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

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Ha,

    You were right.  When I wrote down the #'s, my 38 looked like a 35.  My apologies for that.

    Still doesn't matter, the cherry picker was cherry picking and  as I said, amount to a hill of beans.

    No one uses 4 years of accumulated stats unless  they can manipulate them to make a point.

    Turns out that point was pointless.

    I've called him out 1000 times for his lies and have always been right.

    You can condone that  (the lies) if you want but the lot of us are sick of it up to our eye balls.

    His lying and manipulation means he contributes nothing unless you like FAIRY tails.  You can start with Pinocchio.

    There's a different forum for that.

    I suggest if you don't like the unpleasantness, you use the ignore key.

    The rest of will make sure his lies and deceit don't go unnoticed.

    Your choice.

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yet again, excellent job Matt slapping the dishonest scummy loser Pezzy. Don't be afraid to take on the others in his group when they play their games.

    Their lying disrupts the board, obviously.

     

     You still here?

    Yes, your lying most definitely disrupts the board.

    That is why the honest folks will always point them out.

    That is why you are the joke of BDC and the whole world knows it.

    That's why you have been banned more than the whole forum combined.

    That's why your time is short.

    Good luck with your new life.

    The Panthers forum might be a good start.  Or have they kicked you out of there too?

    Oh well, enjoy your misery.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    ^^Learn to use the quote tool, tool.

    lmao

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Ha,

    You were right.  When I wrote down the #'s, my 38 looked like a 35.  My apologies for that.

    Still doesn't matter, the cherry picker was cherry picking and  as I said, amount to a hill of beans.

    No one uses 4 years of accumulated stats unless  they can manipulate them to make a point.

    Turns out that point was pointless.

    I've called him out 1000 times for his lies and have always been right.

    You can condone that  (the lies) if you want but the lot of us are sick of it up to our eye balls.

    His lying and manipulation means he contributes nothing unless you like FAIRY tails.  You can start with Pinocchio.

    There's a different forum for that.

    I suggest if you don't like the unpleasantness, you use the ignore key.

    The rest of will make sure his lies and deceit don't go unnoticed.

    Your choice.

    [/QUOTE]

    You were bludgeoned.  Priceless.  Most of the board is loving it.

     
  6. 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 MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Ha,

    You were right.  When I wrote down the #'s, my 38 looked like a 35.  My apologies for that.

    Still doesn't matter, the cherry picker was cherry picking and  as I said, amount to a hill of beans.

    No one uses 4 years of accumulated stats unless  they can manipulate them to make a point.

    Turns out that point was pointless.

    I've called him out 1000 times for his lies and have always been right.

    You can condone that  (the lies) if you want but the lot of us are sick of it up to our eye balls.

    His lying and manipulation means he contributes nothing unless you like FAIRY tails.  You can start with Pinocchio.

    There's a different forum for that.

    I suggest if you don't like the unpleasantness, you use the ignore key.

    The rest of will make sure his lies and deceit don't go unnoticed.

    Your choice.

    [/QUOTE]

    You were bludgeoned.  Priceless.  Most of the board is loving it.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    No, not bludgeoned and man enough to admit a mistake.

    I admit every day, what a mistake you are. LOl   Half the board isn't here so how could they love it? 

    Another lie?

    You do know there's help for that, right?

    It's called growing up.  When you are young, every one has the innate ability to lie.

    When you grow up, you're supposed to be able to discern that, well.... that's just not the right thing to do.

    You either haven't grown up or have a mental disability.

    I suspect a disability that doesn't allow you to grow up.  Or drugs or alcohol abuse.

    Whatever.  You're a real sick little child.

     

     

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    ^unglued

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    ^^^

    OMG!  What a nut case.

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    In response to p-mike's comment:


    ...


    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?


     




    It's a fine line between winning and losing SBs. They were fortunate to win a couple that they won and unfortunate to lose the ones they lost. Every one of those games could have easily gone the other way. I could make the argument the losing teams were better up and down the roster than the winning ones. I could argue that the 2010 team was the best team they've had. 


    Winning SBs is as much about luck and momentum as anything else. See the 2012 Ravens. Frauds.


    As for the roster, everybody wants to be like Seattle. Well, fine then stop complaining about receivers and tight ends. Their leading receiver had under 900 yards and 5 TDs, that's about what Brandon Lloyd did in NE. Did they even have a tight end? 


    They're going back to what won SBs back in the day. They've stopped trying to collect offensive talent to surround the QB and pile up stats. That didn't work.

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

    Re: COWHERD:

    Ah Muzwell, the objective voice of reason. Thanks be to God that you post here. Seriously, you are spot on all the time. Please keep contributing.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share