PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

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

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]It's also unprofessional and screams agenda to make money off of bashing the Pats, which drives me nuts. This happens in our world across all genres. Politics, sports, etc. Doesn't matter what it is. It's ridiculous to jump through hoops to use your own job as a way of professionaly smearing someone else to make money off of it. You might as well be an attorney. No offense to our attorneys out there who defend criminals and scumbags. heh It's also insulting to the edcuated audience.  That's why it bothers me. Lecturing people who know more than you do? Sorry. I have an issue with that.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII[/QUOTE]

    Wow rwtk, I am finding out here that I agree with you; drives me crazy too.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias : Baloney.  DOn't insult the Pats D comparing them to finesse and poor COlts Ds at times in the last 10 years. NE ranks no worse than 15th in most categories and held the teamafloat for about 5 games until Brady shredded an Eagles zone D. So,, you're WRONG with your own personal anti-BB bias. You're jealous and wrong. I don't care about who is Tweeting what. The premise is clear and proven. The Jim Trotter SI article is proof of it. Our Boston Globe dorky writers oo Felger and Mazz are also proof. Brady and the offense need to pick it up so they're playing more like the Packers and Saints more consistently. They're underachieving. I am not asking for perfection or even those exact levels, but more efficiency and consistency. Like I said, there is a clear bias, Corky. Einstein was sarcasm, dumbo.  Of course, you knew that. Don't get cute, you'll lose.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII[/QUOTE]
    Russ, those glasses have made you as blind as a bat.
     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    Here UD, you need an avatar.  Insert face here.

    n Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias : Russ, those glasses have made you as blind as a bat.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dbincpumpkin. Show dbincpumpkin's posts

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias : Well, maybe the light bulb went off in your head a bit.  Nothing wrong with that.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII[/QUOTE]

    the light bulb in my head never goes off rwtk; you on the other hand can really be a jerk sometimes. or, maybe it's just being a pompous axx.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    Just an FYI--Kerry Byrne, when he started Cold, Hard Football Facts, was immediately labeled a "pro-Patriots homer" and "Tom Brady b*llwasher," especially by Colts fans upset that Byrne would dare criticize Peyton Manning's
    clutch QB credentials.

    That image lasted for a few years until the Pats' defense suffered the two late-game collapses in the 2006 and 2007 post-season (extenuating circumstances like injuries and blown calls were not factored into his analysis). Those late-game collapses led to him questioning Belichick's reputation as a defensive genius at greater length, including the Pats allowing 14 fourth quarter points to the Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI and getting torched by Jake Dellhome in Super Bowl XXXVIII.

    Since then, of course, as veterans got old and retired, as the rules got more and more pro-offense, and as BB's been trying to rebuild the defense over the last three-plus seasons, the defensive numbers (and post-season production) have declined, and thus his arguments have taken on added weight.

    It's all relative, however. No one ever said BB would have been called a defensive genius in New York had LT, Harry Carson and guys like Jim Burt and Leonard Marshall not been part of those defenses. To claim otherwise isn't fair or honest.

    And let's face it, the game has changed radically since 2004 with Polian, et al, skewing the rules heavily in favor of offenses--even more so than they were before.

    The rules changes indeed make it possible for a team to give up a ton of passing yards and still be 13-0, like Green Bay, and to still win Super Bowls, like the Saints two years ago.

    Can the Pats win it all with their current defense? Only time will tell, but to say "no way" just because they give up a lot of passing yards doesn't really take the entire picture into account.

    And oh by the way......Colts fans still hate Byrne and CHFF more than anyone, because he's really the only media guy out there who's ever really questioned Manning's infalibility.

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

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]The thread title should be Proof of more over-sensitive Pats fans. Rusty, do you actually think SF has a good chance at beating the Packers? I could see it only if everything went their way. Not impressed by the Niners in the least bit
    Posted by CaptainZdeno33[/QUOTE]

    I do.  I do not understand why people keep saying the only team that can beat the Packers in the NFC are the Saints because they can possibly outscore them.  I say HUH!!!!

    Since when is the best way to beat an offensive juggernaut to outscore them?  The best way, just like with the Colts and Manning, Brady and NE, etc.. is to KEEP THEM OFF THE FIELD.

    You do that with a conservative balanced offense that can run the ball and complete short passes once in awhile.   You then add a dominate defense that can at least contain that powerful offense and get pressure on the QB.

    The best team to do that in the NFC would have been Chicago, but that was before they lost Cutler and now their running back.  I think SF has the best chance to knock off the Pack.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias : I do.  I do not understand why people keep saying the only team that can beat the Packers in the NFC are the Saints because they can possibly outscore them.  I say HUH!!!! Since when is the best way to beat an offensive juggernaut to outscore them?  The best way, just like with the Colts and Manning, Brady and NE, etc.. is to KEEP THEM OFF THE FIELD. You do that with a conservative balanced offense that can run the ball and complete short passes once in awhile.   You then add a dominate defense that can at least contain that powerful offense and get pressure on the QB. The best team to do that in the NFC would have been Chicago, but that was before they lost Cutler and now their running back.  I think SF has the best chance to knock off the Pack.
    Posted by Patsman3[/QUOTE]

