Look on the bright side

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

    Look on the bright side

    Of course I hated to see the loss.  However, this means that I can have one extra week of watching Patriots football.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from justme2. Show justme2's posts

    Re: Look on the bright side

    There's a bright side.. I actually continued to watch for just the reason you mentioned. The season is so short and this team never quits.. Unfortunately I work with a 9er fan.

     

    Thank you Patriots...

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Look on the bright side

    This gives them a chance to scrimmage a team like the Jets or Steelers at home before the real playoffs start.  I think they call it a wild card game. It's been a while.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Look on the bright side

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think you mean Cincy. The Jetsies aren't making the playoffs although it would be fun to bludgeon them for a 3rd time.  Cincy will take 1 WC and Pitt possibly the other.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really you have Pitt at 7-7 being a WC team and not the 9-5 Colts???

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Look on the bright side

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    haha

    I suppose that's one way to look at it.  The other positive thing to look at is the idea that they seem to play better on the road, for whatever reason.

    The team just looked flat after last week's big game, so it is what it is.  Maybe it's a good thing going into January.   They get 2 more games to tweak, get Gronk back and get it moving again.

    What a maddening game to watch overall, though.   Each QB was skitzo, each offense came and went, each D did the same, and the weather hurt NE/helped SF.  Odd game overall.

    But, I am afraid the officiating was yet again a factor:

    Ed Hochuli and his crew need to be investigated for the display on the Ted Ginn play where he fumbled, tried to go back for the ball, and then the refs claimed NE illegally touched it. What an embarassment for the league on national tv.  I still have no idea what even happened.  It appeared the ball softly richoceted off the side off Ginn's leg and they called holding on NE and "illegal touching" on NE.

    Has anyone figured out just exactly what the officials were looking to do there?

    This is the same moron who 3 years ago totally screwed up a call in a Denver/SD game, not knowing the rules, affecting the outcome.  Terrible.  The last thing I want between two evenly matched teams is horrendous officiating. Even the call for NE with Lloyd falling in the end zone was weak. 

    Any news on Dennard? I know Spikes has been battling injuries the last few weeks, so maybe they can be healthy in a few weeks.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah Scully... Hocholi was off his game.  Didn't he look like 10 -15 years older ?  he's  the 60 year old guy that lifts weights to look 40, then wakes up and he's 60 again...lol.

    Replayed that ginn fumble like 20 times.  Not sure it hit him.  His flinching reaction was consistent with him realizing he was close to touching it so inconclusive imo.  I don't get the ruling and why it took an hour to figure out.  Hoch-a-loogie is over his head now, needing to retire.  Hasn't recovered from embarrassing botch of san Diego game years ago.

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

    Re: Look on the bright side

    Another silver lining.  Right now it would appear to be a 2nd round visit to Denver.  However, by holding the #2 seed by a slim margin the Pats force the ponies to play their starters week 17, assuming they still hold the #2 seed.  The Pats are not going to lose to the Jags.  Could still get interesting.  And week 17 is a possible audition for Romeo to return as DC if he can confound PM one more time.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Look on the bright side

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Patsman3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think you mean Cincy. The Jetsies aren't making the playoffs although it would be fun to bludgeon them for a 3rd time.  Cincy will take 1 WC and Pitt possibly the other.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really you have Pitt at 7-7 being a WC team and not the 9-5 Colts???

     

    [/QUOTE]

    My mistake. I knew I was forgetting someone. Yes, the Colts. Cincy and the Colts. I was just saying I see Pitt getting in before the pathetic Jets.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As crazy as it sounds if Pitts beats Cincy next week, and the Jets run the table, I think the Jets get in with a three way 9-7 tie.  Now saying the Jets will run the table is crazy....but the last 3 games are Tenn, SD, and Buffalo.  Not exactly a tough finish.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Look on the bright side

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Patsman3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Patsman3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think you mean Cincy. The Jetsies aren't making the playoffs although it would be fun to bludgeon them for a 3rd time.  Cincy will take 1 WC and Pitt possibly the other.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really you have Pitt at 7-7 being a WC team and not the 9-5 Colts???

     

    [/QUOTE]

    My mistake. I knew I was forgetting someone. Yes, the Colts. Cincy and the Colts. I was just saying I see Pitt getting in before the pathetic Jets.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As crazy as it sounds if Pitts beats Cincy next week, and the Jets run the table, I think the Jets get in with a three way 9-7 tie.  Now saying the Jets will run the table is crazy....but the last 3 games are Tenn, SD, and Buffalo.  Not exactly a tough finish.

    [/QUOTE]

    And to think GOodell wants to expand the playoffs? What a joke.  The Jets have no business anywhere near a playoff.  I think your scenario while possible also has very long odds.  All they're doing is worsening their draft position, which is hilarious.

    Ten will treat this primetime game as their SB, so NY won't just cupcake down there and walk all over them. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Mark it down.  We actually agree on everything you just said.  Thou wouldn't you really like to see NE/Jets round 3 rather the NE/Cincy. (Going to assume Indy gets #5 seed, so this would be a #3 vs. #6)

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Look on the bright side

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not that it matters now, but here is a bright side historical note:

    When an AFC and NFC team meet in the regular season, and they meet again in the Super Bowl, the loser of the regular season game usually wins. It actually didn't happen last year, but most of the time the loser in the regular season flips the script on the oppoenent in the rematch.

