Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The biggest no brainer in the history of the NFL...Tom Brady is the best that's ever played the position.

    And the lengths that some go to to discredit him because it's more importent that their belief that it's all BB is truly sickening....

    [/QUOTE]

    Joe Montana was the best and most cerebral QB I've ever seen. Maybe you're only a teenager and never saw him, but Brady has destroyed his legacy in recent years, really by his own doing with poor decisions like on 1st downs in 4th QTRs for INTs for no explainable reasoning.

    Joe Montana NEVER did stuff like that. Ever.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course he did. Stop lying.

    Montana was only 4-3 in NFCCGs with 7 INTs in 7 games.

    He had an 18/12 TD/INT ratio in divisional playoff games.

    He had 3 TDs and 2 INTs in the wildcard round.

    Most all of this was with the greatest receiver of all-time to work with and an otherwise loaded team.

    His great SB games, where his postseason stats were mostly racked up, were against an AFC that didn't win more than 1 SB in some 16 years!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't see how this is a bludgeoning. I am the one along with an old time poster who is superb here, Hard Right, who point out the 3 straight playoff mishaps for him from 1985-1987.

    But, the key there was Walsh was rebuilding during those years. I made reference to this numerous times here and even mentioned the 1986 draft being the trigger for their nasty 1988 and 1989 teams. If Montana didn't get hurt in 1990, they win that one, too, and go 3 in a row in the SB.

    Until Brady bounces back like the late 1980s 49ers did led by Montana, you can't just assusme it will happen, or since he's Brady, it doesn't matter Montana and those 24ers teams did.

    [/QUOTE]


    And you have screamed from the rooftops over and over and over ad nauseam that BB has been "rebuilding on the fly". But Brady gets no slack from you for that.

    The FACT remains that Montana was very ordinary in the playoffs unless he was playing the inferior AFC who won only one SB over 16years which happened to coincide quite nicely with his career.

    Montana had a 34/21 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs outside the SB against the inferior AFC.

    Keep lying, I'll keep bludgeoning.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think 2010 is fair.  That was a very young team, starting 6 rookies.  

    2011, no, though, sorry.

    Brady had all the weapons any QB could ever want. I also don't excuse him for SB 42 smirking at BUrress's prediction, then trying to go out there and light it up, only to fail miserably.  

    Last year, no. 13 points is abysmal at home. Abysmal. We'll never win anything with the offense doing that.

    Lastly, this has been going on for years  and years with Brady, and it didn't with Montana.

    Montana also didn't stand in the shotgun 38 out of 45 times with leads and lose. Ouch.

    [/QUOTE]


    Right liar, don't excuse Brady for SB 42 where he was sacked 5 times and hit 25 times yet still came up with the clutch TD late to get the lead only to see the D collapse and lose it.

    And Montana played plenty bad in the playoffs, except when he played the inferior AFC as I have documents and you simply ignore like the dishonest troll you are.

    You are; Bludgeoned again.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    Expecting honesty on this is hopeless.

    Let's face it, if BB himself came in and slapped some of these characters silly screaming all the while, "WE RUN MORE WHEN IT'S BEING EFFECTIVE, GOT IT?", they would all be here the next day posting the same nonsense.

     [/QUOTE]

    Is it "honesty" is simply being pigheaded?  IMHO, most everyone here has acknowledged issues with the team over the years.  .......  So, is it honesty or just trying to scream louder than everyone else: "I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE ALL WRONG!"?

    [/QUOTE]

    Bill, I hope you don't group me in with rusty and his insane theory about everything being the best QB in nfl histories fault.

    My premise is simple, since we started going with more of a pass heavy aerial attack, we have struggled in the post season against good defenses.  I dont think BB is an idiot, i dont understand how a debate could turn into that?

    I think it is only natural to fall back on your HOF QB who broke every passing record in the book a little too often. I dont see a lot of games where we came out and ran 15 20 times for 50 yards. I dont see our running game getting shut down like babe and company claim. I saw woodhead getting nowhere out of the draw plays, but our power backs have always ran well under coach scsrs o line. 

    I don't understand what all the fuss is about. We have scored 15.5 pog in 5 playoff losses in a row. I mean our defense has been nowhere near the level of the dynasty defense I get it, but it is an offensive driven league now.  15.5 ppg? We can't pretend that is going to win us playoff games can we? Not when we average over double that. 