    Anyone can beat anyone man but I don't think they have a good chance at beating Green Bay. I think a lot will have to go their way to beat GB. And again, I'm NOT calling SF a dominant defense until they show they can shut down GB, NO, NE, etc. They've given up 20 to most solid teams they've played and GB's offense is lightyears better than Dallas, NYG, Detroit.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias : Anyone can beat anyone man but I don't think they have a good chance at beating Green Bay. I think a lot will have to go their way to beat GB. And again, I'm NOT calling SF a dominant defense until they show they can shut down GB, NO, NE, etc. They've given up 20 to most solid teams they've played and GB's offense is lightyears better than Dallas, NYG, Detroit.
    Posted by CaptainZdeno33[/QUOTE]

    Why I said they had the "best" chance not a "good" one.  SF is currently ranked 7th in rushing offense (130 yards game).  I think the team that has the "best" chance to beat GB can eat up the clock and then have at least a decent defense to slow down GB.  SF defense has been much better since the first quarter of the season.  That team is not NO, its not Dallas, its not Atlanta, Its not Chicago (unless healthy), maybe the Giants, Detroit is imploding.  Seriously the NFC is turning out pretty weak this year.

    So my point was if I was picking a team that had the best chance of beating GB at this point in the NFC, I would go with SF.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    Don't think of it as media bias. Think of it as marketing.

    In order for there to be heroes, there have to be commensurate villains.

    How do you think Vince McMahon got so rich?

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

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]I am a jerk for acknowleding that you agree with me? This board showcases so many people in need of meds.  My god.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII[/QUOTE]

    again u missed the point ! Your nickname again should be clueless in Foxboro; what an axx
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]Nice backpedal. I read Jim Trotter's article just fine and have been following the dorky Boston Globe and ESPN media enough to know the bias. I can see for miles, thanks very much.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII[/QUOTE]

    Backpedal?  Now I am thinking that you are not a blind fan, but rather just plain dumb.  There's no backpedal.  I stand by my statement. 
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from oh-my-beard. Show oh-my-beard's posts

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    I am not saying that the tweet was anti-pats. I am saying that statistically the Pats and Pack are very similar on defense. The idea was to use the tweet to show those similarities. Not to call the tweet biased against the Pats.

    And if you don't get annoyed that all we hear about is the Pats anemic defense and we hear nothing about the Packers D (which has "elite" players at multiple positions) well then you are just fantastic. I really hope that someday I can be just like you. But for now...

    No one is whining. All you people out there calling us who are annoyed by the talking heads need to get off your high-horses. I care very much how the team is perceived, and people just repeat the dribble that they hear on ESPN, so yeah it bothers me that all they do is trash talk the Pats D when the Packers look the same on paper.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias


    Sometimes it is when you play a team
    GB wins with
    Atlanta who sucked earlier
    Detroit - blew up with Suh
    Chicago hadn't gotten together yet
      and now no QB
    Giants - well they got a few calls
      including 1 inc that was a TD that would have
         put the Giants  up 14-7
    and maybe then Eli doesn't throw the INT??
    Who knows what happens

    We beat only Dallas -who has never been out of a game
    but they had no faith in Romo-
    (and still don't - do you think TB/BB would
    have given up 28 seconds and not tried for
    better than a 49 yd FG?

    The NFL is in slumber time
    the good teams are known
    No one knows who will win the SB
    there are only 4-6 good teams
    and the rest are ok
    none of these teams have a tuff schedule

    Once again the Pats D went into never never land
    after getting a big lead - pulling Wolfork and
    subbing O players in on D
    we just don't know what we have
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    At the moment the Pack has the worst in the league 6.3 yards per play. We are next at 6.2. Come playoff time this bodes well for neither team.

    There is a bias but BB does little to cultivate endearment from the media.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    In Response to Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias:
    [QUOTE]The Packers are undefeated this year and won the Super Bowl last year.  The Pat's have three losses so far and were eliminated by the Jets last year. The press is just repeating the obvious . . . the Packers right now look like surefire winners and have a record to match.  The Pats--well, we're still not sure how good they really are.   
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Even "the press" should know that last year's performance has a limited effect on this year's. Like the man said, that's why they play the games. WE of all people should realize that a perfect record going into the payoffs doesn't mean squat.

    I can see the press' fixation on the Pack's perfect season, that's what they do. I think it's also clear that the press plays favorites. Like baseball, NY is always at the top of their list and they're clearly infatuated with the NFC East and peyton manning.

    I don't especially care what they think but I do observe from a perspective of a guy who watched Y.A. Tittle play before the Pats came into existence. 
     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: PROOF of anti-patriots media bias

    I don't think the media is so anti-Belichick.  Christ!  ESPN did a whole two-part special on him this year to kick off their "A Football Life" series.  It was a paean to the god . . . yeah, the press in Cleveland didn't like him, but that was when he was still a loser.  Now he's widely acknowledged to be the best coach in football--and people treat his grumpiness with a certain respect, even affection.  BB gets great press, if you ask me. Darn, some posters on this site are harder on Bill than most TV commentators are . . .
     

Share