COWHERD:"vegas is WRONG on the PATS, its the best New England roster in 8 years!" agree?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Free-UB. Show Free-UB's posts

    COWHERD: "vegas is WRONG on the PATS, its the best New England roster in 8 years!" Agree?

    wow! the cow is going over on vegas' prediction of 10 1/2 wins.. predicting at least 13! thinks beating broncs is a given for tb usually OWNS the neck and its in NOvember in cold Gillette. thinks we have an easier schedule than last year and in recent memory for we only face THREE elite qbs in GB, indy and Jabroncs. even if they lost to all 3, will b 13-3. we get the colts off a bye, counts that as a win. really all in on the pats! Since, TB only loses as a norm to superior qbs, feels we could go 14-2.


    cow was going contrarian on vegas with 3 other picks. felt raiders were being mis-underestimated at 5 wins. likes schaub to come back, loves their schedule esp at home. ditto with bears at 8-8 1/2. thinks they will get to 10. lastly, also felt the eaggies will be better than 9 wins. has them down for 11. too many jabro quaterbacks. the kelly gets better each year and thinks that offense will be clicking  big time. 


     


    "Freedom = less THEISM, more startup CAPITALISM!"


     


    Into disruptive thinking, beliefs+politics as well as speaking truth to power, jabronis+blind traditions!


     


     @Free_UB

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

    Re: COWHERD:

     

     Test

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't get the 10 win thingy from publications so far this year.  I think it's a 12 win team again, minimum. Then again, I feel like the media cannot wait to predict doom and gloom annually every year, where I laugh and know it's 12 wins minimum with a potential for a 14 win season.

    I'd be shocked if they only mustered 10 wins with this loaded, young roster with such continuity all over the place.Factor in the odds of them not being anywhere near injured as they were last year, the discombobulation of the other teams in the division and I have 5 wins in the division alone.

    In a nutshell, this just proves the anti-BB bias with the Pats.  It's a toss up whose roster is stronger in the AFC, NE or Denver's, and which team will go the SB.    To pretend Denver is untouchable with a strong KC in that division and SD still offering up a challenge, where NE isn't as strong, is preposterous.

    The question will be health in January and some guy named Tom Brady and if he remembers that he's playing in the AFC Title game, and not dreaming about meeting up with Welkie at the Kentucky Derby.

    If NE beats Denver at Foxborough again, all they'll need is a little luck in the health department like Gronk being there, and the AFC Title game goes through Gillette.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yep, Queenie is all about regular season wins.  With all of the "rental players" BB has added this is a better team than I have seen in NE in a decade.  Looks like the pass D may not blow for the first time since 2007.  Ironically, the run D will be as bad as last year. 

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    My numbers predict exactly 10.5 wins.  I know, there's no such thing as .5 wins unless you want to count a tie as half a win.


    My numbers are blind to Gronk returning.  My numbers are blind to Revis showing up healthy and being used by an expert, and the same goes for Browner.  My numbers are blind to half the receiving corps blossoming in their second year.  My numbers are blind to Wilfork taking the field again and Kelly also. 


    A pass rush specialist such as Easley will, barring his ACL injury, play at full throttle starting in September.  Most first round draft choices need a full year before they make a major impact, but that's not true of pure rushers who just set up and go north every time.  So, New England gets a near-term advantage from the draft in 2014 that other teams don't get.  For example, the Jets' new safety, Calvin Stone Hips Pryor, will try to lay his trademark lumber but he'll also blow assignments and surrender touchdowns in September.  Lots of touchdowns is my guess.


    So, just my educated guess, 10.5 wins isn't even close.  Tom Brady is going to have a throwing party, Gronk's blocking means that the running game will often run wild, the other team's receivers will be shut down and Easley will be in the QB's face, and if Wilfork is back then the other team's running game will be dented pretty badly.


     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: COWHERD:

    Okay kids . . .  here it is:

    Let's forget for the moment that Cowherd is a dope, plain and simple, and focus on this particular stupid thing he said.

    Win all the regular-season games you want . . .  in that division, if they do it right, the Pats could make the playoffs with seven wins.

    The bottom line is this:

    Ten years ago New England had teams good enough to win Super Bowls.

    Five years ago New England had teams good enough to lose Super Bowls.

    Most recently New England has been good enough to lose the conference championship.

     

    Take your glasses off and answer this question with one word:

     

    Have the Pats been getting better?

     

     

     

     

    Now you listen here! He's not the Messiah . . .   he's a very naughty boy!



