GIANTS VS PATRIOTS SUPERBOWL XLVI

[ram29jackson]

This post is a tell tale sign of you blowing smoke out of your ass and calling it fire.

Just keep betting against a team until you're right, then tell us how knowledgeable you are that you were right that one time.



I: "ITS GONNA BE A TOUCHDOWN!"
Result: Touchdown.
R29J: "IM SO SMART ABOUT SPORTS, CALLED IT!"

look, I'm basically saying the Pats arent as good as people make them out to be,that said,obviously the league is not up to par either. The Pats just arent that good,no matter what all those passing yards seem to make people believe...no, I have not said they will lose after every single game... I know they were possibly good enough to get this far, but I said ,no matter if they do, they will not win it all....LOL and they just might...but if they dont, I'm right,ha.....ha :smug:

at least the Giants look like they have balance and they beat a heavy run and heavy pass team in the play offs. The Pats just seem to have gotten lucky where the Pack and Saints didnt.

I respect as a fan what Belichick and Brady have done. i just dont think Feb. 5th will be one of their best days..or what ever day the game is? LOL

 

[killgod]

look, I'm basically saying the Pats arent as good as people make them out to be,that said,obviously the league is not up to par either. The Pats just arent that good,no matter what all those passing yards seem to make people believe...no, I have not said they will lose after every single game... I know they were possibly good enough to get this far, but I said ,no matter if they do, they will not win it all....LOL and they just might...but if they dont, I'm right,ha.....ha :smug:

at least the Giants look like they have balance and they beat a heavy run and heavy pass team in the play offs. The Pats just seem to have gotten lucky where the Pack and Saints didnt.

I respect as a fan what Belichick and Brady have done. i just dont think Feb. 5th will be one of their best days..or what ever day the game is? LOL

It doesn't make sense to me where you're coming from.

You pump up the flaws in NE but act as if NYG is some godly team when outside of their DL, their defence is pretty meh.

I don't know how the Patriots got lucky because you base that off Moore making a great strip off Evans...(sorry I mean Evans dropped it) and Cundiff missing (in case you forgot, that makes the game TIED!)

The Patriots crushed Denver and won 13 games this year, they have arguably the greatest coach/QB combo in the history of the sport and he has a better suite of weapons now than he did in 2007.

It's biased to say it's as lopsided as you think, I think it's a great matchup and both teams have their pros and cons here.

 

[Villain]

Belive heliwill deliver?

 

[ram29jackson]

It doesn't make sense to me where you're coming from.

You pump up the flaws in NE but act as if NYG is some godly team when outside of their DL, their defence is pretty meh.

I don't know how the Patriots got lucky because you base that off Moore making a great strip off Evans...(sorry I mean Evans dropped it) and Cundiff missing (in case you forgot, that makes the game TIED!)

The Patriots crushed Denver and won 13 games this year, they have arguably the greatest coach/QB combo in the history of the sport and he has a better suite of weapons now than he did in 2007.

It's biased to say it's as lopsided as you think, I think it's a great matchup and both teams have their pros and cons here.

why do people keep bringing up them beating Denver in the playoffs as though that means anything LOL

the Pats Coach is great,except against Coughlin..what does winning 13 games in the regular have to do with anything? Plenty of teams have won 11-12-13...16 games in the regular season and then died in the SB...whats a suite of weapons? sure,Brady has a couple nice targets and all but the team isnt better then the 2007 team was by any stretch.
they rely too heavily on the pass as far as I can tell like the Saints and Pack did and just like a shooting guard ,they may well hit a cold streak.

 

[ram29jackson]

quotes by Peyton Manning about talking football with Eli

Well, I've already gone to work for him, getting all my teammates, trying to get their two-ticket allotments," Manning said. "That's what he did for me two years ago and I did that for him four years ago. And I'm helping any way I can, getting him restaurant reservations around town for him and his teammates. Jim (Irsay) called after the game and offered any kind of help he could give, which was generous.

“As far as helping him with the Patriots, really, he doesn't need to talk to me. He played them seven weeks ago. We'll talk about things they do when you face them a second time in the same year, but he knows them better than I do right now.

"It was fun Sunday, we talked about third and long situations, the defense San Francisco likes to play. They’ve got (former Colts defensive coordinator) Vic Fangio, and we were saying, 'In this situation, they run this particular coverage, three rushing and eight in coverage, and there are only certain places you can throw it.' I didn't tell him to throw that post route on the touchdown, but that was the kind of defense he was seeing. So it's kind of fun to talk about that stuff.’"

 

[jms493]

2 weeks...I am forgetting there is still one more game...

