These are the facts

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    AZPat..  according to some here, you also have to remember one player plays all 22 positions and is to blame for any TEAM loss!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Naw, I'm a realist. If I see a highly skilled, HOF bound QB (who shall remain nameless) throw a few inexcusable or ill advised passes during a "key" game, I'll point it out. I know that it'll get some "babe" posters quite upset at me, but so what?  If I continually see an alleged "young and learing" defense backfield hemmoraging yards and TD's to QB's they seem bent on installing in the HOf as first balloteers, especially while relinquishing double digit 4th Qtr leads, I'll point that out too. (AT least this gets babe posters off my back!). The best part is when both of these situations exist in the same game! Then I have to deal with hommies and pink hatters trying to be relocation experts.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    And both SB's had the lowest amount of possessions in SB history, which accounts for the low scoring game.

    Hmmmm....maybe the D should have gotten the ball back to the O quicker so they actually had more opportunities to score.  Ya think?

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.  If you want to compare offensive/defensive performance, the most important stats are drive stats (points per drive, yards per drive, TOP per drive, punts per drive, etc.)

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Gee, if you keep the other guys out of the end zone and yet don't force any nturnovers, you can STILL win, right? Isn't this called, I believe, a SHUT OUT? Or, if you allow a few kicks through those yellow things (I think they call them GOAL POSTS) for a few points each, while your teams moves the ball a few times across that thick white line found after the 1 yard line (Touchdown?), you can also win, right?  Or, am I just reaching for something that could never, ever, in anyone's possible wildest imagination, happen?

    How much more about this game do I have to learn?

    [/QUOTE]

    Might be important to point out that the points given up by our defense in last year's Super Bowl were the lowest defensive total of every Super Bowl we've been in since 2001, the only one where we gave up fewer points.  Both totals are amongst the fewest total points of Super Bowls all time.

    Perhaps we should have scored more?

    [/QUOTE]


    You do realize the O has to have possessions to score, right?

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Saying, or even hinting that the sole difference between playoff wins then and losses now is because New England runs the ball a couple of times less in the game really just shouldn't even be taken seriously, and I find it remarkable that the forum entertains this at this point. 

    Pretending otherwise is fine, but not based in reality. Again, sorry for busting up your little story. Carry on.

    [/QUOTE]

    In the 3 SB wins our D snagged 8 turnovers. In the two SB losses, they have a total of one.

    That's over a 5X rate of gaining turnovers in the wins compared to the losses.

    Yet the offense managed to score fairly well per possession in every SB.

    The difference between the good old days and the recent bad ones is DEFENSE, not running.

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady was playing on the defense in those 3 SB wins right?  So, since he wasn't playing on the D side of the line in the 2 SB losses since, he is to blame for the lack of D takeaways.  I get it!!!! He IS to blame, then!!!  (-;


    [/QUOTE]


    That must be it!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Gee, if you keep the other guys out of the end zone and yet don't force any nturnovers, you can STILL win, right? Isn't this called, I believe, a SHUT OUT? Or, if you allow a few kicks through those yellow things (I think they call them GOAL POSTS) for a few points each, while your teams moves the ball a few times across that thick white line found after the 1 yard line (Touchdown?), you can also win, right?  Or, am I just reaching for something that could never, ever, in anyone's possible wildest imagination, happen?

    How much more about this game do I have to learn?

    [/QUOTE]

    Might be important to point out that the points given up by our defense in last year's Super Bowl were the lowest defensive total of every Super Bowl we've been in since 2001, the only one where we gave up fewer points.  Both totals are amongst the fewest total points of Super Bowls all time.

    Perhaps we should have scored more?

    [/QUOTE]

    You do realize the O has to have possessions to score, right? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I am pretty sure the Giants had the same number of possessions as the Patriots in that game...

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Brady had three bad passes: the toss to Welker that Kareem Abble Dabble himself wouldn't have been able to catch, the throw into Branches ankles, with 1at least 10-15 wide open yards ahead of him, and the INT toss to Gronk, who had his man beat, but had to come back to try and catch it. INT by a stinkin' LB, no less! Seeing this, Brady HAS to throw that ball where only 1 possible player (and maybe the guy in the front row in the end zone) can get it, NOT short.