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

    Re: COWHERD:

    Might be better on defense then ehy have been in years but the WR and TE positions are not what they were just a couple years ago so this drags the offense roster down.  RB is borderline iffy.  Over all Defense is better then it has been for a while, offense is not.

    *******************************

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Might be better on defense then ehy have been in years but the WR and TE positions are not what they were just a couple years ago so this drags the offense roster down.  RB is borderline iffy.  Over all Defense is better then it has been for a while, offense is not.

    *******************************

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!

    [/QUOTE]

    You're a moron, as usual. The offense is loaded minus TE. There are health issues all across the offense,  but to proclaim the talent is not there is preposterous.  

    Once Gronk returns to full form by mid season, the TE position will be as strong as it's usual self. But, as we saw last year, without Gronk, the offense can be run in different ways.

    The new WRs last year should be even better than their impressive rookie years.  Boyce is primed to break out after essentially being red-shirted.  Dobson and Thompkins have chances to build off of their strong rookie campaigns and LaFell is a steady veteran that should help from the lack of a deeper veteran group from last year. Edelman and Amendola are very solid as well.

    With BB beefing up the O LIne a bit, that should help as should just getting healthy at RB with Vereen and Bolden.  White appears to have some skills in the mix there.

    As usual, you are clueless and just shift your argument to proactively build in the excuse in case Brady craps himself yet again in the AFC Title game.

    So obvious that is what your agenda is here.

    [/QUOTE]


    Gronk has had 7 surgeries. Hooman is his back up, lol!  Sad!

    Edelman did very well last season, has had injury problems all other years.

    Amendola injury problems every year, he was hardly on the field at the end of the season due to health and trust issues.

    Thompkins is on the bubble.

    Dobson foot problems and was unreliable last season.

    Boyce is a ? at this point.

    Vereen has had injury problems.

    Ridley has fumbleitous and can't be trusted in big games.  He is a fumble or two away from taking your job holding BB's nuts.

    Lafells ? I hope he can do something.

     

    If (notice the big IF) the offense can stay healthy and improve then great but I would take the TE/WR of the yester years over last year and this years group.

     

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's kinda funny, MileHighMoron because no defense has created more turnovers since 2010 than BB's D.  That in itself has helped make the offense a top rated offense, but Brady has failed to do anything good in the postseason.

    I am good knowing it's all about our HOF QB playing well in the AFC Title game for once even in May. lol

    See how easy this is?  Every year, I know what my time will be doing with a chance to play well on one day to go to a SB, while yours will not make the playoffs again because your moron coach thinks he's the GM and is a blowhard moron with photos on Woody Johnson.

    It's just a treat to watch from afar.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Bold faced lies.

    Whanna back that statement with facts.

    Fact:  They were 7th in takaways in 2013, TIED for first in 2012, third the year before.

    That does not equal first in any way shape or form.

    Fact.  The ONLY thing they do half way decent disappears in the play-offs.  In 2012 they were averaging 2.3 a game but couldn't muster 2.3 or half of that or any of that in either SB loss.

    Fail

    ONE of the worst NFL defenses in many years and the reason for all the losses.. 

    Thank you bee bee!

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to p-mike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Have the Pats been getting better?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes.  If they were healthy last year at DT they have a real shot at a ring.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's kinda funny, MileHighMoron because no defense has created more turnovers since 2010 than BB's D.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bold faced lies.

    Whanna back that statement with facts.

    Fact:  They were 7th in takaways in 2013, TIED for first in 2012, third the year before.

    That does not equal first in any way shape or form.

    [/QUOTE]

    He said first since 2010, not first every single year.  It's a cumulative stat.

    New England has forced 142 turnovers since 2010, the most in the NFL.  Chicago is 2nd at 138 and the Giants 3rd at 134.

    He was right, you are wrong.  Fact.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: COWHERD:

    19-0

    Jamie Collins, Revis, GRONK and Tom Brady make 1st team All Pro.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SportsGenius1. Show SportsGenius1's posts

    Re: COWHERD:

    All I know is that this team improved at DB and O-line this offseason and they get back all of the injured players from last years squad Mayo, Wilfork, Kelly, Vollmer, Gronk and Amendola who though he played throughout the season was plagued with hammy problems all season long. Add in the offseason acquisitions of Browner and Revis and they potentially have a top five defense because of these additions. Their only weakness is at depth of linebacker!  I have them at 13.5 wins which is easily achievable. I don't know if Easley will get as many reps as everyone seems to think, but if he's playing in sub packages for year 1 and develops quickly he might be a day 1 contributor. The two rookies with the most opportunity to start are Stork and Halapio. I can see three UDFA's making this team two for sure Houston and Justin Jones. Houston is a big back, and you can't teach 6'8" the one thing JJ has.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: COWHERD:

    Maybe you should take yourself off ignore and they will show up.

