Benny Watch cancelled.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I warned of what would happen BEFORE the SB was played last year, dude. I warned. It happened again and you still don't want to see it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I warned you that a D collapse at the endgame would be fatal to our Lombardi dreams.

    I even replied to someone in the game thread who said the D was doing well, "just give me good D at the end".

    Because what you don't understand about this game junior is, that if the D messes up early in say the 4th quarter the O can maybe do something about that. If they mess up with 57 seconds left the O can't do much about that.

    [/QUOTE]

    Did that include your knowledge a Brady INT on that 1st down in the 4th qtr or the high throw on 2nd down to a WIDE OPEN Welker?

    Because in each case, that meant less rest for the D than what needed to happen. That doesn't count the Safety out of the gate either.

    Gee, I can't remeber our other SB Ds needing to be back out on the field so fast as ours was in SB 46.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummmm the Pats had a 6 minute drive in the 4th.  Rest comes when you get your azzes off the field for less than 5 minutes each and every possession except for the last scoring drive, in which, BB gave them a TD so  that they would get off the freaken field in under 4:45.  Dope!

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     or the high throw on 2nd down to a WIDE OPEN Welker?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You mean the throw that Brady hit Wes in both hands with and placed it right in between 3 defenders?

     

    http://firealarmmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wes-welker-butterfingers__oPt-223x300.jpg

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Answer WHY you won't take my bet, please. Your arrogance is so amazing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Junior, I've told you why nobody takes your bet. Because it's stupid.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it;s not. You and he in particular think my premise is faulty, so I offered the bet as a way to prove it's not.

    What did I tell you BEFORE the SB? I said if the D holds the Giants to under 20 points, we win. Seemed more than reasonable.  What happened? Safety, Brady INT and a high throw to Welker.  All of these plays by our offense is why our D couldn't get it done.  

    If you had told me before the game ONE of these things would occur, I would choose the INT as a possibility.  What I wouldn't see is HOW it came. 

    NE's D held NY's offense to 13 total points, with our offense using 4 drives after the 3rd QTR TD, to just not turn it over!  Just turn it over on those 4 drives, minimum! That's it!  Is it a lot to ask for 1 of those 4 drives to get our pricey kicker into say 45 yard FG range in a dome to try to help seal it? Is it? Really? Why?

    In 4 tries (not counting the last desperate drive as the 5th), they couldn;t even get a FG.

    If they get a FG  on the Brady INT drive, with up to 3 minutes of possible clock used, we win the SB.

    Think about that.   Most of our scummy trolls here, and you one step away from trolldom, never in a million years would have predicted our D to hold them to 13 points.  They did except they were let down by Tom Brady.

    PERIOD.

    Deal with it and live it.  Patrick Chung, Mayo, Spikes, McCourty, Edelman, etc, etc, didn't force Brady to throw that INT or short arm his throw on the ball to Welker.

    I am done with this. I just gave Prolate a golden opportunity to win his case and he shot himself in the foot. You shoot yourself in the foot before you open your yap, but he tried to get cute, and lost.

    The fact he won't take my bet as I give him thew option of actually setting the bet himself, speaks volumes.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The short armed throw, LMAO, is listed in the NFL stats as a DROP.

    Pro just showed you Benny was the lead back, so he din't shoot himself in the foot.  He shot you in the head.


    Benny was the lead back in SB 46 ( subbed or not) and they lost.  Case closed, bet lost.

    That makes you the loser, as usual.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Answer WHY you won't take my bet, please. Your arrogance is so amazing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Junior, I've told you why nobody takes your bet. Because it's stupid.

    [/QUOTE]


    What did I tell you BEFORE the SB? I said if the D holds the Giants to under 20 points, we win. Seemed more than reasonable.  What happened?

    [/QUOTE]


    Maybe the D would have held the Giants to under 20 points if they had gotten one stinking turnover junior. The NFL average was 1.5 per game. Theirs was over 2 per. But they got ZERO. That's what happened.