    But, despite this, Brady is better than anything that ever tossed a ball with "NY" in the team name.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    It used to look like this, let me refresh your memory because it's a little hazy actually:

    TOP per drive

    Pats v Rams (11 drives) -- 2:22 

    Patriots v Eagles (13)-- 2:25

    Pats v Giants(II) (9)-- 2:32

    Patriots v Jets  (12)-- 2:54

    Patriots v Panthers  (13) -- 2:59

    And that doesn't even count the stunning displays of offensive ineptitude against teams like the Titans, Steelers, etc, where the offense just sat there turning the ball over and going three and out after three yards and a cloud of dust, and had *much* lower TOP per drive scores. 

    Of course, with the exception of the Panthers game, those offenses weren't great. So those stats are logical to someone who pays attention to what really matters in football. They routinely had three and outs, and weren't tremendously efficient at scoring, or getting first downs, hence, they didn't chew a lot of clock. 

    Hence, the last two playoff losses were actually more efficient TOP performances by the offense because the offenses are better and do more with less. If you want a more *balanced* TOP between the teams ... the defense needs to get off the field

    And yet ironically, the BEST defensive performances came in the games with the WORST amount of clock eaten up by the Pats offense. Weird, considering defenses must have a running game to be efficient. Huh?

    But wait, the single BEST TOP per drive performance came in the game where Brady threw the ball 48(!!!!!!!) times. I think that is 9 whole passes over yours and Rusty's "limit" where you can't win, right (they won)? Or get an efficient TOP (it was the best of their Superbowl run)? Or have a defense that creates turnovers (they created one)? Or another host of assumptions basing a bad faith argument. 

    I can't say it anymore, or show you any more stats that conflict with this fictional account of the halcyon days where running = winning. If you don't believe it looking at such naked statistics, you won't ever. 

    Sorry, if the reality of their TOP per drive conflicts with your "story" about "tough" offenses. The difference between those teams and this one was that they had great defenses that could actually contribute to a win, get off the field, get them the ball back over and over. 

    Saying, or even hinting that the sole difference between playoff wins then and losses now is because New England runs the ball a couple of times less in the game really just shouldn't even be taken seriously, and I find it remarkable that the forum entertains this at this point. 

    Pretending otherwise is fine, but not based in reality. Again, sorry for busting up your little story. Carry on.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dang, Z is mopping the floor with the trolls today.  

    [/QUOTE]


    He always does.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hey babe - What's a rube and Brady's ball to Welker was behind him and high. If he just threw the ball where it was supposed to go...you know in his hands,on the #'s then we wouldn't be having this argument would we?

    [/QUOTE]


    Rube: Idoit, mark, stupid, person who is easily fooled, target of con or scam, An unsophisticated hick or bumpkin, Hick, redneck, 'an unsophisticated countryman' in Canadian and US slang.

    If Welker's hands didn't flub the ball, it would have hit him in the facemask.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 42AND46's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "I like this gem here the most.  You come out of nowhere at the same time rusty disappears with this F*ck Brady Shitstorm when ONLY the O.P. stated he was best all time, Not I and then proceed to blame BB while also blaming Brady for not developing guys!??!?!  Drink much old goozer!?    I will be the first to admit that Brady has done poorly developing new WRs but they havent brought in Squat but TEs who he made a lot of money. So is BB overated too for wasting the Brady years??  You are on a roll dont stop now. Tell us how you really feel. You surely must hate the Krafts too....lol  what a double crossing troll!"

     

    I see that Y chromosome is shining thru for you. Too bad you can't identify lousy QB play when yoiu see it without resorting to excusing said poor play from Brady by blaming others. Fact is, and yiu can readily check it out (at least I think and HOPE you can), he's not played like a HOF'er in his last two SB. Gee! Any coincidence with him playing Baby Daddy and gettinf involved with super models?  Just wondering. But, you go check it out. I'll even toss you another bone to chew on: the Pats haven't won a SB since the BB-Crennel-Weis breakup. Was it BB or his coordinators? Hmmmm..... Just like the Cowboys coordinators breaking up (Turner and Wanstadt). In that case, NO ONE ever won anything again.

