According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]Figured I'd post this since no one has posted it yet. http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/25964/are-the-patriots-an-overrated-2011-team
    Posted by Caliberink[/QUOTE]

    Is he the one that does the showcase showdown?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]Didn't Rob Parker host "The Price Is Right"?
    Posted by pats-fan-2007[/QUOTE]

    D#mn.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    If the Pats are overrated, why would their playoff losses be shocking?


     I guess if you're a writer you have to write something.



     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from helterskelter. Show helterskelter's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB. : Is he the one that does the showcase showdown?
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]Door number 1 Black eyed peas Door 2 A dead cat Door 3 Fergie.  Which has a value over 10 dollars American ?
                                                                                                                    
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB. : Door number 1 Black eyed peas Door 2 A dead cat Door 3 Fergie.  Which has a value over 10 dollars American ?                                                                                                                 
    Posted by helterskelter[/QUOTE]

    The one dat goes,
    -The drinks start pourin', An' my speech start start slurin'. Everybody start lookin' real good,
    Da grey goose got'chure girlfriend loose,
    Now I'm wishin' that I didn't wear dese shoes,
    I's like everytime I get up in da nude,
    Paparrazi come an' put'me in da news;
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from LittleTimmy31. Show LittleTimmy31's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    Who really gives a sh*t what these a-holes think!??!!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]I am sorry rusty, did your local boston media NOT ask Cowher or Vermeil to comment on Spygate?  Is that NOT bringing up spygate?  Surely, these former coaches didn't come to the booth and ask to speak about spygate, did they? And I think that the individual in question is suggesting that the pats are overrated by being favorites for the SB because of their recent playoff record, not regular season record.  I recall this board laughing at a colts team who had great regular season records but poor postseason records.  With the pats "1 and done" the last 2 years, doesn't this guy make a valid point? That said, you guys should really take a chill pill.  Would you rather have vegas odds on your side or a pundit?  I know which I'd pick.  BTW, I believe the colts were preseason favs last year in vegas.  How'd that work out? Oh and Russ, if you are giving the pats credit for being in the 07 SB, don't you think you should give the colts credit for being in the 10 SB?
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    you are troll, a lier, a fluffer and a total tool.... nothing you say on this site is relevant...you have proven it time and again....this is the only consideration you should be afforded when you spout here
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB. : hmm.  a common refrain on this board.  "never take espn seriously".  But you left the rest of the general sentiment out - "unless they praise the pats.  then they are ok" Its so common here.  Hate on ESPN unless they say good things. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    I don't think any NE fan of any sports gives one rat's behind if ESPN praises anything in Boston.

    This is what you don't get. We have our own coverage here.

    This is what I call the Midwest Insecurity.

    Get over it. We don't care.  And there is no "east coast bias" either. So stupid.


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    "The one that bothers me even worse [than the Cowboys] is the New England Patriots, who are still living on the past," Rob Parker said in his debate segment with Skip Bayless. "I know. I've heard it all. They were 14-2 last year. I know. And their last 16 home games, 16-0.

    "But their last two playoff games at home, they both lost -- shocking losses to the Ravens and to the Jets the last two years. I still think people look at the Patriots and think they won last week. They haven't won since 2004. Let's be honest. Look at their playoff run."

    I'm somewhat curious here...Did Rob Parker, anywhere in this segment, actually say who, ya know-Should be a Superbowl Favorite going into the 2011 NFL Season?  So alright, Superbowl Favorite (according to Rob Parker)=Can't be ANY team that has NOT won the Superbowl since 2004.  Also, according to the rationale, Regular Season Wins mean nothing, And I guess (according to Rob Parker), IF you lose 2 playoff games BOTH while you're at Home, then=No Superbowl Favorite (but say, IF you lose just 1 playoff game at home, then don't make the playoffs next year=Yes, you're still in the mix).
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    First off - its a debate segment.  Second, the guy had both bayless and the moderator killing this guy for his comments. 

    Ultimately, he said that the pats are a playoff team (a top 10 team), but that they are seemingly favored every year to win the superbowl.  In fact, at the beginning of the season, the dude in question picked the pats to win the superbowl until they got to the playoffs, then he said they wouldn't beat the Jets. 

