Brady sucks now

[Bear Pand]

Just curious, how does one get into the playoffs? Regular season perhaps? Or are those 16 games nothing more than practice games? How could something so essential to getting to the playoff be so unimportant in your mind?


So, I guess 2001, 2003 and 2004 just doesn't matter to you because, they haven't won since 2004.

Some of the NFL's great dynasties dominance lasted 5 to 6 years, ie Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers teams than they regressed. But somehow, the Patriots have been able to maintain whatever they have going for almost 12 years and with a complete turnover in personal. There is not a single dynasty that can make that claim. Only 2 players have rings on the Patriots, Brady and Wilfork's rookie year when he played behind Warren. They have been in 5 of the last 10 Superbowls, losing two of them to a circus catch and than a dropped pass, the have been shattering records, winning games but somehow they are nothing more than a Jim Kelly lead Bills team because they haven't won 2004.

Okay dude.

Only two players on the Patriots currently have rings but they're still a dynasty going on 12 years huh?

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

He still has more wins in the playoffs than any QB in the history of the game and his winning percentage rivals the best of all-time.

[ram29jackson]

He still has more wins in the playoffs than any QB in the history of the game and his winning percentage rivals the best of all-time.

but the current team fails to get over the Championship hump. Just an interesting stat. Belichick is the rare coach that knows both sides of the ball but he hasnt had any game breakers on Defense in years.

[RosettaStoned]

Found this comment to be interestingly stupid. One, you make it seem as if the Patriots defense was completely dependent on the information received from videotaped practices. Two, the line "changes in overall team strategy" is incredibly vague, and can really only be interpreted one way: that the Patriots have proactively changed their overall team strategy to be worse on defense. Its like Belichick said "you know what? We are too good on defense. Better change the strategy so that we aren't as good." While I see the logic in this (for instance, I don't allow myself to call any "Cover 3" defenses in NCAA because they are too effective against the CPU), I doubt an NFL coach would enact this. Three, you recognize that something as trifling as "personnel changes" did indeed happen with NE, but you give it equal billing with your other make-believe factors. It would be like listing the top 10 reasons why the Browns always suck, and at the bottom of the list you have "players aren't very good".

All in all, its the typical Bear Pand posting. A slightly intelligent person trying to sound extremely intelligent, but ending up looking retarded.

I think honestly I agree with Bear Pand's basic premise.. but I thanked this post just due to the stout tongue lashing.

[Senser81]

So I go out of my way to say that it's not a primary reason, you ignore this and accuse me of doing it anyway. Oh ok.

But thats the thrust of your "argument"...you devote paragraph after paragraph talking about the alleged impact of spygate on the Patriots defense, which is retarded for two reasons...one, the impact is 100% your opinion, because you can't even say how helpful 'spygate' was in the first place, much less its impact on the Patriot defense half a decade later, and, two, the players on the Patriots defense has completely changed so its not really a controlled environment.

It would be like me talking on and on about how your homosexual tendancies negatively affects your postings (a la Spooner), but then I'll throw in a line of "I'm not going to say that Bear Pand's gayness is why he's a bad poster" to make things right.

2) LOL at this "can really only be interpreted one way: that the Patriots have proactively changed their overall team strategy to be worse on defense." No just no. First of all while what I said was vague this is clearly an extreme way of interpreting it. You accuse me of making an argument that Belichick deliberately made the defense worse (I didn't, I only said their strategy as a team changed), then decide to tear down this argument. It's easy to make someone look "retarded" when you rely on strawman bullshit like this. Who exactly are you debating when you tell us it's dumb to believe Belichick basically sabotaged the Pat's D? Are we supposed to be enlightened when you point out how this is obviously untrue?

I finished reading this, and I still don't see you give another interpretation. You listed reasons why the Patriots aren't good on defense, and one of the three reasons you gave was "changes in team strategy". So, again, the only possible interpretation is that the Patriots proactively went to a less effective defensive strategy.

