Homers......

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Attempting to inject an element of objectivity into this discussion (yes, well wouldn't want to be accused of being a homer, you understand), I did a cursory (less than exhaustive) on line search to see if we can define homer with some level of precisiion.  It seems there are at least two (probably a sh*tload more but I am after all at work) definitions that apply to this context:

    1)  Sports fan that is loyal to his home team;

    2)  Someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have.


    Since I would never presume to speak for everyone on this forum (who would want to??) I can only go by personal observation.  Highly anecdotal I know and in our enduring search for truth this will undoubtedly fall short but it would seem most if not all fall under the category of definition one.  Now I know that there are certain learned elements on this board who know better than the HHH (note 1) that I am who would assert, diplomatically to be sure, that most in reality fall under category two.  

    All of that being said (typed actually) I really don't give a rodent's patootie if I'm viewed as falling under category 1 or category 2.  I love the Pats, think they have an outstanding GM and probably the best HC in the game and have some pretty impressive players.  Neither the GM nor the HC nor the team is perfect and when there's something to criticize I don't hesitate to do so and so it appears no one else does either.

     

    Note 1:  HHH = Humble Hopeless Homer

     

     



    Your two definitions were the Websters Dictionary definition of a fan just five years ago.

     

    I'm just a fan, call me homer if you must but that is like calling Superman a superhero!

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

    Re: Homers......


    Fan supposedly is a short for fanatic isn't it?  An individual who is crazy about his/her interests.  This doesn't mean you can't be critical but I think it has something to do with how the criticism is done and shared on this board.  It's a reason why we have lost posters here.   

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

    Re: Homers......

    Look, for some fans, being a fan is about worrying and getting angsty. Jeepers, is this Boston or what? The Sox fanbase can be incredibly negative. 

    Please don't go labelling people "posers" because they have critical things to say. This isn't a McCarthy litmus test board here. If this post is another about TexasPat I have to say, having been here for a decade, I can tell you TexasPat is a big time NE fan, more than most people here. 

    Then people get over him because he grades NE with a B or something after a win. Then you read actual journalists who cover the team, and the grades on B.com, and they are right in the same area. 

    To be frank, I prefer the grumbly and curmudgeonly fans like TexasPat over the guys who think every single move NE does is genius. 

    Over the long haul TP looks less the fool, because most draft picks DON'T work out, haha. Whereas the homer, who spent five posts explaining how all the draftees and FA signings will be pro-bowlers and resurging vets are really painting themselves into a corner, and creating boring posts. 

    blog post photo
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from part-timer. Show part-timer's posts

    Re: Homers......

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Look, for some fans, being a fan is about worrying and getting angsty. Jeepers, is this Boston or what? The Sox fanbase can be incredibly negative. 

    Please don't go labelling people "posers" because they have critical things to say. This isn't a McCarthy litmus test board here. If this post is another about TexasPat I have to say, having been here for a decade, I can tell you TexasPat is a big time NE fan, more than most people here. 

    Then people get over him because he grades NE with a B or something after a win. Then you read actual journalists who cover the team, and the grades on B.com, and they are right in the same area. 

    To be frank, I prefer the grumbly and curmudgeonly fans like TexasPat over the guys who think every single move NE does is genius. 

    Over the long haul TP looks less the fool, because most draft picks DON'T work out, haha. Whereas the homer, who spent five posts explaining how all the draftees and FA signings will be pro-bowlers and resurging vets are really painting themselves into a corner, and creating boring posts. 

    blog post photo


      Posers and Trolls have and will resort to symantice to unpaint them selves out of the corner. But their infatuation with anything negitive, even if it is total speculation, or what ifs keep them on the wrong side of being a fan. In stead they become more like stalkers, who's only goal is to cause confrontation. Then the over exageration of a Homer, as a brainless,uninformed spectator that never gets disapointed with the actions of the team, simply because they chose to support the teams decisions even if we may not understand them at the time.

    I have reliably been disgusted by the constant challenging of team decisions, and Posers and Trolls harasing fans only to find out later the true and accepable reason for the moves.

