The Patriots 2013 Playoff Run
74 replies
GARDENHEADsubscriberOPWhat would you rather see?
1) The Pats go one and done in the 2013 playoffs; or
2) The Pats lose their 4th Super Bowl (and have Brady/Bellicheck go 3-3 in Super Bowls).
I think this is a tough question. I think I'm leaning towards them losing another Super Bowl. I think it would hurt them more.
Tanking is like taking a Greyhound bus cross-country. Sure, it may eventually get you where you want to go, but it’s messy and unpleasant and uncomfortable, it stinks, the entire time you’ll be wishing you weren’t there, and not everybody along for the ride is going to make it to the end. - Quote stolen from Deadspin
Steve-Moforum_veteranThey're my favorite to win the whole thing at this point now that the Broncos are gone.
MikeHonchosubscriberGreat question. Voted one and done, because 6 appearances in 12 years is still impressive.
Headcoach material wouldn’t want to work somewhere they’re not trusted with actual football decisions.
Clark Kentforum_veteranI'd love to see them make the SB and lose. I've never been as interested in the SB unless I have someone to root for or against. Those two NYG superbowls were fun as **** to watch.
BlameItOnTheHenneforum_veteranEverything about them is insufferable. I hope they win as few games possible.
McLovinforum_veteran"BlameItOnTheHenne wrote:
17-0. Suck it.
MikeHonchosubscriber"McLovin wrote:
And as many perfect superbowl seasons as the Pats :wink2:
Headcoach material wouldn’t want to work somewhere they’re not trusted with actual football decisions.
McLovinforum_veteran"lmeister3 wrote:
And as many perfect superbowl seasons as the Pats :wink2:
Laces out Dan
MikeHonchosubscriber"McLovin wrote:
Laces out Dan
You're secretly a man?
Headcoach material wouldn’t want to work somewhere they’re not trusted with actual football decisions.
McLovinforum_veteran"lmeister3 wrote:
You're secretly a man?
Totes.
dWreckNew MemberGo ravens IMO. let RLewis go out with a bang. that balt/denver game was just pants on head ridiculous
The KRAKEN! Still proving doubters wrong on the weekly.
Get well soon Tanny. #ThatsMyQB
Fin Dforum_veteran"McLovin wrote:
He has two more nipple rings then the Pats have Super Bowl wins after they got busted for cheating.
MikeHonchosubscriberFind it weird that u noticed.
Headcoach material wouldn’t want to work somewhere they’re not trusted with actual football decisions.
McLovinforum_veteran"Finascious D wrote:
He has two more nipple rings then the Pats have Super Bowl wins after they got busted for cheating.
cool story bro. so tell me again how that helped them win any games? lol.
didn't your former coach admit to doing the very same thing? that must be different though.
Two weeks ago, FOX's Jimmy Johnson admitted on the network's pregame show that he engaged in the same type of cheating that got the Pats in trouble during a Week One win over the Jets. On Friday, Johnson reiterated his remarks on WFAN in New York, in a spot with Mike Francesa and Chris Russo. Johnson said that, 18 years ago, a Chiefs scout told him how to do exactly what Belichick did. Though Johnson didn't name the scout when he first mentioned it on FOX, Johnson now says that the scout was the late Mark Hatley. "I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league," Johnson said. "This was commonplace." Johnson also implicated then-Chiefs offensive line coach Howard Mudd, who currently serves as the offensive line coach with the Colts, saying that Johnson "was the best in the entire league at stealing signals." As he said on FOX, Johnson explained that he didn't do it much because he didn't get much out of it. Still, Johnson recognizes its potential value. "If it gives you one single play in the ball game," he said, "it might be the different."
he didn't do it... much.
Fin Dforum_veteran"McLovin wrote:
cool story bro. so tell me again how that helped them win any games? lol.
didn't your former coach admit to doing the very same thing? that must be different though.
he didn't do it... much.
Yeah, probably nothing to the Pats cheating. I mean look at all those SB wins after they were busted. It had no effect and gave them no advantage....that's why they were doing it, because it did nothing.
McLovinforum_veteran"Finascious D wrote:
Yeah, probably nothing to the Pats cheating. I mean look at all those SB wins after they were busted. It had no effect and gave them no advantage....that's why they were doing it, because it did nothing.
so no comment about your own team doing the exact same thing?
Here I will make this simple for you.
Since Belichick took over they are 151-57 in the regular season
before spygate (when they were taping) 75-37 over 7 years or .669
after spygate (after they got caught) 76-20 over 6 years. or .792
yea, it must have helped a lot.
"Finascious D wrote:
Yeah, probably nothing to the Pats cheating. I mean look at all those SB wins after they were busted. It had no effect and gave them no advantage....that's why they were doing it, because it did nothing.
It clearly didn't, though. They're still as good as they were before, if not better.
McLovinforum_veteran"Anonymous wrote:
It clearly didn't, though. They're still as good as they were before, if not better.
Exactly. Not winning the Superbowl doesn't mean your not successful. You guys won the AFC East in 2008 and I think most people would agree that was a successful season. I am sure anyone here would rather be in the playoffs and lose then not make it at all.
MikeHonchosubscriber"Anonymous wrote:
It clearly didn't, though. They're still as good as they were before, if not better.
How did it not help though? They won three SBs doing it.
Headcoach material wouldn’t want to work somewhere they’re not trusted with actual football decisions.
shula_guyNew MemberHelped or not, Belicheck should of faced a year suspension, same as Sean Peyton. Anyone who does not think knowing the oppositions audiables does not give them a distinct advantage is kidding themselves. Brady knowing ther defensive play being called or Bruschi for that matter knowing where the ofense was going with the ball. No big deal right......
If cheating didnt help then why continue to do it after you been warned? Lets say what they were doing only gave them a slight edge.... Well they barely won the SBs and have not won any since. The difference very well could be that on an even playing field they don't have what it takes to win the big one.
I sincerely hope the Ravens beat the snot out of them this weekend and embarass them so badly that their fans turn on them. Its an absolute joke that they are 9 point favorites.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
Frederic Bastiat
"lmeister3 wrote:
How did it not help though? They won three SBs doing it.
Everyone was doing it. Not only New England. They were just the only team to get caught. It's hard to call it an advantage when odds are the other team cheated, too.
Had they not done it, they would still have won the SB, IMO.
GARDENHEADsubscriber"McLovin wrote:
so no comment about your own team doing the exact same thing?
Here I will make this simple for you.
Since Belichick took over they are 151-57 in the regular season
before spygate (when they were taping) 75-37 over 7 years or .669
after spygate (after they got caught) 76-20 over 6 years. or .792
yea, it must have helped a lot.
How many rings since spygate?
Tanking is like taking a Greyhound bus cross-country. Sure, it may eventually get you where you want to go, but it’s messy and unpleasant and uncomfortable, it stinks, the entire time you’ll be wishing you weren’t there, and not everybody along for the ride is going to make it to the end. - Quote stolen from Deadspin
Log in to reply.