd. First, he said that the Eagles already had good receivers. Second, how the hell does Belicheck get credit for the Eagles allowing Owens to play?

[Rover]

Why do New England fans have to add the word "Nation" to everything?

Rover, I think that Owens' numbers are enough proof that he didn't hurt the team. Anyway, there were two main things from that letter that were absurd. First, he said that the Eagles already had good receivers. Second, how the hell does Belicheck get credit for the Eagles allowing Owens to play?

To your first question, "nation" best describes the massive amount of support that our sports teams command. Saying "fans" sounds like a crowd going to a game. "Group" sounds like a self-help organization. Neither works. Only nation describes the hundreds of millions of Sox and Pats fans spread all out across this great land of ours! ;)

I'm not saying Owens hurt the team. I'm discussing one aspect of the guy's point. Its possible that the Pats kept one of the lesser secondary guys on Owens. I did notice Gay playing him a few times, but I didn't give thought as to whether he was supposed to be shadowing Owens or not.

[shrader]

I know you're not saying he hurt the team. That's what the guy who wrote the letter is saying.

Anyway, nation works for the Sox, but not the Pats. What's next, is Kraft going to start charging his fans for a card that says you're an official member?

[Bruce Ciskie]

I'm not saying Owens hurt the team. I'm discussing one aspect of the guy's point. Its possible that the Pats kept one of the lesser secondary guys on Owens. I did notice Gay playing him a few times, but I didn't give thought as to whether he was supposed to be shadowing Owens or not.

Am I the only one that noticed that the Eagles only ran Owens on crossing routes a couple of times, mainly preferring to run him on sideline routes?

And when they did run him over the middle, either he got open or someone else did. There was the one play before Bruschi's interception that was huge. Owens cut across the middle, and Gay didn't have a prayer of tackling him.

I don't think Owens hurt the team. If anything, they were more hurt by Pinkston's cramps reappearing at the worst possible time, because they were able to find him open a couple times for big plays.

[pucksntape]

Of course it's self-serving. I'm not a Patriots fan.

You people are incredible. Any analysis that doesn't lead to your conclusion must be biased in some way. Because we all know a ****ing Patriots fan can objectively label their favorite team a "dynasty".

Unreal. :rolleyes:

So Bruce, did you watch the Pro-Bowl last night? Did you see when the announcers listed the dynasties in NFL football? Why are they wrong (and for that matter most of the NFL fanbase in America) and you are right?

Do you still think Favre is a better QB than a 5 year kid who brought his team to 3 Superbowl Victories (psst, and won SB MVP twice)?! LOL.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Somehow though, I think Patriots nation will live on even though some Minnesota guy doesn't think they're a dynasty.

I know I'm not from Boston, so my opinion doesn't matter...but I never said Patriots "nation" wouldn't live on.

Patriot fans < Yankee fans

[Bruce Ciskie]

So Bruce, did you watch the Pro-Bowl last night? Did you see when the announcers listed the dynasties in NFL football? Why are they wrong (and for that matter most of the NFL fanbase in America) and you are right?

These are the same morons who think Brett Favre is the greatest thing since sliced bread...and think his game at Minnesota last year (with the broken thumb) was one of the gutsiest performances in recent NFL history (Theismann actually said that during the game).

So I take it that you agree with them on that, too, right? Or are they only wrong when you disagree with them, and not when anyone else disagrees with them?

The band marches on.

Patriot fans < Yankee fans

[GreatLakerMohawk]

So Bruce, did you watch the Pro-Bowl last night? Did you see when the announcers listed the dynasties in NFL football? Why are they wrong (and for that matter most of the NFL fanbase in America) and you are right?

You're not smart and you were the only one actually watching the Pro Bowl. I would say that that should get you an award, but that most likely makes you desperate for better entertainment in your life.

[Paul the Poet]

Then why did you waste your time with the rest of my post? You don't care, yet the remainder of your post makes it sound like you do indeed care (which is fine...just admit it :)).



There were at least two (maybe three) that came after the Packers' run in the 60s. And I'd say that the runs of Pittsburgh and San Francisco were at least equally impressive, if not more.

The Patriots can indeed be a dynasty. And if I had to wager on it, I'd bet that they would certainly reach my hard-to-define-in-words criteria. I have made that very clear all along.





Even vastly superior teams lose once in a while. But look at some of the playoff games that New England has shaved by in:

Oakland--Raiders fail to attempt to move the ball aggressively in their last two possessions, instead leaning on a defense that spent most of the second half on its heels. Raiders get away from passing game that had been successful, even though the Patriots were stacking the line to stop the run.

St. Louis--Mike Martz refuses to run the ball, even though the Patriots are playing heavy coverage packages to stop the pass.

Indianapolis--Colts refuse to take shots downfield, even though the Patriots are banged up in the secondary and jumping the short and intermediate routes.

Pittsburgh--Steelers refuse to throw the ball on first downs in the first half, even though the Patriots are stacking the line against the run and daring them to throw.

Philadelphia--Eagles run the ball five times in 36 offensive plays in the second half, even though the game wasn't out of hand until the six-minute mark of the fourth quarter.

Are the Patriots better up and down than all these teams? Absolutely. That's how they won. But I have contested (and have plenty of evidence to back it up) that the Patriots have benefited from stubborn opposing coaches who stuck with their original game plans for too long and didn't adjust to what the Patriots were doing. The Patriots coaches are geniuses because they do the little things right in preparing their players.