    Of course the Posers and Trolls are more knowledgeable than the pros. No one here is qualified to question the Pro moves by Pro personel. And most fan and homers,and kool aid drinkers will be the first to admit that point......BUT the Trolls  and Posers will go down in flames before even considering that point.

    If you Homers want to know why literaly hundreds of us part time posters no longer waist our time here its because of the TOLLERENCE for out right TROLLS and POSERS.

    How bout freedom of speach.....Bu11$hit....This is a Pats site...You do not show up at church,temple,or mosk to challenge the beliefs of the worshipers...

    You do not chalenge the authority of the IRS at an audit

    And you do not go to a Patriots based site to chalenge the HOMERS....

    If you feel like starting a conflict, go to another teams site and see how long you last...Your abuse of your ability to disrupt this site has shown to be detrimental over the last few years.

    The Posers and Trolls have won here....Because the Homers, and Kool Aid drinkers have either left, or given into there tacktics and sunk to accepting them...This is no longer a Pats site, it a Pats bashing site, and embareasing to see those that say they are Pats fans prefering to interact with known Trolls.....

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to part-timer's comment:

    It appears that the Trolls and Posers favorite word of insult is Homer. Its used to explain away any positive perspective on the Pats.

    RESPONSE: No...it's used to define certain Pats fans, such as yourself, who cannot be objective.

    And their constant negative perspective is to be considered logical. This has grown too old...Negative WHAT IFS constantly pushed by THEM is accepable while Positive WHAT IFS are Homerisms...

    RESPONSE: A homer is also one who will not tolerate any criticisms of the Patriots or of BB, whether founded or not...and believes himself to be a "true" fan by so doing.

    Well I have no problem admitting to be a Homer and do not consider it to be an insult. Those that consider it to be an insult and use it so have shown their true colors.

    RESPONSE: Oh really, Mr. Homer? What colors are those? The color of homers is yellow. They're afraid to take a stand on anything contrary to what the Pats and BB do. All they do is personally attack those who do.

    They can only be posers. The most laughabe of which have tremendously greater GM and HCing skills than what the Pats have provided. Yet they have only message boards that they use to tout those skills, and garner any self gratification. SAD...

    RESPONSE: And what skills have you to offer, other than to stick your head in the sand, and rubber stamp everything that the Pats do.

    I am a Homer and proud of it....

    RESPONSE: What a bore...and what a boor...LOL!!!




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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to garytx's comment:


    Fan supposedly is a short for fanatic isn't it?  An individual who is crazy about his/her interests.  This doesn't mean you can't be critical but I think it has something to do with how the criticism is done and shared on this board.  It's a reason why we have lost posters here.   




    From Merriam-Webster

    Definition of FANATIC : marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Homers......

    In response to part-timer's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Look, for some fans, being a fan is about worrying and getting angsty. Jeepers, is this Boston or what? The Sox fanbase can be incredibly negative. 

    Please don't go labelling people "posers" because they have critical things to say. This isn't a McCarthy litmus test board here. If this post is another about TexasPat I have to say, having been here for a decade, I can tell you TexasPat is a big time NE fan, more than most people here. 

    Then people get over him because he grades NE with a B or something after a win. Then you read actual journalists who cover the team, and the grades on B.com, and they are right in the same area. 

    To be frank, I prefer the grumbly and curmudgeonly fans like TexasPat over the guys who think every single move NE does is genius. 

    Over the long haul TP looks less the fool, because most draft picks DON'T work out, haha. Whereas the homer, who spent five posts explaining how all the draftees and FA signings will be pro-bowlers and resurging vets are really painting themselves into a corner, and creating boring posts. 

    blog post photo


      Posers and Trolls have and will resort to symantice to unpaint them selves out of the corner. But their infatuation with anything negitive, even if it is total speculation, or what ifs keep them on the wrong side of being a fan. In stead they become more like stalkers, who's only goal is to cause confrontation. Then the over exageration of a Homer, as a brainless,uninformed spectator that never gets disapointed with the actions of the team, simply because they chose to support the teams decisions even if we may not understand them at the time.