 

[JOHNNYTHECLOWN]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acfECN9856o"]TOUCHER & RICH- "Party Gronk" - Rob Gronkowski - YouTube[/ame]


PARTY GRONK says 'YO SOY FIESTA~!'

 

[ram29jackson]

while the Pats with Brady and Belichick have been successful and you cant take that away from them. Theyve won 3 SBs but with only a 3 point margin each time. If it wasnt for a particular Kicker, Brady might have one ring..which is nothing to make fun of or gripe at LOL, but it still wouldnt be 3....and you have to admit,that cartoon is funny, he's out and they still have a great season. Of course its impressive in the weak parity era that Belichick found a formula and QB to be successful while most cant figure out how to.
But being the most successful in the most watered down era of football isnt saying much.

 

[EmpireWF]

But being the most successful in the most watered down era of football isnt saying much.

:edlover:

 

[Len B]

while the Pats with Brady and Belichick have been successful and you cant take that away from them. Theyve won 3 SBs but with only a 3 point margin each time. If it wasnt for a particular Kicker, Brady might have one ring..which is nothing to make fun of or gripe at LOL, but it still wouldnt be 3....and you have to admit,that cartoon is funny, he's out and they still have a great season. Of course its impressive in the weak parity era that Belichick found a formula and QB to be successful while most cant figure out how to.
But being the most successful in the most watered down era of football isnt saying much.

This is the worst post in the history of this NFL forum. So many things wrong with it, I am in awe.

 

[JBregz]

while the Pats with Brady and Belichick have been successful and you cant take that away from them. Theyve won 3 SBs but with only a 3 point margin each time. If it wasnt for a particular Kicker, Brady might have one ring..which is nothing to make fun of or gripe at LOL, but it still wouldnt be 3....

You are retarded. Doesn't matter. He's played well enough in all of his superbowl victories to have deserved those rings. Just because they won by three because the kicker each doesn't discredit his thrown touchdowns or his DRIVES that brought them down the field so the kicker could kick the fucking ball.

Originally Posted by ram29jackson View Post
But being the most successful in the most watered down era of football isnt saying much.

Watered down era of football? You sir are on fucking cocaine or something. Do you even realize the greatest physical athletes that play football are in the game today? The players are bigger, stronger and faster then what was known 50 years ago. Most of the greats from back in the day weren't always necessarily great because they could compare with the modern era greats but because they were dominant in their era when talent was a lot less than what you see today. An example of this would be Carl Eller, one of the greatest DE's of all time played through the 60's and 70's. He was 6'4 247 lbs.

Defensive players and kicker's weights:

		DE	DT	NT	LB	DB
1970-1975	249.5	256.9	251.3	226.2	188.8	
1976-1981	254.9	260.5	258.8	227.0	189.0
1982-1986	265.6	269.7	271.0	232.3	190.2	
1988-1993	273.6	290.3	283.8	238.7	192.7
1994-2000	277.6	299.7	289.7	240.8	195.7
2001-2006	273.3	304.6	306.3	238.5	197.1

Here shows the average weights of defensive positions throughout the years.
In the 70s an average DT weighed 256 pounds. Fast forward 30 years and they weighed 50 LBs more You cannot compare then from now. Sure these hall of famers from back then, they outshined their counter parts but their effectiveness would be much different if they played in todays game.

Oh and this is coming from a fan who is not a fan of Brady or the Patriots.

 

[manchild24]

I like the Giants by 4.

Although I hate both teams, Ill pull for NY because of local boy FB Henry Hynoski
Id like to Woodhead to get a ring and Ocho win one, but its like he's not even part of the team, plus I think it would be funny for the pats win since they dumped Haynesworthless

 

[ram29jackson]

This is the worst post in the history of this NFL forum. So many things wrong with it, I am in awe.

LOL nope, absolutely nothing wrong with it. Its an educated opinion with a historic perspective. While there will never be a greatest team ever or greatest anything ever, the Pats are way behind the 60s Packers and 80s 49ers in dominating people in the post season. Stats do matter, but finding the true quality in what the stat really means matters more.

 

[Len B]

LOL nope, absolutely nothing wrong with it. Its an educated opinion with a historic perspective. While there will never be a greatest team ever or greatest anything ever, the Pats are way behind the 60s Packers and 80s 49ers in dominating people in the post season. Stats do matter, but finding the true quality in what the stat really means matters more.

There's a large difference between 'being the greatest team ever' and 'But being the most successful in the most watered down era of football isnt saying much'. No one has called them the greatest team ever, so I wouldn't disagree with you on that. However, I do disagree strongly with you discrediting what they've been able to do since 2001.