    I respect your opinions a lot. What do you think of reiss's take on how the pass heavy approach has hindered our offense in some tough post season exits? Or Salks take on what a ball control balanced offense does for all 3 phases of the game, and how it wears down a defense?

    [/QUOTE]

    Triple...  no I do not.  Meant as a general statement and referencing some posters who are very steadfast in their opinions regardless of contrary arguments.

    I have said in the past that it is a head scratcher when the team goes away from what is working in a game, running or passing.  Take for example, SB42..  both TDs were not scored with pass happy series.  Combinations of runs and passes with an up tempo attack not giving the Giants' D an opportunity to haul off and going to the edges instead of up the middle.  All other times, Pats tried for pass plays that required time to set up and the Giants' rush did not allow for it.

    To your last paragraph...  Consider the mindset of the team.. PASSING was working ALL season long and they had the weapons.  There was a barely a team that could stop them. Do you blame them?  In both those SB losses, the Giants D played well above what it did in the regular season, which happens.  Pats did not adjust in time.  Recall how often run plays got blown up?  Anyway, it is what it is.. we can't change that history and, hopefully, what we saw late this season portends a more balanced attack, or rather, an attack the other team can't figure out which way it will go..  run or pass heavy. 

    [/QUOTE]

    just so you know. I didnt write anything in this post. My name appears up top but someone edited my post out and likely you are responded to either ZB or Babe. Dont want to get confused and start answering where I shouldnt be.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The biggest no brainer in the history of the NFL...Tom Brady is the best that's ever played the position.

    And the lengths that some go to to discredit him because it's more importent that their belief that it's all BB is truly sickening....

    [/QUOTE]

    Joe Montana was the best and most cerebral QB I've ever seen. Maybe you're only a teenager and never saw him, but Brady has destroyed his legacy in recent years, really by his own doing with poor decisions like on 1st downs in 4th QTRs for INTs for no explainable reasoning.

    Joe Montana NEVER did stuff like that. Ever.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course he did. Stop lying.

    Montana was only 4-3 in NFCCGs with 7 INTs in 7 games.

    He had an 18/12 TD/INT ratio in divisional playoff games.

    He had 3 TDs and 2 INTs in the wildcard round.

    Most all of this was with the greatest receiver of all-time to work with and an otherwise loaded team.

    His great SB games, where his postseason stats were mostly racked up, were against an AFC that didn't win more than 1 SB in some 16 years!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't see how this is a bludgeoning. I am the one along with an old time poster who is superb here, Hard Right, who point out the 3 straight playoff mishaps for him from 1985-1987.

    But, the key there was Walsh was rebuilding during those years. I made reference to this numerous times here and even mentioned the 1986 draft being the trigger for their nasty 1988 and 1989 teams. If Montana didn't get hurt in 1990, they win that one, too, and go 3 in a row in the SB.

    Until Brady bounces back like the late 1980s 49ers did led by Montana, you can't just assusme it will happen, or since he's Brady, it doesn't matter Montana and those 24ers teams did.

    [/QUOTE]


    And you have screamed from the rooftops over and over and over ad nauseam that BB has been "rebuilding on the fly". But Brady gets no slack from you for that.

    The FACT remains that Montana was very ordinary in the playoffs unless he was playing the inferior AFC who won only one SB over 16years which happened to coincide quite nicely with his career.

    Montana had a 34/21 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs outside the SB against the inferior AFC.

    Keep lying, I'll keep bludgeoning.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Montana also didn't stand in the shotgun 38 out of 45 times with leads and lose. Ouch.

    [/QUOTE]

    You had better contact the head coach on this one dumbkoff.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    Lets see the list of lies Rusty has told here on the forum this past week....

     

    Here is another list of Rusty screen names...

     

    and one more list of times Rusty has been proven wrong and received a beatdown on this forum the past week....



     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    When I say BB is the best of all time, I say that because it's pretty clear without the cap, they'd have kept many players with ease with Kraft simply overpaying some guys, and they'd have 1 or 2 more SBs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Always the dishonesty from you.

    BB gets to enjoy your praise because he has had to deal with the cap.

    But Brady gets your scorn dealing with the exact same thing.

    You are as phony as a $3 bill.

    [/QUOTE]

    I acknowledge that it's harder for QBs with personnel changes, especially for Brady here, but he's been spoiled overall since 2007 either at WR or TE being the strong part, the O Lines, Scarnecchia, etc, and it's a MUCH EASIER OFFENSIVE ERA, which is a fact.

    So, it evens out.