I do think teams will catch up to this, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

Really...it's not meant as a shot to the Patriots. What they're doing is working so incredibly well that I CAN'T BELIEVE no one is copying it. Maybe now that Crennell has taken his act to Cleveland, we'll start to see someone pick up on what it is that has made New England the closest thing to a dynasty that we've seen in almost a decade.



Of course it's self-serving. I'm not a Patriots fan.

You people are incredible. Any analysis that doesn't lead to your conclusion must be biased in some way. Because we all know a ****ing Patriots fan can objectively label their favorite team a "dynasty".

Unreal. :rolleyes:

57-16 over since 2001 including play-offs if my math is correct. Boy, that's a lot of stubborn coaches. I think it's just a case of Belichick out coaching everyone else. Coaches are stubborn as a rule. That's life in the NFL. Saying the success is due to stubborn coaches is a bit of a stretch, no? How do they keep their jobs and why don't they lose to everyone by being stubborn?

[darin]

super bowl xl

patriots vs. falcons

[Bruce Ciskie]

I think it's just a case of Belichick out coaching everyone else. Coaches are stubborn as a rule. That's life in the NFL. Saying the success is due to stubborn coaches is a bit of a stretch, no? How do they keep their jobs and why don't they lose to everyone by being stubborn?

1. I never said that the success was solely due to stubborn coaches. But what do you call it when Crennellichick basically asks Mike Martz to run the ball for an entire game, and Martz calls fifty-some passing plays? I call it stupid, but YMMV.

2. Yeah, he's out-coaching everyone else. You finally get it. But don't you find it funny that in an era where everyone's scheme eventually is figured out, Belichick can keep everything fresh and no one else can? Is Belichick really THAT much better than everyone else?

[Paul the Poet]

1. I never said that the success was solely due to stubborn coaches. But what do you call it when Crennellichick basically asks Mike Martz to run the ball for an entire game, and Martz calls fifty-some passing plays? I call it stupid, but YMMV.

2. Yeah, he's out-coaching everyone else. You finally get it. But don't you find it funny that in an era where everyone's scheme eventually is figured out, Belichick can keep everything fresh and no one else can? Is Belichick really THAT much better than everyone else?

The most amazing thing was Martz basically took Marshall Faulk out of the game by using him as a decoy. And that was 3 years ago when Faulk was unstoppable. Dumb.

[Bruce Ciskie]

The most amazing thing was Martz basically took Marshall Faulk out of the game by using him as a decoy. And that was 3 years ago when Faulk was unstoppable. Dumb.

Now we're on the same page.

I'm sorry...but I can't credit Crennellichick for this. I talked to high school coaches who knew what Martz had to do, and Martz kept throwing the ball. I remember just laughing in the third quarter because I could see it. When I can see it, you know it's bad. :D

[shrader]

Now we're on the same page.

I'm sorry...but I can't credit Crennellichick for this. I talked to high school coaches who knew what Martz had to do, and Martz kept throwing the ball. I remember just laughing in the third quarter because I could see it. When I can see it, you know it's bad. :D

Be careful Bruce. There's a rant coming about your undying love for Bret Favre.

[Paul the Poet]

Now we're on the same page.

I'm sorry...but I can't credit Crennellichick for this. I talked to high school coaches who knew what Martz had to do, and Martz kept throwing the ball. I remember just laughing in the third quarter because I could see it. When I can see it, you know it's bad. :D

I had a friend who was doing the same thing. Screaming "give the ball to Faulk!!"...he's a Cowboys fan.

You can also argue that Belichick makes the opposing coaches second guess themselves and do things they would not normally do. Having Tom Brady helps too.

[Bruce Ciskie]

You can also argue that Belichick makes the opposing coaches second guess themselves and do things they would not normally do.

.

[pucksntape]

Yeah, he's out-coaching everyone else. You finally get it. But don't you find it funny that in an era where everyone's scheme eventually is figured out, Belichick can keep everything fresh and no one else can? Is Belichick really THAT much better than everyone else?

Then give FULL credit where credit is due, the NE Pats are more of a "dynasty" than Green Bay was way back in SB I and SB II. In this age of salary cap, egotistical players, free-agency. Dang son, give some credit where credit is due.

To heck with your feelings about this fanbase versus that fanbase. I distinctly remember Green Bay fans who were slightly obnoxious in '97, so I refuse to drink your kool aid regarding New Englanders (who tend to be very reserved, puritanical, niggardly, and stoic people) being complete tools. Every fanbase has a few, Lord knows Green Bay has theirs.

Bruce, just because you disagree with one person's ideaology does not make you correction in your assertions. However, I tend to listen to a sport announcers who get paid a regular salary, who work for a big media outlet (i.e., NESN, ESPN, YES, etc.) over your skewked and biased opinion.

What exactly are your qualifications for being a "sports announcer"? What college did you earn your degree at? Who do you root for (besides that has-been Favre)? LOL.

[pucksntape]

You're not smart and you were the only one actually watching the Pro Bowl. I would say that that should get you an award, but that most likely makes you desperate for better entertainment in your life.

Save your insults for your wife and mother. :cool: I found the game enjoyable. I thought it was fun to see the best in the NFL relax, have a good time, and smile as they played a pick-up game. I suppose if they had an All-Star in College Hockey, you'd not watch it and call people "not smart".

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Dear pucksntape,


You're trying too hard now, we can tell.


Sincerely,
The Rest of USCHO