NoSaint Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Classic example- There was a flag thrown at the end of the hit - what was the penalty
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 There was a flag thrown at the end of the hit - what was the penalty 15 yard penalty and $3000 fine. no suspension or ejection.
Mr. WEO Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 QB's of this era are far more protected than ones playing several decades ago. This is undeniable. Sacks are only a part of the story, as QB's playing several decades ago would take loads hits after getting rid of the ball. Again, all of those QBs would disagree. All took a brutal beating in their day. Hits after the ball is out is as pervasive a part of the game as ever. Anyone who watches football can see this. Throwing flags has changed nothing. It is undeniable that there is much more passing and therefore more hits than "decades ago". Kelly never took the beating Warner or Favre did. To claim otherwise is more doc revisionist history.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 exactly!!! now go make this thread about the quarterbacks that have won championships since the patriots were penalized by the league for cheating and had draft picks taken away. someone highlight the parts of this next paragraph that are untrue. the new england patriots were a terrible football team for the majority of their existence. aside from a super bowl appearance against the bears in the 80s, and the packers in the 90s, they were of little note in the nfl landscape. their stadium was frequently not at capacity, and in fact, they almost relocated. at the early part of this millenium, they rode an unheralded quarterback to a string of 3 super bowl victories in 4 years. teams they played at the time have since commented on the uncanny ability of the patriots to stymie their offenses, and seemingly know what was coming their way on defense. in fact, the st. louis rams of 2001/2002 were one of the most prolific offenses of all time, defending super bowl champions, and looked to be a sure thing to repeat as league champions. they were, however, held to only 17 points, after averaging over 32 points a game for the season, and 37 in the playoffs. So I guess that means the Giants cheated too because the Pats were the highest scoring team of all time and undefeated but only scored 17 points in the the SB against them...lol at that logic
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 So I guess that means the Giants cheated too because the Pats were the highest scoring team of all time and undefeated but only scored 17 points in the the SB against them...lol at that logic Forget it. There is a underlying thought process here that the Bills would be successful if the Pats didn't cheat. One question I have asked on the 3-4 pats are cheaters a week (or day?) threads that show up here is why, since I started watching NFL in the early 70's coach's always cover there mouths with a play book? Is it possible this has always been wide spread and the pats happened to get caught? I never got a answer to that question.
Mark Vader Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw were both 4-0 in Super Bowls. Just saying. I'd also like to add that a Super Bowl win comes from a team effort. One player alone does not win a Super Bowl. Montana & Bradshaw were very good/great QB's, but I'm sure they appreciated the team they had around them.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) Forget it. There is a underlying thought process here that the Bills would be successful if the Pats didn't cheat. One question I have asked on the 3-4 pats are cheaters a week (or day?) threads that show up here is why, since I started watching NFL in the early 70's coach's always cover there mouths with a play book? Is it possible this has always been wide spread and the pats happened to get caught? I never got a answer to that question. Let's see the evidence the league had... Oh, wait... They destroyed it! And yes, the Bills would have still sucked if the Pats* didn't cheat... Where the heck do you come up with your BS theories. The only time the Bills did NOT suck was on opening day 2003, when the Bills cheated better than the Pats* and picked Lawyer Malloy's brain... Pats* got revenge by the same exact score on the last week of the season. Both teams even Steven, NE comes out a head by a mile each team. Only way Bills can win during that era is if they cheat better... Straight up they are losers. So give it a rest.. The Bills would have equally have sucked through the years. This stuff has been going on for years, just not to the blantant ends the Pats* took... Back in the late 1940's the epic game between Notre Dame and Army (1946: ended 0-0 tie)... Notre dame would make sure nobody was in the trees during practice. Also, when planes flew over, they ran conservative plays... Never know if that sneaky Army Air Corps was spying! Back to the evidence... Why the need to destroy? What method was going on? There was also reports of communication links being hacked or disrupted. There is a underlying issue here, NE was using extreme measures to get an unfair advantage and win razor thin Super Bowls... They will forever be tainted and the Bills still would have sucked (sans opening day 2003) during this era when hacking the other team was rampant by the Pats*. Edited January 17, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) The truly sad part about Belicheat and his Pats* is they didn't even have to cheat against BFLO... They probably didn't! Bills on the other hand HAD to cheat... Or they don't pick up that 2003 opening day win! Sad, truly sad... Edited January 17, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois
thewildrabbit Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 What Tom Brady and other QB's like him prove is, its not only about the physical ability. Its also about having a burning desire to win, and the ability to make the win happen.