    BB cannot be responsible when Brady throws a mindnumbingly dumb INT, for example, in the 4th qtr on 1st down.

    Here's a good way to sum this era debate up:

    Dan Marino's 1984 48 TD record is more impressive than Mannings 54 or whatever it was this year.

    Easier era for QBs, helps balance out the cap era and personnel turnover.

    [/QUOTE]


    So, does Brady get the mulligan because of the cap era like you give BB or not? Don't try to razzle dazzle us with the old hocus pocus BS.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Overall, no.  

    [/QUOTE]

    So, you just prove what we all already know. You're a lying phony.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Brady has also been gifted a rash of HOF talent at different times, whether it be Moss, Welker, Gronk, etc.  Montana just had Rice, starting in 1985.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Give me a break.  Montana and Young always had a bunch of talent on offense and the 49'ers had very good defenses.  Dude, just give it up.  All of your comments and opinions are slanted to push your ridiculous agenda here.  You are a fraud, everyone knows it so just stop pretending that you know what you are talking about.  You get slaughtered on this forum every day.  It's funny, you are the only one who thinks you don't get daily beatings on here.  You are delusional.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Every time you don't counter and choose the personal attacks to try to discredit any premise of mine, people will see YOU as the loser.

    You don't seem to get this. lmao

     

    [/QUOTE]

    WAKE UP, PINOCCHIO!   

    [/QUOTE]

    PERFECT!

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Many consider Montana, maybe a Unitas, an Otto Graham, even Gomer as superior to Brady.

    [/QUOTE]

    Many people, like you, are imbeciles.

    [/QUOTE]

    Did this dude just say Otta Graham??!   Wow, you really digging deep eh?....BB would be proud im sure. If given a chance to grab a QB from ANY era, Im pretty sure BB still chooses Tom, 10 out of 10!  BB would have lost his job long ago if not for Brady. They both are vital to one anothers success. BB helped Brady win SBs early with great situational coaching and great defensive players who were here already. Then after those players left, our D stunk and Brady kept us in the hunt with a winning record for years.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ Truth.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    The biggest problem with a liar is that they lose the ability to believe anyone else.

    You are the liar!  Always are, always have been.

    How many people call you that, fluffy?  Everyone?  You'd have to blind not to see that.

    Deaf, dumb and blind.

    [/QUOTE]

    POst the quote or be seen as a troll/liar. Very simple. Google it and find

     

    Here's the problem with your request, fluffy.

      I wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire, not even if you begged.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    You don't think Brady's decision making or responsibility with having full autonomy and his play in recent postseasons have been a problem?

    13 or 14 points scored, 40+ passes with a lead, preferring the shotgun against Ds he apparently is afraid of, are not problems via Brady?

    Why?

    What position in sports do you think is the most important? 

    As for the coaching staff, this is without question one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL and has been for years.  

    Fears, Scarnecchia, Pepper, heck, even Patrick Graham has been doing a real nice job for this team.  STs coaching is also good with Scott O'Brien.

    To me, I see O"Brien and McDaniels as the same guy, which tells me all I need to know, and you wont like the statement I would make next, so I won't bother. lol

    [/QUOTE]

    It appears, and you have stated this in the past, you feel Brady is egotistical and is focused on passing the ball most times.  Brady makes calls at the line based on what he sees not on his desire to "pass" the ball as you imply.  No different than Manning and other top flight NFL QBs

    It makes one wonder how many times Brady has audibled out of a running play resulting in a succesful pass play in which everyone is high-fiving each other.  But, when a pass play is unsuccessful, which may or may not have been an audible out of a called running play, there is a presumption on your part the pass play was called by Brady and the fact it did not succeed is Brady's fault.  You can't have it both ways.

    [/QUOTE]

    He's been baited. Teams know he prefers to pass and be in the shotgun, so that info is invaluable.

    [/QUOTE]

    You must mean BB here. Because, you know, he is the Head Coach and all. More lying from the phony.

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've stated, BB walked from Woodhead and Welkie much more than just for money, which I;ve been trying to tell idiots like you about all year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, we know you just make things up all the time. That's what pathological lairs do.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are Welker and Woodhead here? Woodhead signed for peanuts.

    Do the math.

    If they wanted one or both, they'd be here. Fact.

    You're a moron if you don't get this by now.  Blount might run amuck, Vereen lined up all over on Sat night and NE blows out Indy, and you want Brady in a shotguun at 80% in the rain throwing 45 times again. 