    All he was more or less saying was "show me".  This board applies the same perspective to all other teams in the league.  The 3 SB victories in 4 years created this mentality.  Clearly, some of that shine has worn off now that it has been 6 years since 04 and pats fans are coming back to reality.  Ultimately, I think that is what this guy is saying. 

    Why should the pats be favored to win the SB next year?  Frankly, I believe there are a number of reasons, but home playoff losses should temper the prospects just a bit.  Don't forget all of the times you've called the colts overrated.  Now that you have two consecutive HOME one and dones on your hands, be prepared for similar comments. 

    And don't think the HOME part of those one and done's isn't significant particularly given the reg season home win streak.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    For every team in the NFL it's "show me".  He also dropped in a Spygate reference, which at this point, is so beyond old, it beyond ridiculous.

    They are odds.  Vegas odds.

    The normal logic would be, NE has 6 picks in the top 100, will get back Ty Warren and Leigh Bodden, and of those 6 picks, 3 of them are essentially 1st rd picks.

    Do the math.

    NE will win 10+ games and based on the idea that it's only a matter of time before the Pats rebuilding phase breaks through into overdrive now (2011).

    So, it's not such a surprise they might be one of the favorites.  They were NOT a top favorite this year because of 2009's playoff loss, an unknown 2010 draft pull and no one thought they'd win 14 games.

    Keep in mind Welker was also coming off leg surgery. 

    You add in all the other components like the 2009 and 2010 draft picks having more experience, intangibles like drive and determination, led by Brady and a focused coach like BB, the former whom did not do as well he would have liked (as well as BB as coach in the playoffs), two coordinators who were new, etc, and it all makes a lot of sense.

    Rob Parker needs to state a premise as to WHY it's not a logical odds choice.

    The whole reason why people are jealous of NE is because a team that formed a dynasty, went 16-0, traded Moss and got better, has 3 1st rd picks (essentially) and 6 in the top 100, shouldn't be in such good shape.

    Hence, the anger and jealousy that continues on.  Underpants, PhatRex, Leon, etc post here due to jealousy.  

    Parker doesn't form a decent premise, because most likely he's not very bright and he didn't do his homework.

    I admit he has the more difficult side of the table there, but at least make a case better than "Spygate" and "no rings in the last 6 seasons. That's pathetic.

    We know they were in the SB in 2007, Brady went down in 2008 and they have been rebuilding since the start of 2008. 

    So, based on the obvious progressions, Parker needs to do a little bit more than that.  Yet again, ESPN is flat out clueless when it comes to analyzing NE's incredbile progress after losing so many veteran All Pro system players.

    The Colts were overrated because they were SOFT. A finesse team that counted it's Pro Bowlers.

    NE IS FINISHING REBUILDING. REBUILDING.

    Who wins divisions while rebuilding? Maybe if Jax, Tenn or Houston had their stuff together, your Colts woudn't cupcake into a division title every year?



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    Rusty, I agree with you that the pats should be one of the favorites, and if this guy considers them a top 10 team, then so does he.  He said they would make the playoffs. 

    As for why he thinks what he thinks, he tells you.  They've not played well in the playoffs the last 2 years.  they have not won anything since 04.  those are his reasons, as I interpret him.  He's certainly entitled to his opinion. 

    He didn't, and I don't think that anyone thinks the pats are not "in good shape". 

    The colts were no more overrated than than the pats.  in 09, EVERYONE had them as favorites.  I don't want to hear the brady coming off of injury excuse, because everyone here was fawning over Brady's ability to run in February.  Everyone claimed he'd be 100% when the season started.  Then the pats folded in the playoffs AT HOME.  FOLDED. 

    This year, the expectations were significantly lower and the pats well out performed them setting themselves up as SB favorites going into the playoffs.  That they lost again in their first game, AGAIN AT HOME to a team they had previously beaten 45-3 and that not many were giving much credibility (mark sanchez anyone) texplains how people come to a conclusion that the pats are overrated. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    Oh - and the colts have nearly turned over their staff save a few key players: 

    Manning, Wayne (replacement in place), Clark (replacements in place), Saturday, Freeney, Brackett (replacement in place).  So the colts are a team who've been able to replace players on the fly, as well. 