     

     

    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to SportsGenius1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    All I know is that this team improved at DB and O-line this offseason and they get back all of the injured players from last years squad Mayo, Wilfork, Kelly, Vollmer, Gronk and Amendola who though he played throughout the season was plagued with hammy problems all season long. Add in the offseason acquisitions of Browner and Revis and they potentially have a top five defense because of these additions. Their only weakness is at depth of linebacker!  I have them at 13.5 wins which is easily achievable. I don't know if Easley will get as many reps as everyone seems to think, but if he's playing in sub packages for year 1 and develops quickly he might be a day 1 contributor. The two rookies with the most opportunity to start are Stork and Halapio. I can see three UDFA's making this team two for sure Houston and Justin Jones. Houston is a big back, and you can't teach 6'8" the one thing JJ has.

    [/QUOTE]

    No doubt the talent assembled is very impressive. What is questionable is the health and age of that talent. TB, Vince, Mayo, Kelly, Mankins, Revis no doubt are the leaders and tone setters. This team could be very, very green if Wendell, Connolly, Bolden, Ebner, Tavon, Devlin and a few others are not part of the mix. 

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's kinda funny, MileHighMoron because no defense has created more turnovers since 2010 than BB's D.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bold faced lies.

    Whanna back that statement with facts.

    Fact:  They were 7th in takaways in 2013, TIED for first in 2012, third the year before.

    That does not equal first in any way shape or form.

    [/QUOTE]

    He said first since 2010, not first every single year.  It's a cumulative stat.

    New England has forced 142 turnovers since 2010, the most in the NFL.  Chicago is 2nd at 138 and the Giants 3rd at 134.

    He was right, you are wrong.  Fact.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks, Matt.  It's not easy taking on all the trolls by myself.  If more people called the trolls out like that, they'd likely disappear from this place.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Oh, like you would leave?  TROLL!  We've been trying that for years.  Mark my words, it will happen.

    We all know who the troll is and that would be you.

    Excuse me for not realizing you were cherry picking stats.  Normal people look at stats like T/O's as yearly.

    Like I said, they were 8th last year, 2nd the year before that and 4th the year before that.

    And your new bff was wrong.  He spotted the Pats 2 T/O's during that period.  it was 139, not 141.

      Tsk tsk.  I'm sure he wasn't trying to make them look better than they actually were.  Like you tried to.

    The fact is, that's EXACTLY what you did.  Were they the leaders after 3 years or 5 or since their last SB.

    The answer is no.

    So explain this, Einstein.  Why didn't ANY of those stats transfer to the post season?  Why didn't they make them the high scoring team that you proclaim made them so in the regular season?

    Why could they only muster up 2 frig-gin picks in 9 post season games?

    Why were they zero picks and zero fumbles in 2011 when they averaged 2.3 that year? 

    Why didn't the enormous amount of picks help their truly pathetic 3rd down conversion rate, worst DPR of any SB team EVER  and highly excessive ToP.?

    Here's why.  Because in the grand scale of things, the fact that they registered one more turn-over over during a cherry picked time period of 4 years, is IRRELEVANT and most likely the benefit of an offense that was burying other teams.

    It NEVER happened when it was needed most and NEVER helped to win a SB after 2005.

    Now if you want to talk about 2003-4 when their  2.5 T/O's a game average, actually carried over and contributed to SB wins, you'd have a point.

    Until then, I guess you'll just have to be happy hanging on to that thread.

    It's all you got.

    It's all you'll ever have.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's kinda funny, MileHighMoron because no defense has created more turnovers since 2010 than BB's D.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bold faced lies.

    Whanna back that statement with facts.

    Fact:  They were 7th in takaways in 2013, TIED for first in 2012, third the year before.

    That does not equal first in any way shape or form.

    [/QUOTE]

    He said first since 2010, not first every single year.  It's a cumulative stat.

    New England has forced 142 turnovers since 2010, the most in the NFL.  Chicago is 2nd at 138 and the Giants 3rd at 134.

    He was right, you are wrong.  Fact.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks, Matt.  It's not easy taking on all the trolls by myself.  If more people called the trolls out like that, they'd likely disappear from this place.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Oh, like you would leave?  TROLL!  We've been trying that for years.  Mark my words, it will happen.