    7 guys couldn't block 4 rushers for more than 4 seconds on the safety. That's what happened.

    Welker dropped the Lombardi trophey just like Samuel did in '07. That's what happened.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Answer WHY you won't take my bet, please. Your arrogance is so amazing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Junior, I've told you why nobody takes your bet. Because it's stupid.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it;s not. You and he in particular think my premise is faulty, so I offered the bet as a way to prove it's not.

    What did I tell you BEFORE the SB? I said if the D holds the Giants to under 20 points, we win. Seemed more than reasonable.  What happened? Safety, Brady INT and a high throw to Welker.  All of these plays by our offense is why our D couldn't get it done.  

    If you had told me before the game ONE of these things would occur, I would choose the INT as a possibility.  What I wouldn't see is HOW it came. 

    NE's D held NY's offense to 13 total points, with our offense using 4 drives after the 3rd QTR TD, to just not turn it over!  Just turn it over on those 4 drives, minimum! That's it!  Is it a lot to ask for 1 of those 4 drives to get our pricey kicker into say 45 yard FG range in a dome to try to help seal it? Is it? Really? Why?

    In 4 tries (not counting the last desperate drive as the 5th), they couldn;t even get a FG.

    If they get a FG  on the Brady INT drive, with up to 3 minutes of possible clock used, we win the SB.

    Think about that.   Most of our scummy trolls here, and you one step away from trolldom, never in a million years would have predicted our D to hold them to 13 points.  They did except they were let down by Tom Brady.

    PERIOD.

    Deal with it and live it.  Patrick Chung, Mayo, Spikes, McCourty, Edelman, etc, etc, didn't force Brady to throw that INT or short arm his throw on the ball to Welker.

    I am done with this. I just gave Prolate a golden opportunity to win his case and he shot himself in the foot. You shoot yourself in the foot before you open your yap, but he tried to get cute, and lost.

    The fact he won't take my bet as I give him thew option of actually setting the bet himself, speaks volumes.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The short armed throw, LMAO, is listed in the NFL stats as a DROP.

    Pro just showed you Benny was the lead back, so he din't shoot himself in the foot.  He shot you in the head.


    Benny was the lead back in SB 46 ( subbed or not) and they lost.  Case closed, bet lost.

    That makes you the loser, as usual.

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you think you might be institutionalized if Brady has another subpar posteason again?

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you think you will be if the D collapses at the endgame to lose another SB junior?

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Keep trying Rusty.  In the meantime, what do you think of that run to start the sixth drive? I asked a simple question.  You still haven't answered. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Keep trying? Why won't you take my simple bet? I'll even let you choose the parameters (within reason).

    Answer WHY you won't take my bet, please. Your arrogance is so amazing.

    I have no problems with a run to start the 6th drive. As explained and proven, using Woodhead too much, then seeinng BJGE back out there, tells the D it's a run play which gives them an advantage against our O Line.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Why won't you answer my question? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I just did!  I said I have no problem with a playcall as a run on 1st down with BJGE on the 6th drive.

    My god, are you obnoxious wit this lawyer induced spin work of yours, after being exposed in a debate.

    Why won't you take my bet?  Hmm?  Hmm, Prolate?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    My question, you will recall, was whether Benny made a good decision on that play cutting back in or whether he should have continued to run to the outside following his blockers?

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Answer WHY you won't take my bet, please. Your arrogance is so amazing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Junior, I've told you why nobody takes your bet. Because it's stupid.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it;s not. You and he in particular think my premise is faulty, so I offered the bet as a way to prove it's not.

    What did I tell you BEFORE the SB? I said if the D holds the Giants to under 20 points, we win. Seemed more than reasonable.  What happened? Safety, Brady INT and a high throw to Welker.  All of these plays by our offense is why our D couldn't get it done.  

    If you had told me before the game ONE of these things would occur, I would choose the INT as a possibility.  What I wouldn't see is HOW it came. 