     

    I have reliably been disgusted by the constant challenging of team decisions, and Posers and Trolls harasing fans only to find out later the true and accepable reason for the moves.

    Of course the Posers and Trolls are more knowledgeable than the pros. No one here is qualified to question the Pro moves by Pro personel. And most fan and homers,and kool aid drinkers will be the first to admit that point......BUT the Trolls  and Posers will go down in flames before even considering that point.

    If you Homers want to know why literaly hundreds of us part time posters no longer waist our time here its because of the TOLLERENCE for out right TROLLS and POSERS.

    How bout freedom of speach.....Bu11$hit....This is a Pats site...You do not show up at church,temple,or mosk to challenge the beliefs of the worshipers...

    You do not chalenge the authority of the IRS at an audit

    And you do not go to a Patriots based site to chalenge the HOMERS....

    If you feel like starting a conflict, go to another teams site and see how long you last...Your abuse of your ability to disrupt this site has shown to be detrimental over the last few years.

    The Posers and Trolls have won here....Because the Homers, and Kool Aid drinkers have either left, or given into there tacktics and sunk to accepting them...This is no longer a Pats site, it a Pats bashing site, and embareasing to see those that say they are Pats fans prefering to interact with known Trolls.....

    [/QUOTE]

    That's uh, pretty melodramatic PT. Knd of intense. 

    Let me dial it back a bit. 

    One of my grandfathers was a big Yankee fan (he came through Ellis Island and lived in NY first). This guy would sit in his chair. He would pess and moan about everything that happened. Any move for a reliever was bound to fail. Any young kid had issues.

    I still remember being at his house in the early 1990s. The Yanks were behind bu a run and he griped for eight and a half innings. In the ninth inning they got the runs they needed. For a breif bit, he was elated, the went back to griping about how they got themselves in that mess.

    Guy did this 80 or more times a year with that team. He was also a Pats fan, and was critical, but never so involved. He also like the Big Tuna, as that guy didn't really get the brunt of hsi anger. I digress.

    Point of the story, he watched every single Yanks game he could, more than most people who would consider themselves homers. He enjoyed victory so much it cause him to literally fear loss, and basically gird himself for it by being exceptionally negative.

    At the end of ths day, he was as true a fan as I've ever seen.

    Moral of the story ... this is a site for Patriots fans ... not a specific kind of fan, just fans. People express their fanaticism in different ways. But you can't go around setting rules about "how" you should like the Patriots. 

    Love the gripers. You share something huge in common, you are both fans of the same team, and think about it all the time.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Homers......

    The majority of us homers and kool-aid drinkers are the logical ones and the realists. The majority of the critics are illogical and irrational.

    Their arguments are based on the Patriots not winning a super bowl since the 2004 season and having a bottom ranked defense. Take away the Tyree catch and their arguments fail. Take away the Brady/Welker miss and their arguments fail.

    We hear daily about the bad coaching, bad drafting, bad defense, bad running backs, bad wide recievers, bad o-line play and my favorite, bad quarterbacking. It's a wonder we ever win a game.


    Of course this is just my homerist opinion.

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    The majority of us homers and kool-aid drinkers are the logical ones and the realists. The majority of the critics are illogical and irrational.

    Their arguments are based on the Patriots not winning a super bowl since the 2004 season and having a bottom ranked defense. Take away the Tyree catch and their arguments fail. Take away the Brady/Welker miss and their arguments fail.

    We hear daily about the bad coaching, bad drafting, bad defense, bad running backs, bad wide recievers, bad o-line play and my favorite, bad quarterbacking. It's a wonder we ever win a game.


    Of course this is just my homerist opinion.



    Well, if you add every single person's specific complaints together, sure. It would be a wonder. But then, most of the people that say that stuff, a.) don't often use the word bad, and b.) don't think all of those things are bad. 

    Granted, winning three, and going to five SBs has raised expecations a lot. 

    I'd still say health/depth is a big problem though, and NE *DOES* have depth problems they didn't have in the earlier 2000s. They could lose a big name player and still win, Harrison, Law, Seymour, all those guys went down in the playoffs at one point or another, and they had the breadth and depth of talent to get by.