3) The other factors I mentioned aren't make believe. The only other factor I mentioned was rule changes which did negatively impact the Pat's ability to play D. You had Polian arguing for more emphasis on the 5 yard contact rule cause he was tired of the Pats constantly breaking it. The injury faking is not on equal par with their players changing but it's another borderline tactic they <3ed to do.

You're right. The fact that the Patriots defensive players aren't as good as they used to be is a minor point when compared to a non-make-believe reason such as "no longer being allowed to fake injuries on D".

Can't wait to see your film breakdowns. I bet they rival Ron Jaworski's.

[Bear Pand]

But thats the thrust of your "argument"...

This is the problem.

You define what my argument is for me, then make counter arguments against something you created on your own.

Then when I say, that's not what I said at all... you'll ignore this, state that your personal interpretation is the only possible conclusion to come to, and continue to make arguments against that. Saying that "changes in team strategy" can only equal "proactively making the defense worse" is retarded. But of course sense that's something easy to argue against you'll pretend that's what I was suggesting and point out how stupid the argument you created for me is. "Oh look how foolish he is! He said the Patriots got worse on defense on purpose!"

Complete waste of time to discuss this with you when you're trying to force me to argue from a position that the Patriots intentionally made their defense worse. Or that I feel them changing players on defense is a minor point compared to them no longer being able to fake injuries. Neither of which is true and neither of which I agreed with at any point in this conversation. Note that you haven't contributed anything to this conversation outside of insults. You're more interested in twisting peoples words and creating strawmen to line up cheapshots than you are having a discussion. So I'll bow out.

[Senser81]

You define what my argument is for me, then make counter arguments against something you created on your own.

I "created" it on my own? So you didn't spend post after post arguing the impact of spygate? You didn't say "changes in team strategy" was one of the 3 main reasons for the decline of the Patriots defense?

What I don't understand is how I can directly quote you, directly respond to the quote, and you still are trying to perform this gay song-and-dance routine to avoid your own retarded comments. It only makes you look worse. I am not "creating" your stupid comments out of thin air. I am quoting you and responding to you. I guess it is "the problem" when you can't come to terms with your own stupidity. Like I said before...just another slightly intelligent person trying to sound smart but ending up going full retard.

Saying that "changes in team strategy" can only equal "proactively making the defense worse" is retarded. But of course sense that's something easy to argue against you'll pretend that's what I was suggesting and point out how stupid the argument you created for me is. "Oh look how foolish he is! He said the Patriots got worse on defense on purpose!"

Yet you STILL refuse to offer any alternate explantion for your statement....probably because THERE ISN'T ANY! You said that one of the 3 main reasons why the Patriots defense has gotten worse is 'changes in team strategy'. I guess I never understood the depths of your retardation until now.

Complete waste of time to discuss this with you when you're trying to force me to argue from a position that the Patriots intentionally made their defense worse.

No shit its a "complete waste of time" because what you said is basically indefensible and not open to multiple interpretations. You said something idiotic in yet another vain attempt to sound smart. Admit it and move on. No sense in trying to be the VSN Lance Armstrong of Stupidity. I eagerly await your appearance on the Oprah Network, where you come clean about spewing nonsensical bullshit on forum message boards.

[Houston]

[Rush]

GOAT

[ram29jackson]

He can throw long but the balls are floating/no zing. And I bet they are a tad smaller (the balls) so he doesn't look as bad.

[Tailback U]

He can throw long but the balls are floating/no zing. And I bet they are a tad smaller (the balls) so he doesn't look as bad.

Good to see that you're still sharp as a spoon.

[Senser81]

Wow...who was Bear Pand? Was that a Kuzzy alt? The retarded postings makes me suspect as much.

[FirstTimer]

Wow...who was Bear Pand? Was that a Kuzzy alt? The retarded postings makes me suspect as much.

Pandaminator.

[ram29jackson]

Good to see that you're still sharp as a spoon.

Lol what? They straight up told you he uses smaller balls for 2 years and you can see with your own eyes his bullet passes are slow.

[Random Hero]

I feel like Brady is a never-ending nightmare, ever year I just want him to retire and kick rocks, convince myself he never existed and claim Peyton Manning as the best to every play. But he just. won't. quit.

Btw, sup fellas.