    NE's D held NY's offense to 13 total points, with our offense using 4 drives after the 3rd QTR TD, to just not turn it over!  Just turn it over on those 4 drives, minimum! That's it!  Is it a lot to ask for 1 of those 4 drives to get our pricey kicker into say 45 yard FG range in a dome to try to help seal it? Is it? Really? Why?

    In 4 tries (not counting the last desperate drive as the 5th), they couldn;t even get a FG.

    If they get a FG  on the Brady INT drive, with up to 3 minutes of possible clock used, we win the SB.

    Think about that.   Most of our scummy trolls here, and you one step away from trolldom, never in a million years would have predicted our D to hold them to 13 points.  They did except they were let down by Tom Brady.

    PERIOD.

    Deal with it and live it.  Patrick Chung, Mayo, Spikes, McCourty, Edelman, etc, etc, didn't force Brady to throw that INT or short arm his throw on the ball to Welker.

    I am done with this. I just gave Prolate a golden opportunity to win his case and he shot himself in the foot. You shoot yourself in the foot before you open your yap, but he tried to get cute, and lost.

    The fact he won't take my bet as I give him thew option of actually setting the bet himself, speaks volumes.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The short armed throw, LMAO, is listed in the NFL stats as a DROP.

    Pro just showed you Benny was the lead back, so he din't shoot himself in the foot.  He shot you in the head.


    Benny was the lead back in SB 46 ( subbed or not) and they lost.  Case closed, bet lost.

    That makes you the loser, as usual.

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you think you might be institutionalized if Brady has another subpar posteason again?

    [/QUOTE]


    I think you should have been institutionalized years ago.  That is, assuming you are not posting 24/7/365 from the looney bin.

    What do you consider sub-par?  Scoring less than 40pts in an 8 possession game or breaking 2 SB records for longest TD scored and longest streak of completions(16)?

    Pretty sure all SB Qb's throw incomplete passes and picks but NO ONE has score a Td of 98 yards and went 16/16 in straight attempts in a SB, except TFB.

    Now, which SB Defense failed to even produce one 3& out or even a 6 & out in any SB game?  None that I know of.  Is that a SB record for ineptitude?  Yes, I believe it is!

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    I'm really stunned that Rusty will continue to expose himself and his agenda like this. The more he writes, the more I'm convinced that he really has something mentally wrong with him and it's kind of sad. This has nothing to do with football anymore (a two year old could figure out how wrong the guy is), this is about mental dillusion. I'm now convinced we are dealing with a guy in a mental institution that get's to use a lap top. The doctors and nurses there must be laughing themselves silly watching him type away.

    Kind of reminds me of Brad Pitt in "Twelve Monkeys", except you know rusty is a 70 pound pip squeak. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    Let's analyze this "bet" RockSkull wants to make.  Here's the text:

    "I'll wager with you RIGHT NOW on this premise.  Right now. Take the bet. We will lose if we don't turn to a lead back, limit the subbing of that back and don't establish some version of a run game by the 2nd qtr."

    Notice that it has three conditions, all of them vague:   

     Condition One: "We will lose if we don't turn to a lead back,"

    What exactly does it mean to "turn to a lead back."  How do we measure this?  How would we know if we did this or didn't do this?  Are going to analyze the situational play calling or just measure the percentage of carries the most-used back gets or what?  This is completely and utterly vague and meaningless.  

    Condition Two: "limit the subbing of that back"

    What is limiting the subbing of a back?  How do we measure that?  We never use any back other than one?  We only use a second or third back if there's an injury?  We only use a second or third back on some percentage of plays?  Or in certain pre-approved circumstances? Again, it's completely impossible to tell if this condition is met or not. 

    Condition Three: "establish some version of a run game by the 2nd qtr"

    Which "version" would that be?  Please, how do you determine if a run game is "established" or not? If we run a lot even though it's not working (and therefore punt a lot) would that be establishing a running game? Or does the running game have to work well?  Is there a minimum number or percentage of plays required to "establish" a running game?  Or do you need to get a certain average per carry to establish it?  Do situations matter? Or is running in any situation--even third and twenty--essential to establishing that running game?  Again a completely vague condition. 