I'm noticing with just about all your posts that I think are horrid, is that you paint with a really large fucking brush. If you're able to start typing what you actually think/mean, it'll go over better.

 

[ram29jackson]

You are retarded. Doesn't matter. He's played well enough in all of his superbowl victories to have deserved those rings. Just because they won by three because the kicker each doesn't discredit his thrown touchdowns or his DRIVES that brought them down the field so the kicker could kick the fucking ball.


Watered down era of football? You sir are on fucking cocaine or something. Do you even realize the greatest physical athletes that play football are in the game today? The players are bigger, stronger and faster then what was known 50 years ago. Most of the greats from back in the day weren't always necessarily great because they could compare with the modern era greats but because they were dominant in their era when talent was a lot less than what you see today. An example of this would be Carl Eller, one of the greatest DE's of all time played through the 60's and 70's. He was 6'4 247 lbs.

Defensive players and kicker's weights:

		DE	DT	NT	LB	DB
1970-1975	249.5	256.9	251.3	226.2	188.8	
1976-1981	254.9	260.5	258.8	227.0	189.0
1982-1986	265.6	269.7	271.0	232.3	190.2	
1988-1993	273.6	290.3	283.8	238.7	192.7
1994-2000	277.6	299.7	289.7	240.8	195.7
2001-2006	273.3	304.6	306.3	238.5	197.1

Here shows the average weights of defensive positions throughout the years.
In the 70s an average DT weighed 256 pounds. Fast forward 30 years and they weighed 50 LBs more You cannot compare then from now. Sure these hall of famers from back then, they outshined their counter parts but their effectiveness would be much different if they played in todays game.

Oh and this is coming from a fan who is not a fan of Brady or the Patriots.

dude, you miss the point entirely. what the hell do the size of players have to do with crap? sure players may be bigger and stronger but so what? when you have a bunch of free agents running around and no one stays long enough to truly learn a system and you have to dumb down the system to get them acclimated and you start younger players all the time that dont have time to really learn the system, you dont get a better product. If you have teams with 25th ranked defenses making it all the way through the playoffs, you obviously have a weaker quality of play all around.

what the heck does that have to do with anything I'm talking about in the first place? I'm not saying if the 60s team played the 90s team, they would beat them.... I'm saying, those teams were more dominant in their era then the Pats are in theirs.

 

[young2rice]

He's saying basically it's a much more level playing field now-a-days in terms of the physical attributes of players because it has been honed down to almost a science. Working out. Regiments. Training Camps, etc, compared to what it was back in the day. Back in the day teams with a great player here and there could dominate more than teams with a couple great players now-a-days, because the talent pool has elevated so much through analysis, progression, development, etc that its almost more impressive than a team now-a-days is capable of dominating an era in comparison to back then.

 

[ram29jackson]

He's saying basically it's a much more level playing field now-a-days in terms of the physical attributes of players because it has been honed down to almost a science. Working out. Regiments. Training Camps, etc, compared to what it was back in the day. Back in the day teams with a great player here and there could dominate more than teams with a couple great players now-a-days, because the talent pool has elevated so much through analysis, progression, development, etc that its almost more impressive than a team now-a-days is capable of dominating an era in comparison to back then.

actually from reading this, I would say we may have come full circle...its the same thing in a different package...in the 40s and 50s maybe the teams that won had those 2 or 3 players that were superior to everyone and won more.

now,everyone is a trained athlete but since theyre floating from team to team without truly learning a system and relation to players next to them, its become once again,nothing more than who has the best horses that day..until at least the playoffs when things tighten up.

which still makes the quality of true team play lower.

when Sanchez was doing well when he got into the league... I said "come on" a rookie cant be doing that well that early,especially a QB. But all the younger guys were touting players are smarter today,he came from a pro system etc, he's better then so and so...last year I was ready to believe the hype..year 3,he should have improved. While he isnt playing like a sack of dirt,he is playing like a young inexperienced guy which is what he is.

the guys are bigger ,stronger,faster,but the quality of play of so many first and second year guys starting early is a negative.

 

[jeffx]

My key to the game is can the Giants get to Brady by just rushing the front four? If yes, they have a good shot at winning.

 

[EmpireWF]

Birdman offered to bet $5 mil on the Pats to win. His nephew is BJGE.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...ily_bet_5_mil_on_pats/srvc=home&position=also

lol

 

[JOHNNYTHECLOWN]

Birdman offered to bet $5 mil on the Pats to win. His nephew is BJGE.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...ily_bet_5_mil_on_pats/srvc=home&position=also

lol

Saw this yesterday, 50 Cent said he'd put 1 mil on the Giants...