ganesh Posted January 17, 2013 Author Posted January 17, 2013 What Tom Brady and other QB's like him prove is, its not only about the physical ability. Its also about having a burning desire to win, and the ability to make the win happen. And I am yet to see that desire to win in Buffalo since Flutie was booted out of Orchard Park. I still remember the Joy in Bruce Smiths face, when Flutie ran and jump/hugged into the arms of Bruce Smith after a victory (I think it was the win against Jacksonville).
Kemp Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) when the patriots were cheating, and brady knew what defenses he was going up against, he won 3 super bowls (barely). since then--and if you look at brady's career in a vacuum that exists entirely post spygate--he is a very good quarterback who is routinely beaten by eli manning in the biggest of games, and puts up guady numbers because of the offensive system the patriots run. the patriots have proved over the last decade (since winning their last super bowl,) that they are paper tigers. unfortunately, their super bowl wins will never be vacated, because the league does not want to tarnish the brand that is THE SUPER BOWL. however, as fans, we have the power to know the truth. eli and big ben have both won multiple to superbowls since brady has won one without the team cheating. mods should delete this thread for that reason alone, as i feel that clearly makes them better quarterbacks than brady--hell, manning beat brady to win both of his super bowls. What an inane post. Brady is two huge plays by the Giants away from two more Super Bowls. The team is in play every year during a cap era. Their receivers have been less than average. I have been a Bills fan since before any Super Bowls. Two things are indisputable facts. 1. Brady is an all time great. 2. More importantly, Belichick is probably the best coach or manager I have ever seen in sports. Bitter partisans looking to lance them only make themselves look ignorant and bitter. Edited January 17, 2013 by Kemp
filthymcnasty08 Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) What an inane post. Brady is two huge plays by the Giants away from two more Super Bowls. The team is in play every year during a cap era. Their receivers have been less than average. I have been a Bills fan since before any Super Bowls. Two thinygs are indisputable facts. 1. Brady is an all time great. 2. More importantly, Belichick is probably the best coach or manager I have ever seen in sports. Bitter partisans looking to lance them only make themselves look ignorant an bitter. Caught Cheating.....League (Comissioner) ordered the evidence destroyed. sorry, calling people ignorant/bitter for stating this fact, is ridiculous. Maybe they have stopped cheating since 07, don't care....they were cheating in all of their (winning) SB years. That's a fact. That should be a part of every last conversation of the Pats historical greatness. Otherwise it's a biased conversation. Edited January 17, 2013 by filthymcnasty08
Kemp Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Caught Cheating.....League (Comissioner) ordered the evidence destroyed. sorry, calling people ignorant/bitter for stating this fact, is ridiculous. Maybe they have stopped cheating since 07, don't care....they were cheating in all of their (winning) SB years. That's a fact. That should be a part of every last conversation of the Pats historical greatness. Otherwise it's a biased conversation. How do you know they cheated in all those years? How do you know other teams were not doing the same? Using your logic, none of the big stars in baseball used PEDs, because it has never been proved. How do you explain the Pats continuing to dominate since the incident? Do you dismiss the Super Bowls of the Steelers because of their rampant steroid abuse? Do you dismiss all the earlier Super Bowl results because of steroids? I believe the first known use of steroids goes back 50 years. I think it was SD that first used it in an AFC championship. Do you dismiss all the use of speed that played a role in baseball and football teams winning? I stand firmly behind my two earlier assertions. Funny that if it had been the Bills that your view on all this would skew 180 degrees.