    We all know who the troll is and that would be you.

    Excuse me for not realizing you were cherry picking stats.  Normal people look at stats like T/O's as yearly.

    Like I said, they were 8th last year, 2nd the year before that and 4th the year before that.

    And your new bff was wrong.  He spotted the Pats 2 T/O's during that period.  it was 139, not 141.

      Tsk tsk.  I'm sure he wasn't trying to make them look better than they actually were.  Like you tried to.

    The fact is, that's EXACTLY what you did.  Were they the leaders after 3 years or 5 or since their last SB.

    The answer is no.

    So explain this, Einstein.  Why didn't ANY of those stats transfer to the post season?  Why didn't they make them the high scoring team that you proclaim made them so in the regular season?

    Why could they only muster up 2 frig-gin picks in 9 post season games?

    Why were they zero picks and zero fumbles in 2011 when they averaged 2.3 that year? 

    Why didn't the enormous amount of picks help their truly pathetic 3rd down conversion rate, worst DPR of any SB team EVER  and highly excessive ToP.?

    Here's why.  Because in the grand scale of things, the fact that they registered one more turn-over over during a cherry picked time period of 4 years, is IRRELEVANT and most likely the benefit of an offense that was burying other teams.

    It NEVER happened when it was needed most and NEVER helped to win a SB after 2005.

    Now if you want to talk about 2003-4 when their  2.5 T/O's a game average, actually carried over and contributed to SB wins, you'd have a point.

    Until then, I guess you'll just have to be happy hanging on to that thread.

    It's all you got.

    It's all you'll ever have.

    [/QUOTE]

    The reason why the turnovers aren't as prevalent in the postseason is because Goodell has the rules as such that it favors the offenses. If you breathe on a WR or TE, it's PI.  Every rule in the book favors offenses, but the leader of ours can't even take advantage of it.  The bulk of NE's turnovers come against crappier QBs and offenses.  In the postseason, obviously you're playing better QBs. So, of course there will be fewer, not to mention the investment in an offensive era came on offense, but where is the offense from Brady?  

    Less scoring means more pressure on your D.  Sometimes the D has played tight for that reason.

    Next, the D is afraid to take chances because they've had to cover for Brady's poor play barely scoring points. If you have a lead, you can take more chances from a schematic standpoint.

    Brady has slow starts or throws INTs in those games.  Can you even name the last time in a title game Brady led the team down the field for a score on the first or second drive?  No, I can't either unless you want to go back to the 2004 AFC title game in Pitt.  Get it?

    Enjoy the reality! BRADY. Brady has put enormous pressure on our D, where the Ds of the SB years knew he wouldn't crap himself.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Well another bold faced lie.

    Is that why Seattle had 4 turn overs, or the Ravens?.  They ignored, goodells rulings?.

    Didn't get through your first pathetic sentence (nor do I care to) but from what the whole world sees in the play-offs is that they let them play.  Otherwise all those other teams with multiple t/o's are cheaters.

    God knows beebee would never break a rule.  lolololol

    They didn't have any turn overs because they suck, pure and simple and true, and have been riding the backs of the O,  FOR YEARS.  Come play-offs, no mortal man could carry that burden.  That's what they were.  A freaken ball and chain that dragged the whole team down.

    Stop making excuses for the most disgusting D to ever play and stop blaming Brady for that disgusting display of incompetence of that worthless defense and you will sleep better at night.

    You might even be able to get off the booze and drugs and live a somewhat normal existence, without delusions and hallucinations.

    Good luck!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:


    Excuse me for not realizing you were cherry picking stats.  Normal people look at stats like T/O's as yearly.


    Like I said, they were 8th last year, 2nd the year before that and 4th the year before that.


    And your new bff was wrong.  He spotted the Pats 2 T/O's during that period.  it was 139, not 141.


      Tsk tsk.  I'm sure he wasn't trying to make them look better than they actually were.  Like you tried to.



    1. Why would I spot them extra TOs if they would be #1 even without them?  That makes no sense.


    2. According to pro-football-reference.com, since 2010 the Pats have forced: 38, 34, 41 and 29 turnovers.  That adds up to 142, as I said.


    3. You are one unpleasant little turd.  I have no love for Rusty, but at least he occasionally adds something useful to the forum.  You have nothing but name-calling and complaining.  Even when you claim to spout facts, you are wrong, as I've just shown.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're just stupid instead of willfully lying.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share