    Finally, regarding the AFC South, did you know its sent more teams to the playoffs since realignment than the AFC East.  So much for a cupcake division.  Look in your own back yard.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    They have not played well in the playoffs due to serious injuries and inexperience as well as that leading to a lack of execution. Yes.

    Disappointing, but not entirely shocking nor is it out of the norm for any team going through a rebuilding transition. Pretty simple.

    The problem, outside of the anti-NE angle, is the fact that people see BB and BRady and equate them and the Pats logo as what happened from 2001-2007, which was 4 SB appearances.

    It's a team game.   53 players.  Some luck. Health. A lot needs to tilt into one direction for the one team to win it all.

    Just because NE isn't going 16-0 or 19-0 doesn't mean they aren't a serious threat.

    They'll be that threat moving forward and I think there is that fear, which only ratchets up the troll work and jealousy levels higher.

    Why do contexts apply to 31 NFL teams, but these kinds of contexts do not apply to the Pats?

    NEWSFLASH:

    When NE lost 5 All Pro defenders and started to rebuild in 2008 and 2009 (losing Harrison, Bruschi, Seymour and Vrabel - prior to that Samuel), this means they are committing to rebuilding.

    I love how people want to ignore this so they can try to spin their comments in a way that makes them feel good.  I.E., that's all trolls have now.

    But, that time has come and gone.

    To not acknowledge this means you are either retarded or so irrational, you do this on purpose to play the anti-NE role.

    Just admit it.

    If any NFL team lost 3-5 All Pro players all within a 2 season span, needing to teach 1st and 2nd year players to play together, it's going to have an effect.

    So, instead of saying "they played poorly in the playoffs", maybe discovering WHY that was the case answers the question.  They actually progressed, gained a boatload of experience and the base resurgence of this young group finally provides stability.

    Again, everything tilts into the other direction moving forward.

    1. Health
    2. Depth
    3. Experience
    4. Talent
    5. Athleticism/Speed

    These will all be better than they were in 2010 and 2009.

    Has the IQ level improved yet?  How can anyone not see this?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]Oh - and the colts have nearly turned over their staff save a few key players:  Manning, Wayne (replacement in place), Clark (replacements in place), Saturday, Freeney, Brackett (replacement in place).  So the colts are a team who've been able to replace players on the fly, as well.  Finally, regarding the AFC South, did you know its sent more teams to the playoffs since realignment than the AFC East.  So much for a cupcake division.  Look in your own back yard.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    That's correct, as I have acknowledged.  But, they haven't won a SB, like NE in years now.

    Exactly my point. Never in a million years would you hear ESPN or the media criticize the Colts.

    They'll make excuses for Manning and Polian and blast the Pats. Get it yet?

    One set of rules/expectations/barometers for 31 teams and one special, super-irrational one for the NE Pats.

    FACT

    Another example is NE having 15 players on IR.  No one really mentioned this in 2010.

    That's all we heard about with Indy and obviously with Green Bay.

    The media does not look at NE objectively. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    Sure ESPN has been critical of the colts.  There are plenty of people there that share the same opinions of the colts that many here have.  Please don't generalize like that. 

    As for injuries, here's why you heard about it with Indy and GB:

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/fo-espn-feature-columns/2011/espn-starter-games-lost-and-packers
    http://www.coltzilla.com/off-season-coverage/how-much-did-injuries-really-effect-the-colts/
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]The problem, outside of the anti-NE angle, is the fact that people see BB and BRady and equate them and the Pats logo as what happened from 2001-2007, which was 4 SB appearances. It's a team game.   53 players.  Some luck. Health. A lot needs to tilt into one direction for the one team to win it all.

    NEWSFLASH: When NE lost 5 All Pro defenders and started to rebuild in 2008 and 2009 (losing Harrison, Bruschi, Seymour and Vrabel - prior to that Samuel), this means they are committing to rebuilding. I love how people want to ignore this so they can try to spin their comments in a way that makes them feel good.Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
    Russ you are confusing me with these statements you made - See above

    I thought Brady and Belichick were the only reasons why the pats won superbowls.  Every time I try to say that the defense deserves credit for those wins, all I get is Brady and Belichick. 