    Counting the playoffs NE is 8-6 when they are missing Gronkowski or Hernandez. Considering they've only taken 12 losses the last three seasons, and have 42 wins, that's a huge dropoff. 

    So sure, when all hands are on deck, NE wins a ton of games. But people here question what could be done to make the team good enough to win despite losing some talent to injuries. 

    You need to assess your team that way before you can talk about remedies: the rest of those complaints, barring the coaching complaints (ie, we got the tools, the coaches don't use em right) and the Brady complaints (ie, we got the tools, Brady's ego or whatever just stands in the way) tune into that basic issue. 

    To be frank ... I don't think NE has the tools to win the SB without an incredibly lucky streak of health. Here is to health.

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    The majority of us homers and kool-aid drinkers are the logical ones and the realists. The majority of the critics are illogical and irrational.

    Their arguments are based on the Patriots not winning a super bowl since the 2004 season and having a bottom ranked defense. Take away the Tyree catch and their arguments fail. Take away the Brady/Welker miss and their arguments fail.

    We hear daily about the bad coaching, bad drafting, bad defense, bad running backs, bad wide recievers, bad o-line play and my favorite, bad quarterbacking. It's a wonder we ever win a game.


    Of course this is just my homerist opinion.




    At this juncture we have the best coach and best QB in the game. After that everything starts to fall off dramatically. Having that we have still been in the mix for a while. And being in the mix has provided a couple of close calls on getting the big prize.

    Before that we had a team patched together with a good number of excellent inherited players and several key additions that were a compliment to the HOF coach and HOF QB rather than something they need to compensate for as is the case now. Having that we were a dynasty.

    This isn't rocket science. It's obvious from any fair analysis. Now one can kid themselves that some other order of things is going on - but it just isn't.

     

     

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

    Re: Homers......

    ob·jec·tive /əbˈjektiv/   Adjective (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

    That's the defintion of objective.  So let's not kid ourselves, shall we?  There isn't anyone posting in this forum that I've seen (myself included) who satisfies that definition.  So anyone in here staking a claim to the high ground of objectivity may wish to reevaluate.

    And since, by definition and my own admission, I'm not objective I'll offer my opinion on the claim often noted in here that the practice of rendering criticism is a credential certifying one's objectivity:  who are you trying to sh1t?  Being critical of a team is part of being a fan but has absolutely zippo to do with objectivity.  (edited out a final sentence that I shouldn't have posted to begin with.)

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

    Re: Homers......

    I see this topic like this:

    LOYAL FAN= believing that DA will be the new Welker and give our Offense a boost and be Brady's new security blanket.

    HOMER= thinking Ras-I will become the second coming of Ty Law and lead the league in INTs for the next 10 years.

    I tend to be a realist.  I try not to bash realistic optimism.  BUT, when I see someone thinking Kyle love is a HUGE loss for us, I have to call them out!

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

    Re: Homers......

    When it all comes down to it, we should respect each other and our differing opinions...

    Because we all just want to see our team become the NFL champs year in and year out. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Homers......

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The majority of us homers and kool-aid drinkers are the logical ones and the realists. The majority of the critics are illogical and irrational.

    Their arguments are based on the Patriots not winning a super bowl since the 2004 season and having a bottom ranked defense. Take away the Tyree catch and their arguments fail. Take away the Brady/Welker miss and their arguments fail.

    We hear daily about the bad coaching, bad drafting, bad defense, bad running backs, bad wide recievers, bad o-line play and my favorite, bad quarterbacking. It's a wonder we ever win a game.


    Of course this is just my homerist opinion.

     




    At this juncture we have the best coach and best QB in the game. After that everything starts to fall off dramatically. Having that we have still been in the mix for a while. And being in the mix has provided a couple of close calls on getting the big prize.

     

    Before that we had a team patched together with a good number of excellent inherited players and several key additions that were a compliment to the HOF coach and HOF QB rather than something they need to compensate for as is the case now. Having that we were a dynasty.

