Angry Rant Against ESPN

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They've (not just ESPN, but also other major outlets like SI) been on Philadelphia's nuts for years and years. I will say this about the Eagles, Andy Reid is a great team builder, and I'm not surprised that Philly is doing what they are doing. Of course if we were ANY good, they wouldn't be where they are right now, so if ESPN was talking up Reid's job ad nauseum, I'd probably be sick to my stomach.

Regarding the Pats...who knows where they'd be if the NFL rules weren't wacky, and they had lost to the Raiders in the 2001 divisional round (the snow bowl)? Brady could be a relatively underhyped QB right now. The bottom line is that good team building and coaching are helpful things, but the game chooses it's champions in a relatively random manner. No one player or coach is bigger than the game, but listening to some of the talking heads, you'd think guys like Brady and Belicheck are larger than life. They aren't. They are great players and coaches who just happened to be lucky enough to win a few championships. Tons of players who have a lot of tools similar to those guys flounder in mediocrity not because they go about playing/coaching the game any differently than a Brady or a Belicheck, but because guys like Brady catch all the breaks, not them.

You aren't seriously suggesting that being only the second team in 40 years of Super Bowl history to win three Super Bowls in four years is matter of luck, I hope. It's fine not to like Brady for whatever reason you choose, but to lump him with "tons of players" is flat out laughable. Brady is one of THE top clutch quarterbacks in NFL history and there's really no debate- his record proves it. In terms of titles he's far and away the most accomplished quarterback playing today. Last year's playoff loss at Denver was the first time the guy had lost a playoff game in four trips to the playoffs- that's impressive no matter how much you might hate the Pats.

Similarly, Belichick's won-lost record speaks for itself. W's talk and BS walks.

As for the snow bowl, whatever- most dynasties have a break or two along the way, but they only add to the lore- they certainly can't account for all the success a team like the Patriots have created for themselves
(and in any event that call could be seen as revenge for the royal screw job the '76 Patriots got in getting jobbed out of a win over eventual Super Bowl champion Oakland).

Somehow I wonder if you'd be so upset if it was Gibbs and Campbell the talking heads were gushging over.

Bottom Line: Even if the Pats get blown out at San Diego today, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that unless some team comes out of nowhere and really pours it on the next 3-4 years, New England is hands down the team of the decade, and you'll be seeing this team imortalized forever on ESPN CLassic- and deservedly so.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Huddle

You aren't seriously suggesting that being only the second team in 40 years of Super Bowl history to win three Super Bowls in four years is matter of luck, I hope. It's fine not to like Brady for whatever reason you choose, but to lump him with "tons of players" is flat out laughable. Brady is one of THE top clutch quarterbacks in NFL history and there's really no debate- his record proves it. In terms of titles he's far and away the most accomplished quarterback playing today. Last year's playoff loss at Denver was the first time the guy had lost a playoff game in four trips to the playoffs- that's impressive no matter how much you might hate the Pats.

Similarly, Belichick's won-lost record speaks for itself. W's talk and BS walks.

As for the snow bowl, whatever- most dynasties have a break or two along the way, but they only add to the lore- they certainly can't account for all the success a team like the Patriots have created for themselves
(and in any event that call could be seen as revenge for the royal screw job the '76 Patriots got in getting jobbed out of a win over eventual Super Bowl champion Oakland).

Somehow I wonder if you'd be so upset if it was Gibbs and Campbell the talking heads were gushging over.

Bottom Line: Even if the Pats get blown out at San Diego today, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that unless some team comes out of nowhere and really pours it on the next 3-4 years, New England is hands down the team of the decade, and you'll be seeing this team imortalized forever on ESPN CLassic- and deservedly so.

Are you saying that if the Raiders had beaten the Pats in the 2001 playoffs (like most agree SHOULD have happened), that:

1) Brady would be viewed in the exact same light he is right now.

2)The Patriots would still have two Super Bowls; that is to say their success as a team in 03-04 was in NO way assisted by their championship in 01. Consider that they missed the playoffs in 02, so they very easily could have been considered a one year wonder.

The game chooses it's champions. This statement doesn't mean that it's fixed, it means that if you DON'T get some good fortune, you don't win 3-4 games in the playoffs, no matter how good you are. It's a simple concept. It chose the Pats three times. Thus they are three time world champions. Worship them if you must, but Bill Belichick is not my lord and savior.

The Patriots are not bigger then the game.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Are you saying that if the Raiders had beaten the Pats in the 2001 playoffs (like most agree SHOULD have happened), that:

1) Brady would be viewed in the exact same light he is right now.

2)The Patriots would still have two Super Bowls; that is to say their success as a team in 03-04 was in NO way assisted by their championship in 01. Consider that they missed the playoffs in 02, so they very easily could have been considered a one year wonder.

The game chooses it's champions. This statement doesn't mean that it's fixed, it means that if you DON'T get some good fortune, you don't win 3-4 games in the playoffs, no matter how good you are. It's a simple concept. It chose the Pats three times. Thus they are three time world champions. Worship them if you must, but Bill Belichick is not my lord and savior.

The Patriots are not bigger then the game.

Who is saying Belichick is your lord and savior? Don't say people were suggesting it, just show me where someone said it.

I am not worshipping the Pats. I am simply recognizing that they have done a better job of taking advantage of the oppotunities they have been presented than other teams.

This is nothing but sour grapes. Again, if the Redskins were winning big and all the rage, we're not having this discussion.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by The Huddle

Bottom Line: Even if the Pats get blown out at San Diego today, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that unless some team comes out of nowhere and really pours it on the next 3-4 years, New England is hands down the team of the decade, and you'll be seeing this team imortalized forever on ESPN CLassic- and deservedly so.

I agree. If we are to crown 'teams of the decade' I don't know who else you could pick for the 2000's but New England. In the 90's it was the Cowboys, in the 80's it was the Niners.

Now, in my mind, if you win 3 Super Bowls in any one decade, you deserve the team of the decade title. Especially if no other team did it. If a team wins two Super Bowls, that's certainly worthy of note, but IMO, it doesn't warrant "Team of the Decade."

Too bad that doesn't include the Redskins of the 80's because they went to three and won two -- if it weren't for that damned Super Bowl 18 ... ARGGGH! We'd have been right up there with the 49ers as "Team of the Decade."

[gibbs4life]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I agree. If we are to crown 'teams of the decade' I don't know who else you could pick for the 2000's but New England. In the 90's it was the Cowboys, in the 80's it was the Niners.

Now, in my mind, if you win 3 Super Bowls in any one decade, you deserve the team of the decade title. Especially if no other team did it. If a team wins two Super Bowls, that's certainly worthy of note, but IMO, it doesn't warrant "Team of the Decade."

Too bad that doesn't include the Redskins of the 80's because they went to three and won two -- if it weren't for that damned Super Bowl 18 ... ARGGGH! We'd have been right up there with the 49ers as "Team of the Decade."

yeah that freaking superbowl still burns in the back of my mind today...
all those missed tackles ,kind of reminded me of the defense of this year.