     Again, as you failed to grasp the point, the Giants LIVED on their pass rush all season and in teh playoffs. The Pats couldn't handle it. Now, who's to blame on that? Think BB has anything to do with NOT game planning for that? Here's an absolutely FREE (no strings attached) history lesson: in SB 4 (Chiefs vs Vikings), Hank Stram game planned the Viking D (The Purple people Eaters, world beaters, etc) out of the ball game. No one who know defense will ever confuse that defense and the 2011 Giants defense. So, was it the players, INCLUDING Brady, or the game plan they had to follow? Think that maybe the coached had anything to do with it? After all, it was their game plan AND players they acquired.

    It's not Brady's job to "develop" WR's. He's got to click with them. But, taking your point for what it is, who gets the WR's in for Brady to "develop"? Doesn't matter who they bring in, as they game plan for the players they have on roster. Again, I don't see "GM" after Brady's name, so let's look at BB and his drafting.

    Are you seeing a trend here?  1) No SB wins since The breakup  2) No superior SB performace since 2005 for Brady since he got involved with his super models  3) No Bady "develpoment" of a WR since Moss left, because no good WR was drafted, traded for, or brought in as a FA  4) a failure to game plan for the Giants ultra top secret defense and pass rush that had never before been seen.

    Never said BB has wasted the Brady years. Brady's done enough of that all on his own when it mattered. Brady can only play with the players BB brings in. It's still good enough to average 11-13 wins a regular season, but that's not good enough when the goal needs to be SB wins, unless you live in Jacksonville, KC, Cleveland, Detroit, or Arizona, where having a .500 season is a monumental achievement.

    Moron, I love the Krafts. They saved the franchise from the morose created by the Sullivans (go get a history book on the NFL), and Kiam. He made them relevent and a team to be proud to follow. He brought respectability to the franchise, and made them the model of the NFL and other professional leagues. Bring in the right fcolks and then get the heck out of the way, letting them do their jobs. Please note the recent successes of the Cowboys, Redskins, Bills, and Raiders. Nuff said.

    So, consider yourself educated. Sit back and enjoy the chocolatey Ovaltine and Oreos. remember, lights go out at 9 PM.

    [/QUOTE]

    agree with all except the dum bass crap bout supermodels and his family-thats simpleton nonsense logic...that has absolutely nothing to do with brady's performance on the field-u can do those things and not go hollywood and ur using it is just silly

    also back off a bit on the tone-u sound like a punka**

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe you missed the "just wondering" I included. But, BTW, it IS very coincidental that his post season "shine" has dimmed since the 2005 SB win vs Philthydelphia. I never said it was a direct contributor to this demise. Again, "just sayin'".

    As for my "tone"..... let's just say when dealing with a juvenile delinquent who throws the "F" bomb around on a board, that I have little or no patience for sophmoric behavior. Sorry you sensitivities feel compelled to let me know, but not the delinquent. Interesting. Oh, just sayin'....

    [/QUOTE]


    Dude!

    Your tone over the years has been nothing but negative.  I have never heard you praise the Pats, in any capaticy, despite the dominance they have achieved throught the past decade +.

    If you are a Pats fan, you are one of those delusionals that think the Pats should win it all every year and nothing else matters.  That's just plain irrational.  All teams have faults, all teams lose and NO team ever plays to it's ability, game after game and year after year.

    Perhaps it's time to swith allegiance.  AZ would be a good place to start.  At least, then, all your criticism would be warranted.

    [/QUOTE]

    (YAWN!)

    Sorry, no bonus points due to lack of creativity.

    Perhaps you should read my posts a little closer and you'll understand that I will praise them for what they do as a Super Bowl contender. I will not try to excuse away games and efforts against teams that shouldn't be on the same field with them (Cardinals, anyone?). I cannot and will not try and find praise for gakking up 4th Qtr double digit leads, stealing defeat from teh jaws of vistory (Ravens, Seahawks, anyone?). Looking for "moral victories" in those games is what fans in Cleveland, KC, Oakland, and Jacksonville do. I said it for a long time: there is absolutely nothing about this team that strikes fear into any opponent, on either sixde of the ball. And yet, even when it's widely known what another team's strengths are, the Pats never quite seem to be able to overcome them. Then, we're all back here the next day..... some excusing, some blaming. Bottom line is they eren't good enough.