    Only a fool would take a bet this vague --- hence, the reason nobody takes the bet.  

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Let's analyze this "bet" RockSkull wants to make.  Here's the text:

    "I'll wager with you RIGHT NOW on this premise.  Right now. Take the bet. We will lose if we don't turn to a lead back, limit the subbing of that back and don't establish some version of a run game by the 2nd qtr."

    Notice that it has three conditions, all of them vague:   

     Condition One: "We will lose if we don't turn to a lead back,"

    What exactly does it mean to "turn to a lead back."  How do we measure this?  How would we know if we did this or didn't do this?  Are going to analyze the situational play calling or just measure the percentage of carries the most-used back gets or what?  This is completely and utterly vague and meaningless.  

    Condition Two: "limit the subbing of that back"

    What is limiting the subbing of a back?  How do we measure that?  We never use any back other than one?  We only use a second or third back if there's an injury?  We only use a second or third back on some percentage of plays?  Or in certain pre-approved circumstances? Again, it's completely impossible to tell if this condition is met or not. 

    Condition Three: "establish some version of a run game by the 2nd qtr"

    Which "version" would that be?  Please, how do you determine if a run game is "established" or not? If we run a lot even though it's not working (and therefore punt a lot) would that be establishing a running game? Or does the running game have to work well?  Is there a minimum number or percentage of plays required to "establish" a running game?  Or do you need to get a certain average per carry to establish it?  Do situations matter? Or is running in any situation--even third and twenty--essential to establishing that running game?  Again a completely vague condition. 

    Only a fool would take a bet this vague --- hence, the reason nobody takes the bet.  

    [/QUOTE]


    He likes vague. Then he can spin his way out of it with pure BS when he is proven wrong. That's just how junior rolls.

     

    Better he take my bet which is very specific.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    My premise is this:  We lose if Brady throws 40+ times v.s. good or great Ds.

    This means if he throws more than 40, and we win, you win the bet.

    Pretty simple, Mr. Sneaky.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Junior, you are sooooo dense. Of course we might lose if Brady throws 40+ times against a good  or great D.....

     

    IF THE RUNNING GAME IS STINKING THE PLACE OUT!

     

    I'll take your bet if you throw in the RBs averaging at least 4.5 ypc.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    You're a phony. I've had my bet on the table for 2-3 months. It's been very clear and everyone knows what it is.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    My bet goes back to last season junior. I challenged PatsEng on it.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    Rusty do you remember the time you set up the "parameters" of a absurd bet heading into a Jet's game with me? Brady had to throw something like 40 plus times and we had to win. I didn't take the bet...Brady ended up throwing 40 plus times and we blew out the Jets...you called me a wimp for a week despite the fact that you were wrong. Funny stuff.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Rusty do you remember the time you set up the "parameters" of a absurd bet heading into a Jet's game with me? Brady had to throw something like 40 plus times and we had to win. I didn't take the bet...Brady ended up throwing 40 plus times and we blew out the Jets...you called me a wimp for a week despite the fact that you were wrong. Funny stuff.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, I don't because it never existed, Mr. Liar. I've had this open wager with the same exact parameters that reflect my premise, for multiple months here.

    What's funny is, I started this debate in Sept of 2011 when Brady tossed 4 INTs in Buffalo, with a 21-3 lead going into the half inside the Bills 10 yard line.

    You morons blamed a young D off a lockout exclusively.  You also scapegoated players who were new to deflect from Brady himself.

    Funny how this works, eh?  You're going up against someone who has a very good memory and who can pull data very quickly from his head.  You, meanwhile, are a pathlogical liar and a gutless turd.

    Take my very simple bet.  The fact none of you will proves to everyone here that you're frauds.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude? Seriously? Why lie? Why do you do that? No need for it - you're like watching a little kid that gets caught and just tries to lie his way out of it...just digging the hole deeper and deeper. It's childish...you got to be better than that...c'mon!!

     

Share