    Cannot be made up.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh. I get it. You make things up, get all butt hurt when you are exposed, then attack as if you weren't a liar.

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Many consider Montana, maybe a Unitas, an Otto Graham, even Gomer as superior to Brady.

    [/QUOTE]

    Many people, like you, are imbeciles.

    [/QUOTE]

    Did this dude just say Otta Graham??!   Wow, you really digging deep eh?....BB would be proud im sure. If given a chance to grab a QB from ANY era, Im pretty sure BB still chooses Tom, 10 out of 10!  BB would have lost his job long ago if not for Brady. They both are vital to one anothers success. BB helped Brady win SBs early with great situational coaching and great defensive players who were here already. Then after those players left, our D stunk and Brady kept us in the hunt with a winning record for years.

    [/QUOTE]

    How's that deep? He's a top 3 or 5 best QB ever.  Do you even know who he is? lmao

    BB would have lost his job "long ago" if not for Brady?  I am pretty sure 2008 with Cassel debunks that stupidity pretty good, SHizzle-dee-dizzle.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes I know. Why else would I respond. Dont act like some football guru. You are comparing Brady to a guy from the stone age who was mobile and played in a T formation man....and there were a handful of teams back then in the 40's or whatever. We are in 2013 buddy.   But like I said, choose ANY era and I bet BB picks Brady every time because none of the guys you mentioned would have pulled off what Brady has this year. FACT

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Brady has also been gifted a rash of HOF talent at different times, whether it be Moss, Welker, Gronk, etc.  Montana just had Rice, starting in 1985.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Give me a break.  Montana and Young always had a bunch of talent on offense and the 49'ers had very good defenses.  Dude, just give it up.  All of your comments and opinions are slanted to push your ridiculous agenda here.  You are a fraud, everyone knows it so just stop pretending that you know what you are talking about.  You get slaughtered on this forum every day.  It's funny, you are the only one who thinks you don't get daily beatings on here.  You are delusional.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Every time you don't counter and choose the personal attacks to try to discredit any premise of mine, people will see YOU as the loser.

    You don't seem to get this. lmao

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Who's been banned 30 times for his personal attacks?  LOL OMG!  That has to be the funniest thing I've ever read.

    WAKE UP, PINOCCHIO!   YOU are the loser and the only one that doesn't know that!

    [/QUOTE]


    Not me, that is for sure.  I've been attacked here by the same people who have NEVER been banned, including you.

    So, clearly there is no real protocol with that.  

    [/QUOTE]


    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    I see this is another day of board virtual dick measuring contests.

    You guys let me know how anything to do with Montana affects the outcome of Saturday's game

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The biggest no brainer in the history of the NFL...Tom Brady is the best that's ever played the position.

    And the lengths that some go to to discredit him because it's more importent that their belief that it's all BB is truly sickening....

    [/QUOTE]

    Joe Montana was the best and most cerebral QB I've ever seen. Maybe you're only a teenager and never saw him, but Brady has destroyed his legacy in recent years, really by his own doing with poor decisions like on 1st downs in 4th QTRs for INTs for no explainable reasoning.

    Joe Montana NEVER did stuff like that. Ever.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course he did. Stop lying.

    Montana was only 4-3 in NFCCGs with 7 INTs in 7 games.

    He had an 18/12 TD/INT ratio in divisional playoff games.

    He had 3 TDs and 2 INTs in the wildcard round.

    Most all of this was with the greatest receiver of all-time to work with and an otherwise loaded team.

    His great SB games, where his postseason stats were mostly racked up, were against an AFC that didn't win more than 1 SB in some 16 years!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't see how this is a bludgeoning. I am the one along with an old time poster who is superb here, Hard Right, who point out the 3 straight playoff mishaps for him from 1985-1987.

    But, the key there was Walsh was rebuilding during those years. I made reference to this numerous times here and even mentioned the 1986 draft being the trigger for their nasty 1988 and 1989 teams. If Montana didn't get hurt in 1990, they win that one, too, and go 3 in a row in the SB.

    Until Brady bounces back like the late 1980s 49ers did led by Montana, you can't just assusme it will happen, or since he's Brady, it doesn't matter Montana and those 24ers teams did.

    [/QUOTE]


    And you have screamed from the rooftops over and over and over ad nauseam that BB has been "rebuilding on the fly". But Brady gets no slack from you for that.

    The FACT remains that Montana was very ordinary in the playoffs unless he was playing the inferior AFC who won only one SB over 16years which happened to coincide quite nicely with his career.