    This isn't rocket science. It's obvious from any fair analysis. Now one can kid themselves that some other order of things is going on - but it just isn't.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe, I agree with some of your post and you certainly have a right to that opinion regarding the talent level drop off. I would counter that the talent level isn't as bad as you are saying.

    They have their stars Brady/Wilfork

    Then I beleive in my opinion this group is Talented and can be very good at times.

    Mankins, Vollmer, Solder,Hern, Gronk, Ridley, Vareen, Amendola, C Jones, Mayo, Spike (though one dimensional), Talib, Dmac (at safety) 

    Then you have role players which every team needs.

    Connelly, Wendell, Nink, Kelly, 

    Due to the salary cap every team has the same types of rosters. I would agree that some teams have more high end talent than the pats but I would say that most aren't as balanced or as deep.

    Just my opinion.

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

    Re: Homers......

     

    “If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.”   George S. Patton Jr.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Homers......


    I am struggling with the concept that wanting to win aother SB, and having an informed opinion on how to get to that goal, and whether or not it completely aligns with how the Pats are going about obtaining that goal, is negative?

    Ditto agreeing or diagreeing with another poster...why is disagreeing negative?

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to rkarp's comment:


    I am struggling with the concept that wanting to win aother SB, and having an informed opinion on how to get to that goal, and whether or not it completely aligns with how the Pats are going about obtaining that goal, is negative?

    Ditto agreeing or diagreeing with another poster...why is disagreeing negative?



         Spot on, brother! The Homers have no tolerance for anyone who dares to question decisions/moves made by BB, and the Pats.

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    ob·jec·tive /əbˈjektiv/   Adjective (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

    That's the defintion of objective.  So let's not kid ourselves, shall we?  There isn't anyone posting in this forum that I've seen (myself included) who satisfies that definition.  So anyone in here staking a claim to the high ground of objectivity may wish to reevaluate.

    And since, by definition and my own admission, I'm not objective I'll offer my opinion on the claim often noted in here that the practice of rendering criticism is a credential certifying one's objectivity:  who are you trying to sh1t?  Being critical of a team is part of being a fan but has absolutely zippo to do with objectivity.  (edited out a final sentence that I shouldn't have posted to begin with.)



         I'll concede that no one who is a true Patriots fan can be 100% objective. But, won't you concede that some posters here are far more objective than others?

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    ob·jec·tive /əbˈjektiv/   Adjective (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

    That's the defintion of objective.  So let's not kid ourselves, shall we?  There isn't anyone posting in this forum that I've seen (myself included) who satisfies that definition.  So anyone in here staking a claim to the high ground of objectivity may wish to reevaluate.

    And since, by definition and my own admission, I'm not objective I'll offer my opinion on the claim often noted in here that the practice of rendering criticism is a credential certifying one's objectivity:  who are you trying to sh1t?  Being critical of a team is part of being a fan but has absolutely zippo to do with objectivity.  (edited out a final sentence that I shouldn't have posted to begin with.)

     



         I'll concede that no one who is a true Patriots fan can be 100% objective. But, won't you concede that some posters here are far more objective than others?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Will you also concede that no one can be a pats fan being 100% negative ?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Homers......

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    ob·jec·tive /əbˈjektiv/   Adjective (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

    That's the defintion of objective.  So let's not kid ourselves, shall we?  There isn't anyone posting in this forum that I've seen (myself included) who satisfies that definition.  So anyone in here staking a claim to the high ground of objectivity may wish to reevaluate.

    And since, by definition and my own admission, I'm not objective I'll offer my opinion on the claim often noted in here that the practice of rendering criticism is a credential certifying one's objectivity:  who are you trying to sh1t?  Being critical of a team is part of being a fan but has absolutely zippo to do with objectivity.  (edited out a final sentence that I shouldn't have posted to begin with.)

     



         I'll concede that no one who is a true Patriots fan can be 100% objective. But, won't you concede that some posters here are far more objective than others?

     




    I don't want to speak for ATJ but each poster opining their opinion thinks they are more objective than the next poster. LOL

    Objectivity is only as sound as the facts you use to base your opinion on. Although lately on this board facts don't seem to be relevant. LOL

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    The majority of us homers and kool-aid drinkers are the logical ones and the realists. The majority of the critics are illogical and irrational.