    Dominence in the last decade? Let's see.... We can count on the next year's schedule to contain at least 10 easy wins: 6 in division (unless you're going to try and tell us how any one of the AFC East will win a game), two more vs last place teams (one each from teh AFC and NFC conferences they will play), plus 2 vs 3rd place teams (from the same AFC and NFC conferences). For you mathmatically challenged hommies, that's 10 wins out of 16 games. Seeing that they are averaging 12 wins/season, that gives them a 2-4 record vs teams in first or second place. Do I REALLY need to tell you that this is NOT a very good record? (They win the games thet SHOULD, but find a way to lose the games against tougher opponents.) Not pure science, but go check it out. Their last SB win was 7 seasons ago. No "dynasty" has gone that long between wins. During that time we've seen them get bounced from the playoffs by teams that they should have beaten, including twice by the freaking JESTS!.  Nothing to brag about there, unless, of course, if you live in Detroit, St Louis, or San Diego.

    I do not delude myself in thinking that they WILL win it all every season. It's not a rational thought, even for you pink hatters. Reality says it can't and won't happen in ANY sport. Yet, they produce these 12-14 regular season win totals, and your homers trip all over yourself gushing about how "great" they are. When us guys who know a little about the game and aren't taken in by bells, whistles, and bright/shiny objects point out flaws, like me and Tex Pat, all you pink hatters get the G Strings in a knot and tell us to "move somewhere else". (More demerits to you for a more aggregious lack of originality.)

    Very sad to see you swallow the bait by claiming "NO team ever plays to it's ability" ..... Do you realize how sad this statement really is? It clearly states the biggest problem with society today: "That's OK, everyone does it (lose). You're OK. Here's your participation ribbon. No need to play up to your ability, because we all know how good and great you really are." Did I mention the Blame and Excuse The Loss Away Games? Do you go to work every day with this lack of working to your ability? What about every day life? Sad........

    Ah, but here's the rub..... we see the flaws and imperfections, and point them out. You pink hatters see numbers and stats and can't focus on what's real. Then, when it doesn't go your way, it's someone or something else's fault (the Colts rolled over to let the JESTS! into the playoffs), or the refs (Excuse The Loss Game), or "he should have caught that badly overthrown ball that was also behind him" (Blame Game). Funny how those flaws you mention never seem to appear whn they lose, eh? It's magic! They only appear when the Pats actually win a game! L:ike their "young and learning" defense. Thjey finally look to gel while playing teams from Our Sisters Of The Lame and Blind, yet get taken to the woodshed by the Niners, playing oike the JESTS! did on Thanksgiving Night. Yet, all we got was excuses for the loss. They had their behinds handed to them... badly. Sad you and your ilk can't recognize it.

    "Perhaps it's time to swith allegiance." ROFLMFAO!!!! TOTAL lack of any creativity, proving that you can't take or accept any criticism. May I suggest that you stick to your obsession of Anything Patriots, and stay away from exchanging such bold "ideas" with pragmatic posters? Your psyche and ego will thank you for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    What is so funny about you switching allegiance?  Obviously the Pats make you miserable with their ineptitude and lack of dominance over the years, (with the exception of 3) 

    You just confirmed that.

    Just answer this question.

    Which NFL team has the most wins, most division titles, most conference titles, most SB appearances and most SB wins over the past 11 years?

    If the Pat's are a bumbling collection of ineptitude as you suggest, what does that say about the rest of the NFL?

    Try appreciating what you have for once and stop ragging on people who do.

    Must really suck to go through life like that.

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you are losing an argument you fall back on calling people names?very mature I must say

     If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day. IF that ball was thrown correctly the pats win the SB. BUT it wasn't and the pats lost...learn to live with the facts!

     What abouit the interception and the throw to Branch. Do you have selective memory?Even pats fans don't 100% agree with you. I don't think anybody does.

    Shall we discuss the dark blemish of the pats organization now, called Spygate, or do you want to put your rose colored spin on it first?

    [/QUOTE]


    He  dropped  the  ball. Go find me some sources that deride the pass as uncatchable and we can talk. Until then, you are being a rube.