    Montana had a 34/21 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs outside the SB against the inferior AFC.

    Keep lying, I'll keep bludgeoning.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think 2010 is fair.  That was a very young team, starting 6 rookies.  

    2011, no, though, sorry.

    Brady had all the weapons any QB could ever want. I also don't excuse him for SB 42 smirking at BUrress's prediction, then trying to go out there and light it up, only to fail miserably.  

    Last year, no. 13 points is abysmal at home. Abysmal. We'll never win anything with the offense doing that.

    Lastly, this has been going on for years  and years with Brady, and it didn't with Montana.

    Montana also didn't stand in the shotgun 38 out of 45 times with leads and lose. Ouch.

    [/QUOTE]


    Right liar, don't excuse Brady for SB 42 where he was sacked 5 times and hit 25 times yet still came up with the clutch TD late to get the lead only to see the D collapse and lose it.

    And Montana played plenty bad in the playoffs, except when he played the inferior AFC as I have documents and you simply ignore like the dishonest troll you are.

    You are; Bludgeoned again.

    [/QUOTE]

    14 points is not enough to win a SB unless it's 1972 or something. You've bludgeoned nothing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It was enough to win in 2007 if the D didn't collapse in the last minutes after Brady had just given them the lead.

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The biggest problem with a liar is that they lose the ability to believe anyone else.

    You are the liar!  Always are, always have been.

    How many people call you that, fluffy?  Everyone?  You'd have to blind not to see that.

    Deaf, dumb and blind.

    [/QUOTE]

    POst the quote or be seen as a troll/liar. Very simple. Google it and find

     

    Here's the problem with your request, fluffy.

      I wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire, not even if you begged.

    [/QUOTE]


    Don't give him ideas. I suspect when he treks to Broke-Back Mountain, he enjoys exactly that.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    When I say BB is the best of all time, I say that because it's pretty clear without the cap, they'd have kept many players with ease with Kraft simply overpaying some guys, and they'd have 1 or 2 more SBs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Always the dishonesty from you.

    BB gets to enjoy your praise because he has had to deal with the cap.

    But Brady gets your scorn dealing with the exact same thing.

    You are as phony as a $3 bill.

    [/QUOTE]

    I acknowledge that it's harder for QBs with personnel changes, especially for Brady here, but he's been spoiled overall since 2007 either at WR or TE being the strong part, the O Lines, Scarnecchia, etc, and it's a MUCH EASIER OFFENSIVE ERA, which is a fact.

    So, it evens out.

    BB cannot be responsible when Brady throws a mindnumbingly dumb INT, for example, in the 4th qtr on 1st down.

    Here's a good way to sum this era debate up:

    Dan Marino's 1984 48 TD record is more impressive than Mannings 54 or whatever it was this year.

    Easier era for QBs, helps balance out the cap era and personnel turnover.

    [/QUOTE]


    So, does Brady get the mulligan because of the cap era like you give BB or not? Don't try to razzle dazzle us with the old hocus pocus BS.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Overall, no.  

    [/QUOTE]

    So, you just prove what we all already know. You're a lying phony.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, you edit my reasonable explanation

    [/QUOTE]

    No, I cut out your hurricane of BS like the festering cancer it is.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The biggest no brainer in the history of the NFL...Tom Brady is the best that's ever played the position.

    And the lengths that some go to to discredit him because it's more importent that their belief that it's all BB is truly sickening....

    [/QUOTE]

    Joe Montana was the best and most cerebral QB I've ever seen. Maybe you're only a teenager and never saw him, but Brady has destroyed his legacy in recent years, really by his own doing with poor decisions like on 1st downs in 4th QTRs for INTs for no explainable reasoning.

    Joe Montana NEVER did stuff like that. Ever.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course he did. Stop lying.

    Montana was only 4-3 in NFCCGs with 7 INTs in 7 games.

    He had an 18/12 TD/INT ratio in divisional playoff games.

    He had 3 TDs and 2 INTs in the wildcard round.

    Most all of this was with the greatest receiver of all-time to work with and an otherwise loaded team.

    His great SB games, where his postseason stats were mostly racked up, were against an AFC that didn't win more than 1 SB in some 16 years!

     

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't see how this is a bludgeoning. I am the one along with an old time poster who is superb here, Hard Right, who point out the 3 straight playoff mishaps for him from 1985-1987.