    I'd have to go back and look at the numbers, but since the merger this usually holds up. 

    Off the top of my head, the 1983 Skins/Raiders situation is one. 2001 Rams vs Pats is another.  There are many more examples as well.

    Edit: "The team that lost the regular-season meeting has won six of the previous 11 matchups. The last matchup was Super Bowl XXXVI between the Patriots and Rams (Rams won regular season; Patriots won the Super Bowl)."

    So, just because a team beats a team in the regular season, it doesn't really mean that team is a lock to do it again.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you completly erase 2007 from your memory?  Pats beat the Giants last game of the regular season and then in the Super Bowl.......

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Look on the bright side

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think you mean Cincy. The Jetsies aren't making the playoffs although it would be fun to bludgeon them for a 3rd time.  Cincy will take 1 WC and Pitt possibly the other.

    [/QUOTE]

    Indy will take the fifth seed (first wild card).  They will play one of Balt, Pitt or Cincy who will take be the division winner and take the fourth seed.  The other wild card will be another of those three and we will host that one in the Wild Card game.  The Jets will lose tonight and it will be sayonara for them.

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

    Re: Look on the bright side

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    haha

    I suppose that's one way to look at it.  The other positive thing to look at is the idea that they seem to play better on the road, for whatever reason.

    The team just looked flat after last week's big game, so it is what it is.  Maybe it's a good thing going into January.   They get 2 more games to tweak, get Gronk back and get it moving again.

    What a maddening game to watch overall, though.   Each QB was skitzo, each offense came and went, each D did the same, and the weather hurt NE/helped SF.  Odd game overall.

    But, I am afraid the officiating was yet again a factor:

    Ed Hochuli and his crew need to be investigated for the display on the Ted Ginn play where he fumbled, tried to go back for the ball, and then the refs claimed NE illegally touched it. What an embarassment for the league on national tv.  I still have no idea what even happened.  It appeared the ball softly richoceted off the side off Ginn's leg and they called holding on NE and "illegal touching" on NE.

    Has anyone figured out just exactly what the officials were looking to do there?

    This is the same moron who 3 years ago totally screwed up a call in a Denver/SD game, not knowing the rules, affecting the outcome.  Terrible.  The last thing I want between two evenly matched teams is horrendous officiating. Even the call for NE with Lloyd falling in the end zone was weak. 

    Any news on Dennard? I know Spikes has been battling injuries the last few weeks, so maybe they can be healthy in a few weeks.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah Scully... Hocholi was off his game.  Didn't he look like 10 -15 years older ?  he's  the 60 year old guy that lifts weights to look 40, then wakes up and he's 60 again...lol.

    Replayed that ginn fumble like 20 times.  Not sure it hit him.  His flinching reaction was consistent with him realizing he was close to touching it so inconclusive imo.  I don't get the ruling and why it took an hour to figure out.  Hoch-a-loogie is over his head now, needing to retire.  Hasn't recovered from embarrassing botch of san Diego game years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Much as I would like to say that it did, that ball did not hit him.  It was an illegal touch.  The call was correct.  As to why he ran after the ball, players are taught to do that for a "just in case" the officials get it wrong.  IOW, you play to the whistle. Why it took so long is a complete mystery to me.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Look on the bright side

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Patsman3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not that it matters now, but here is a bright side historical note:

    When an AFC and NFC team meet in the regular season, and they meet again in the Super Bowl, the loser of the regular season game usually wins. It actually didn't happen last year, but most of the time the loser in the regular season flips the script on the oppoenent in the rematch.

    I'd have to go back and look at the numbers, but since the merger this usually holds up. 

    Off the top of my head, the 1983 Skins/Raiders situation is one. 2001 Rams vs Pats is another.  There are many more examples as well.

    Edit: "The team that lost the regular-season meeting has won six of the previous 11 matchups. The last matchup was Super Bowl XXXVI between the Patriots and Rams (Rams won regular season; Patriots won the Super Bowl)."

    So, just because a team beats a team in the regular season, it doesn't really mean that team is a lock to do it again.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you completly erase 2007 from your memory?  Pats beat the Giants last game of the regular season and then in the Super Bowl.......

    [/QUOTE]

    Where is the confusion?  The team that beats the one in the regular season usually loses the rematch.

    What are you even questioning? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You post says the last matchup was Rams vs Pats.  I'm pretty sure Pats/Giants was AFTER that.

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

    Re: Look on the bright side

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not that it matters now, but here is a bright side historical note:

    When an AFC and NFC team meet in the regular season, and they meet again in the Super Bowl, the loser of the regular season game usually wins. It actually didn't happen last year, but most of the time the loser in the regular season flips the script on the oppoenent in the rematch.

    I'd have to go back and look at the numbers, but since the merger this usually holds up. 

    Off the top of my head, the 1983 Skins/Raiders situation is one. 2001 Rams vs Pats is another.  There are many more examples as well.

    Edit: "The team that lost the regular-season meeting has won six of the previous 11 matchups. The last matchup was Super Bowl XXXVI between the Patriots and Rams (Rams won regular season; Patriots won the Super Bowl)."

    So, just because a team beats a team in the regular season, it doesn't really mean that team is a lock to do it again.

    [/QUOTE]


    Uh, no.  How about the Pats beating the Giants in the 18-0 but losing to them in the Super Bowl?  That was after the Rams game.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share