    RESPONSE: This is the main problem with Homers. They are so dogmatic, to the point of being arrogant. They claim to be right, logical, and see themselves as realists...despite the fact that they admit being koolaid drinkers!! How logical is that?? LOL!!!.

    Their arguments are based on the Patriots not winning a super bowl since the 2004 season and having a bottom ranked defense. Take away the Tyree catch and their arguments fail. Take away the Brady/Welker miss and their arguments fail.

    RESPONSE: Wrongo!! My criticisms are based on being objective. Though it's hard, because I am such a big Pats fan...I strive every year to evaluate the Pats, as I would the Denver Broncos, Steelers, Ravens, or Jets.  Like it or not, Homers...Tom Brady is aging. He hasn't played well in the bigger games...having been outplayed by the likes of Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, and even Mark Sanchez, in 2010. Now...one can argue with some justification that Brady has faced better defenses that those other three. But still, age catches up with even the greatest of players. But, what concerns me the most about the Pats is the health of Rob Gronkowski. Next to Brady, he is the most important player the Pats have on offense. He is coming off four off-season surgeries. Not good. Finally, the secondary is still an issue, as is the lack of a consistent pass rush. Sorry...but I don't see this team winning a SB...unless...as "Z" stated below in one of his posts, the Pats get very lucky, having few injuries. The poor drafts by BB in 2006-09 have really hurt this team.

    We hear daily about the bad coaching, bad drafting, bad defense, bad running backs, bad wide recievers, bad o-line play and my favorite, bad quarterbacking. It's a wonder we ever win a game.

    RESPONSE: There's the cry of the Homer. "Gee...we win 12 games a year...blah, blah, blah. Having BB as a coach, and Brady as your QB alone, will get you 9-10 wins per season. But, to win championships, a better defense is a must. BB has failed to fix his secondary problem...it's been mediocre at best since 2006...despite all the draft choices BB has spent on DBs. And...the pass rush is still lacking.

     




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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    The majority of us homers and kool-aid drinkers are the logical ones and the realists. The majority of the critics are illogical and irrational.

    Their arguments are based on the Patriots not winning a super bowl since the 2004 season and having a bottom ranked defense. Take away the Tyree catch and their arguments fail. Take away the Brady/Welker miss and their arguments fail.

    We hear daily about the bad coaching, bad drafting, bad defense, bad running backs, bad wide recievers, bad o-line play and my favorite, bad quarterbacking. It's a wonder we ever win a game.


    Of course this is just my homerist opinion.



    Of course the Pats have been great but isn't the goal in the end to win a championship? Isn't that what drives players and teams? Isn't that the standard they hold themselves to? I don't hear many around here saying the team needs to be blown up but recommend tweaks to improve the team and win that ultimate goal. Just being good isn't good enough when you have a top 3 all time coach and QB. If it was then the Bills would have been great in the early 90's and their fans would have no right to complain about never winning one. 

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The majority of us homers and kool-aid drinkers are the logical ones and the realists. The majority of the critics are illogical and irrational.

    Their arguments are based on the Patriots not winning a super bowl since the 2004 season and having a bottom ranked defense. Take away the Tyree catch and their arguments fail. Take away the Brady/Welker miss and their arguments fail.

    We hear daily about the bad coaching, bad drafting, bad defense, bad running backs, bad wide recievers, bad o-line play and my favorite, bad quarterbacking. It's a wonder we ever win a game.


    Of course this is just my homerist opinion.

     



    Of course the Pats have been great but isn't the goal in the end to win a championship? Isn't that what drives players and teams? Isn't that the standard they hold themselves to? I don't hear many around here saying the team needs to be blown up but recommend tweaks to improve the team and win that ultimate goal. Just being good isn't good enough when you have a top 3 all time coach and QB. If it was then the Bills would have been great in the early 90's and their fans would have no right to complain about never winning one. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The cowboys and 9 ers were good and only one of them could go to a Super Bowl at a time, back when.  When the pats won in 2001 I didn't think that would ever happen again in my lifetime. Think if we had the undefeated season. the expectations here would be unrealistic.  