    But, the key there was Walsh was rebuilding during those years. I made reference to this numerous times here and even mentioned the 1986 draft being the trigger for their nasty 1988 and 1989 teams. If Montana didn't get hurt in 1990, they win that one, too, and go 3 in a row in the SB.

    Until Brady bounces back like the late 1980s 49ers did led by Montana, you can't just assusme it will happen, or since he's Brady, it doesn't matter Montana and those 24ers teams did.

    [/QUOTE]


    And you have screamed from the rooftops over and over and over ad nauseam that BB has been "rebuilding on the fly". But Brady gets no slack from you for that.

    The FACT remains that Montana was very ordinary in the playoffs unless he was playing the inferior AFC who won only one SB over 16years which happened to coincide quite nicely with his career.

    Montana had a 34/21 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs outside the SB against the inferior AFC.

    Keep lying, I'll keep bludgeoning.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think 2010 is fair.  That was a very young team, starting 6 rookies.  

    2011, no, though, sorry.

    Brady had all the weapons any QB could ever want. I also don't excuse him for SB 42 smirking at BUrress's prediction, then trying to go out there and light it up, only to fail miserably.  

    Last year, no. 13 points is abysmal at home. Abysmal. We'll never win anything with the offense doing that.

    Lastly, this has been going on for years  and years with Brady, and it didn't with Montana.

    Montana also didn't stand in the shotgun 38 out of 45 times with leads and lose. Ouch.

    [/QUOTE]


    Right liar, don't excuse Brady for SB 42 where he was sacked 5 times and hit 25 times yet still came up with the clutch TD late to get the lead only to see the D collapse and lose it.

    And Montana played plenty bad in the playoffs, except when he played the inferior AFC as I have documents and you simply ignore like the dishonest troll you are.

    You are; Bludgeoned again.

    [/QUOTE]

    14 points is not enough to win a SB unless it's 1972 or something. You've bludgeoned nothing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It was enough to win in 2007 if the D didn't collapse in the last minutes after Brady had just given them the lead.

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the village imbecile.

    [/QUOTE]


    Typical Babe Brady blow job. Yup the D collapsed despite holding the Giants to below their seasons points average while Brady was heroic after scoring way less than his season's points average.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    You don't think Brady's decision making or responsibility with having full autonomy and his play in recent postseasons have been a problem?

    13 or 14 points scored, 40+ passes with a lead, preferring the shotgun against Ds he apparently is afraid of, are not problems via Brady?

    Why?

    What position in sports do you think is the most important? 

    As for the coaching staff, this is without question one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL and has been for years.  

    Fears, Scarnecchia, Pepper, heck, even Patrick Graham has been doing a real nice job for this team.  STs coaching is also good with Scott O'Brien.

    To me, I see O"Brien and McDaniels as the same guy, which tells me all I need to know, and you wont like the statement I would make next, so I won't bother. lol

    [/QUOTE]

    It appears, and you have stated this in the past, you feel Brady is egotistical and is focused on passing the ball most times.  Brady makes calls at the line based on what he sees not on his desire to "pass" the ball as you imply.  No different than Manning and other top flight NFL QBs

    It makes one wonder how many times Brady has audibled out of a running play resulting in a succesful pass play in which everyone is high-fiving each other.  But, when a pass play is unsuccessful, which may or may not have been an audible out of a called running play, there is a presumption on your part the pass play was called by Brady and the fact it did not succeed is Brady's fault.  You can't have it both ways.

    [/QUOTE]

    He's been baited. Teams know he prefers to pass and be in the shotgun, so that info is invaluable.

    [/QUOTE]

    You must mean BB here. Because, you know, he is the Head Coach and all. More lying from the phony.

    [/QUOTE]

    As I've stated, BB walked from Woodhead and Welkie much more than just for money, which I;ve been trying to tell idiots like you about all year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, we know you just make things up all the time. That's what pathological lairs do.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are Welker and Woodhead here? Woodhead signed for peanuts.

    Do the math.

    If they wanted one or both, they'd be here. Fact.

    You're a moron if you don't get this by now.  Blount might run amuck, Vereen lined up all over on Sat night and NE blows out Indy, and you want Brady in a shotguun at 80% in the rain throwing 45 times again. 

    Cannot be made up.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh. I get it. You make things up, get all butt hurt when you are exposed, then attack as if you weren't a liar.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What on earth did I get exposed with by saying Woodhead and Welker aren't here anymore?

    How did you expose me?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    By showing your claim that BB got rid of them because Brady was relying on them too much is just more pure Rusty bullshyte lies.

     

Share