    Yeah, fire away on spygate. I'm always up for making a phoney look like a fool.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Gee, if you keep the other guys out of the end zone and yet don't force any nturnovers, you can STILL win, right? Isn't this called, I believe, a SHUT OUT? Or, if you allow a few kicks through those yellow things (I think they call them GOAL POSTS) for a few points each, while your teams moves the ball a few times across that thick white line found after the 1 yard line (Touchdown?), you can also win, right?  Or, am I just reaching for something that could never, ever, in anyone's possible wildest imagination, happen?

    How much more about this game do I have to learn?

    [/QUOTE]

    Might be important to point out that the points given up by our defense in last year's Super Bowl were the lowest defensive total of every Super Bowl we've been in since 2001, the only one where we gave up fewer points.  Both totals are amongst the fewest total points of Super Bowls all time.

    Perhaps we should have scored more?

    [/QUOTE]

    You do realize the O has to have possessions to score, right? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I am pretty sure the Giants had the same number of possessions as the Patriots in that game...

    [/QUOTE]


    Which is exactly why it was a low scoring game. 

    The low score had NOTHING to do with a defense that allowed the gints to score on 50% of their possessions.  It had every thing to do with the lack of them and the jints holding the ball for nearly 5 minutes every time they got the ball.

    Just think for a minute.  In an average NFL game both the O and D combined should take 5 minutes to complete a possession.  When you have just an O doing that, you've got bigggggggg problems.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you are losing an argument you fall back on calling people names?very mature I must say

     If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day. IF that ball was thrown correctly the pats win the SB. BUT it wasn't and the pats lost...learn to live with the facts!

     What abouit the interception and the throw to Branch. Do you have selective memory?Even pats fans don't 100% agree with you. I don't think anybody does.

    Shall we discuss the dark blemish of the pats organization now, called Spygate, or do you want to put your rose colored spin on it first?

    [/QUOTE]


    He  dropped  the  ball. Go find me some sources that deride the pass as uncatchable and we can talk. Until then, you are being a rube.

    Yeah, fire away on spygate. I'm always up for making a phoney look like a fool.

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not get the obsessing on the Welker catch. Even if he holds on to the ball the Patriots need two more first downs after that or a TD to finish of the Giants. Even if the kick a FG they are only up by 6 and a Giants TD still wins the game...

    Let us also not forget that 80 yards, 57 seconds and a timeout remaining is not an unheard of situation to score a TD in the NFL (especially if you are in the running for "greatest QB of all time"). After the Bradshaw TD, Brady went 2 of 7 for 30 yards plus a sack. 

    Spygate to me is meaningless, who cares. They got caught they paid the fine and gave up the draft pick and moved on...

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wozzy - points per drive - relevant or not relevant?

    [/QUOTE]


    Points for, points against, turnovers are really the only relevant stats, in that order of importance in football outside of wins.

    All other stats help tell the story, but saying the Pats didn't have the ball enough times in the last Super Bowl is complete horsesht. They had it four times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day.

    They still judge NFL games with points, as soon as they start giving victories for yards or time of possession let me know.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wozzy - points per drive - relevant or not relevant?

    [/QUOTE]


    Points for, points against, turnovers are really the only relevant stats, in that order of importance in football outside of wins.

    All other stats help tell the story, but saying the Pats didn't have the ball enough times in the last Super Bowl is complete horsesht. They had it four times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Truth in this. 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Let us also not forget that 80 yards, 57 seconds and a timeout remaining is not an unheard of situation to score a TD in the NFL (especially if you are in the running for "greatest QB of all time").

    [/QUOTE]

    How often has that happened in a SB when your receivers are STILL dropping passes?

    So, you're saying Brady isn't the GOAT because he couldn't get a TD with 57 seconds left to play in a SB?

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wozzy - points per drive - relevant or not relevant?

    [/QUOTE]


    Points for, points against, turnovers are really the only relevant stats, in that order of importance in football outside of wins.

    All other stats help tell the story, but saying the Pats didn't have the ball enough times in the last Super Bowl is complete horsesht. They had it four times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day.

    They still judge NFL games with points, as soon as they start giving victories for yards or time of possession let me know.

    [/QUOTE]


    And last year the O got more points out of their possessions than they did in winning SBs.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Spygate is meaningless to you? So you condone cheating in sports?You must if you are a pats fan?

    [/QUOTE]


    This thread isn't about spygate rube.

     

Share