filthymcnasty08 Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) How do you know they cheated in all those years? How do you know other teams were not doing the same? Using your logic, none of the big stars in baseball used PEDs, because it has never been proved. How do you explain the Pats continuing to dominate since the incident? Do you dismiss the Super Bowls of the Steelers because of their rampant steroid abuse? Do you dismiss all the earlier Super Bowl results because of steroids? I believe the first known use of steroids goes back 50 years. I think it was SD that first used it in an AFC championship. Do you dismiss all the use of speed that played a role in baseball and football teams winning? I stand firmly behind my two earlier assertions. Funny that if it had been the Bills that your view on all this would skew 180 degrees. They were caught red handed. Because other teams were not caught red handed. This is not Baseball, it's a football conversation. Dominate? They have not won a SB since. Again, this is a conversation about the Pats and using technology to spy on opponents, steroids are another discussion but it is widely agreed that all teams have players that use. The Pats to this day are the only team in history caught spying on their opponents - red handed. Again, steroids are not in this conversation.....thats wonderful that they've been used for 50 years. Using technology to spy on your opponents and getting caught red-handed,, then having the league bury the evidence....is a new concept as of 2007 Again, not talking about Baseball....over and over with the same ad hominem attack.......is that you Bellicheck? Great that you stand firm - makes not a sh-ts worth of difference in a realistic discussion based around facts....bot baseball. Not really, we're all pretty realistic around here about OJ. If we stooped to such a low grade level to gain an edge, then succeeded from it......at least to me, it would feel a little dirty. I would rather win straight up. Is this an MLB board? Edited January 17, 2013 by filthymcnasty08
Pneumonic Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) They were caught red handed. Again, this is a conversation about the Pats and using technology to spy on opponents, steroids are another discussion but it is widely agreed that all teams have players that use. The Pats to this day are the only team in history caught spying on their opponents - red handed. Tell me .... had the Pats spied on teams from afar (as all other teams do), instead of up close (as they did do), would you still consider them cheats? Edited January 17, 2013 by Pneumonic
Dibs Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Dominate? They have not won a SB since. I hate them but how can you think they have not been dominant? They have won more games since than any other NFL team. They are a perennial SB contender and have been to two. Not dominant lol.
....lybob Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Brady and Manning are both hall of fame QBs but if you can hit them pretty good 3-4 times early their effectiveness goes way down- of course not many teams have the players and schemes to do that.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Forget it. There is a underlying thought process here that the Bills would be successful if the Pats didn't cheat. One question I have asked on the 3-4 pats are cheaters a week (or day?) threads that show up here is why, since I started watching NFL in the early 70's coach's always cover there mouths with a play book? Is it possible this has always been wide spread and the pats happened to get caught? I never got a answer to that question. Exactly...anyone who thinks that this wasn't being done by other teams is fooling themselves. Pats got caught, and it was made public. Just like the Saints have not been the only bounty program...they got caught simple as that. I find it interesting that none of the teams the Pats beat ever suggested cheating or that the Pats knew what they were doing out on the field until the information leaked. Now they all want to say "Well thats why we lost" as an excuse. I don't buy it. If they felt this way, then someone would have at least said some comments about how hard it was to beat them because it was like they knew our plays. And to further comment on that posters silly comment about how high powered the Rams were and that its fishy they only scored 17 points...Not only did the highest scoring offense of all time (Pats) put up the same 17 points against the Giants, but our very own Bills were the most dangerous offense in the NFL and heavily favored against the Giants also scored just 19 points in our loss. BB was the DC then too, so maybe BB just is a pretty damn good coach who knows who to scheme against good teams?
Doc Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) Again, all of those QBs would disagree. All took a brutal beating in their day. Hits after the ball is out is as pervasive a part of the game as ever. Anyone who watches football can see this. Throwing flags has changed nothing. It is undeniable that there is much more passing and therefore more hits than "decades ago". Kelly never took the beating Warner or Favre did. To claim otherwise is more doc revisionist history. Sure QB's still get injured. It's a contact sport for crying out loud and one bad hit can knock someone out. Some guys like Vick and Roeth expose themselves to more sacks and hits. Others like Warner are relatively undersized. That's why I'm skeptical about Wilson's long-term prospects playing QB. And I'm not sure why you're talking about Favre, considering he owns the ironman record for QB starts, one that will never be broken. But the fact that no one can argue, even though some may try, is that QB's are far more protected than ever before. Now defenders need to think twice before hitting a QB for fear of being flagged. And as a result, they're passing more than before. Again merely talking about sacks is simplistic. The hits QB's used to take were hellacious. To claim otherwise tells me you didn't watch much football back in the day. Edited January 17, 2013 by Doc
Doc Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Exactly...anyone who thinks that this wasn't being done by other teams is fooling themselves. Pats got caught, and it was made public. If you are caught doing something illegally and you know others are doing it as well, what do you do/what do the authorities suggest you do? Rat on others in exchange for leniency.
Recommended Posts