    The bills were a good team, they should have beat the giants if it wasn't for Scott Norwood   For that matter if not for the catch the bengals could have been a different team as well. 

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to part-timer's comment:

     

    Posers and Trolls have and will resort to symantice to unpaint them selves out of the corner. But their infatuation with anything negitive, even if it is total speculation, or what ifs keep them on the wrong side of being a fan. In stead they become more like stalkers, who's only goal is to cause confrontation. Then the over exageration of a Homer, as a brainless,uninformed spectator that never gets disapointed with the actions of the team, simply because they chose to support the teams decisions even if we may not understand them at the time.

     

    I have reliably been disgusted by the constant challenging of team decisions, and Posers and Trolls harasing fans only to find out later the true and accepable reason for the moves.

    Of course the Posers and Trolls are more knowledgeable than the pros. No one here is qualified to question the Pro moves by Pro personel. And most fan and homers,and kool aid drinkers will be the first to admit that point......BUT the Trolls  and Posers will go down in flames before even considering that point.

    If you Homers want to know why literaly hundreds of us part time posters no longer waist our time here its because of the TOLLERENCE for out right TROLLS and POSERS.

    How bout freedom of speach.....Bu11$hit....This is a Pats site...You do not show up at church,temple,or mosk to challenge the beliefs of the worshipers...

    You do not chalenge the authority of the IRS at an audit

    And you do not go to a Patriots based site to chalenge the HOMERS....

    If you feel like starting a conflict, go to another teams site and see how long you last...Your abuse of your ability to disrupt this site has shown to be detrimental over the last few years.

    The Posers and Trolls have won here....Because the Homers, and Kool Aid drinkers have either left, or given into there tacktics and sunk to accepting them...This is no longer a Pats site, it a Pats bashing site, and embareasing to see those that say they are Pats fans prefering to interact with known Trolls.....



    Really don't agree with this. Could you imagine how boring the board would be if no one questioned the Pats moves, player decisions, tactics? Here's a taste of what it would sound like:

    How about that Ras pick - It's awesome, next Law - I agree he's awesome

    BB or a Huricane - Belichick - what if the Huricane was named BB?

    So how about that lose - Well the Pats were perfect, must have been NFL bias and refs - I agree, they are awesome right?

    So what did you think about the FA's - well I'm not a professional scout so I'm just going to say it was awesome - I'm not one either but it this was an awesome offseason 19-0 this year. So now what do we do until preseason starts - I don't know but remember when Brady threw the TD, that was awesome

    Yeah, to me that doesn't sound like much fun

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

    Re: Homers......

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

     

    The cowboys and 9 ers were good and only one of them could go to a Super Bowl at a time, back when.  When the pats won in 2001 I didn't think that would ever happen again in my lifetime. Think if we had the undefeated season. the expectations here would be unrealistic.  

     

    The bills were a good team, they should have beat the giants if it wasn't for Scott Norwood   For that matter if not for the catch the bengals could have been a different team as well. 



    I agree but it's one of those things that ever fan wants perfection. I know you can't always have perfection and I highly enjoy the string of success we've had I just don't see anything wrong with striving for that perfection. I was always taught you should constently be trying to improve yourself and to get better. That's how you keep moving forward. If you see a flaw you should try to adjust and fix that flaw. Even if you get 100% then you should try to figure out a way to maintain that 100%. As my dad use to say "good enough for government work isn't good enough for us" otherwise you become the Cowboys who have done what since their championship years? Or the Raiders who feel apart after their runs, or the Sox after 07' who seemed perfectly happy living off that victory for years and became fat and happy. That's the beauty of sports, next year is a new year and as BB says past victories don't count. They are always striving for better each year. Do you think Brady is happy the way last year ended? Do you think Brady or Belichick sit back after each year and say well at least we won 3. No, of course not. They want #4 and #5 and #6 as does every player across the league. I just kind of find it funny that some people say don't question BB and Brady and moves by the Pats and yet BB and Brady question themselves at times and are consitently trying to improve and adjust flaws. It's a great contradiction

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share