    So, what you are saying is that I was right all along.  It was the defense.  Feels good to know the ultimate pats fan agrees I was right. 

    Now, I haven't disagreed with you on this yet.  I think the patriots have done a fantastic job turning over their staff (particularly on D) and remaining playoff competitive.  Brady does deserve credit here.  without him, I don't think the pats are nearly as good when he needed to carry the team.  Problem is, he can't do it alone.  Pats look set for the forseeable future. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    No.

    Fooball is the ultimate team game.

    This has no bearing on my opinion or the general consensus opinion that they are the best coach/QB combo in the NFL and arguably two of the best at their craft of all time.

    Please learn to read.

    You are confused because you struggle with the simple concepts OR are so infused with jeaousy you can't admit you know exactly what I am talking about.

    NE doesn't win anything without the players, but the coaching is clearly top notch and has been for decades with BB as a defensive mind.

    Life is a two way street. I have always said this.

    You need the coach and the QB in this league, BB and brady just happen to the be the best.

    Do not put words in my mouth. I played sports and you did not. I know all about team work/chemistry and how important it is for it all to come together.

    Coaching and performance in all phases represent a two way street.

    This isn't tennis or golf. 




     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    Out of curiosity, you of contexts and facts and having them straight, how in the world could you ever claim to know anything about me and what I did or did not do?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    Call me knowing you never played sports, or never played them well, a hunch.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]Call me knowing you never played sports, or never played them well, a hunch.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    First, knowing something is never a hunch.  That you related one to the other is telling to us all.

    Second, backpedaling, as you normally do ('or never played them well"), demonstrates once again how weak you really really are. 

    Third, if you were trying to say that your comment was just a hunch, if this is indicative of other hunches you have, you are not very good at them.  You'd be better off sticking with facts, although I am not convinced you know the difference.  

    Class dismissed.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]So I guess Underdogg couldnt find me ever saying ESPN was "ok" when they praise the Pats since he ignored my last post. Nice one. With that said Rusty dont say people around here dont care what ESPN has to say because you and many other who claim to not take ESPN seriously then turn around and read Mike Reiss who by the way gets paid by ESPN and is just as much a puppet now that he works for ESPN as anyone else. So clearly you and other care what ESPN has to say because Mike Reiss speaks for ESPN and you eat his sh*t up. Just saying.
    Posted by MVPkilla4life[/QUOTE]
    Tas - you are always jumping my sh8t for not responding to you.  Is the honeymoon period in your household over? 

    I believe you are one of the consistent fans on this board.  You probably don't watch ESPN.  I do, but I don't watch alot of their NFL stuff. 

    1.  I hate Chris Berman
    2.  I used to like Tom Jackson, but they've asked him to be more "blustery" and it bugs me. 
    3.  It appears that they set up each of their commentators (not reporters) with a preconceived agenda, not based necessarily on how that commentator may actually feel but in order to spur debate.  Rather than meaningful discussion, they have to provide "point-counterpoint" debate.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB. : First, knowing something is never a hunch.  That you related one to the other is telling to us all. Second, backpedaling, as you normally do ('or never played them well"), demonstrates once again how weak you really really are.  Third, if you were trying to say that your comment was just a hunch, if this is indicative of other hunches you have, you are not very good at them.  You'd be better off sticking with facts, although I am not convinced you know the difference.   Class dismissed.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    lol

    Yes, "class dismissed".  You sure showed me, Undies!

    I don't see you denying my contention that you are a geek and never played sports or were ever good enough to play.

    THAT is what is telling.

    Now, class is dismissed.


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    I read ESPN Boston.  That's about it. I read the Pats, Sox and B's blogs there as well.  They do a good job.

    I catch the ESPN highlights because it's pretty much the only outlet to get highlights.

    Hey, at least I know what not to watch.   Their shows are what I don't watch.

    The people that get me are the Midwest and West Coast/SW fans who babble about how ESPN has a bias.

    The stupidity is incredible.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: According to Rob Parker ESPN, Pats overrated for SB.

    I told you that you would have a girl, didn't I?  Now I know why you are always jumping down my throat!  LOL. 

    Would you watch ESPN if the pats were playing on ESPN?
     

Share