Prickly Pete Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 Interesting quote from Jim Kelly: “Oh, there’s no doubt,” Kelly said. “There’s no way that an equipment manager in the National Football League is going to do something to the football without the greatest quarterback ever to play knowing." Thanks.
TheFunPolice Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 I absolutely hate the Patriots, to the point where when I see the grey and the blue towels next to each other on the hooks in the bathroom it bugs me. lol.. Just kidding, kind of. But at the end of the day they have the trophies, so that's all that matters. I look forward to the day when the Bills and Sabres are hated for their successes and titles. It doesn't really happen much in the NHL so the Sabres might just be respected but if/when the Bills become a powerhouse there will be plenty of hate and I won't give two craps what anyone thinks. Put some trophies in the case and let people debate all they want.
Prickly Pete Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 I absolutely hate the Patriots, to the point where when I see the grey and the blue towels next to each other on the hooks in the bathroom it bugs me. lol.. Just kidding, kind of. But at the end of the day they have the trophies, so that's all that matters. I look forward to the day when the Bills and Sabres are hated for their successes and titles. It doesn't really happen much in the NHL so the Sabres might just be respected but if/when the Bills become a powerhouse there will be plenty of hate and I won't give two craps what anyone thinks. Put some trophies in the case and let people debate all they want. This is exactly how I feel.
LOVEMESOMEBILLS Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 Interesting quote from Jim Kelly: “Oh, there’s no doubt,” Kelly said. “There’s no way that an equipment manager in the National Football League is going to do something to the football without the greatest quarterback ever to play knowing." Thanks. So Kelly is saying without a doubt Br*dy* cheated. Thanks.
Prickly Pete Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 So Kelly is saying without a doubt Br*dy* cheated. Thanks. Yep...He also referred to him as "the greatest QB ever to play" You're welcome.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 30, 2015 Posted May 30, 2015 So Kelly is saying without a doubt Br*dy* cheated. Thanks. EGGZACTLY greatest who needed to cheat to be called so. take 2 titles away from cheating to get there and Tom* is just another "good" QB like that Grocery Guy
Prickly Pete Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 This seems like a good spot for this link.... http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/joe-montana--deflate-gate--no-big-deal---his-49ers-used-illegal-silicone-155630060.html
K-9 Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 This seems like a good spot for this link.... http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/joe-montana--deflate-gate--no-big-deal---his-49ers-used-illegal-silicone-155630060.html We all understand Montana's point; that all teams have been skirting silly rules to gain an advantage since it all began. Brady is not in trouble for attempting to skirt a silly rule. He is in trouble for refusing to cooperate in a league investigation. Only strict Pats** apologists would suggest that the league rule mandating cooperation in league investigations is silly. I wonder why. GO BILLS!!!
Prickly Pete Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 We all understand Montana's point; that all teams have been skirting silly rules to gain an advantage since it all began. Brady is not in trouble for attempting to skirt a silly rule. He is in trouble for refusing to cooperate in a league investigation. Only strict Pats** apologists would suggest that the league rule mandating cooperation in league investigations is silly. I wonder why. GO BILLS!!! Then the San Diego Chargers case is similar, huh? That was disputed on this board. And if it's only about not cooperating, is it really an offense that should warrant stripping them of titles and other such nonsense? I'm no apologist, and I never suggested that "the league rule mandating cooperation in league investigations is silly". I wonder why you would suggest that I DID suggest it?
K-9 Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Then the San Diego Chargers case is similar, huh? That was disputed on this board. And if it's only about not cooperating, is it really an offense that should warrant stripping them of titles and other such nonsense? I'm no apologist, and I never suggested that "the league rule mandating cooperation in league investigations is silly". I wonder why you would suggest that I DID suggest it? Any talk of stripping titles is stupid, plain and simple. The apologist in question is the author of the article you linked, not you, necessarily. It's not about deflated footballs and never was. The author's insistence that Brady is being punished for that sounds like the same lament of Pats** fans everywhere. And trotting out Joe Montana to trumpet the tired " everybody does it" mantra is irresponsible. Everybody certainly does NOT refuse the league rule to cooperate in investigations. Not even Joe Montana. As to the rest of it, that's just your conscience getting to you. GO BILLS!!! Edited June 8, 2015 by K-9
Prickly Pete Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Any talk of stripping titles is stupid, plain and simple. The apologist in question is the author of the article you linked, not you, necessarily. It's not about deflated footballs and never was. The author's insistence that Brady is being punished for that sounds like the same lament of Pats** fans everywhere. And trotting out Joe Montana to trumpet the tired " everybody does it" mantra is irresponsible. Everybody certainly does NOT refuse the league rule to cooperate in investigations. Not even Joe Montana. As to the rest of it, that's just your conscience getting to you. GO BILLS!!! The problem with the arguments on this board is that there are crossed up opinions and arguments. You refute one argument, and someone else comes at you with something else entirely different. I respond to the people that think the Super Bowl wins are tarnished (That's the stance of MANY here). I don't see why non-compliance should affect their "legacy"...but I'm pretty sure someone here is going to come up with a silly reason why it should. I am fine with the penalties that have been meted out. They deserve that. Edited June 8, 2015 by HoF Watkins
Deranged Rhino Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 The problem with the arguments on this board is that there are crossed up opinions and arguments. You refute one argument, and someone else comes at you with something else entirely different. I respond to the people that think the Super Bowl wins are tarnished (That's the stance of MANY here). I don't see why non-compliance should affect their "legacy"...but I'm pretty sure someone here is going to come up with a silly reason why it should.
K-9 Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 The problem with the arguments on this board is that there are crossed up opinions and arguments. You refute one argument, and someone else comes at you with something else entirely different. I respond to the people that think the Super Bowl wins are tarnished (That's the stance of MANY here). I don't see why non-compliance should affect their "legacy"...but I'm pretty sure someone here is going to come up with a silly reason why it should. I am fine with the penalties that have been meted out. They deserve that. What argument were you refuting by posting the link to the article I responded to? GO BILLS!!!
Prickly Pete Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 What argument were you refuting by posting the link to the article I responded to? GO BILLS!!! Read the thread.
K-9 Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Read the thread. I find this intellectually dishonest. My question was easy enough as it pertained to a specific post with a specific link to a specific article. Instead of putting the onus on me to read the thread, you should simply be able to answer the question: what argument were you refuting by linking that specific article? GO BILLS!!!
Prickly Pete Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) I find this intellectually dishonest. My question was easy enough as it pertained to a specific post with a specific link to a specific article. Instead of putting the onus on me to read the thread, you should simply be able to answer the question: what argument were you refuting by linking that specific article? GO BILLS!!! I think my points are clear. I'm done walking people through every angle (each person!), and trying to counter every disingenuous attack (again, repeatedly)...it would take days. Figure it out for yourself. Edited June 9, 2015 by HoF Watkins
K-9 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 I think my points are clear. I'm done walking people through every angle (each person!), and trying to counter every disingenuous attack (again, repeatedly)...it would take days. Figure it out for yourself. Bold 1 - perhaps that's for the best. Bold 2- I think I already have. Disingenuous is a good word to use when one chooses not to answer a simple direct question pertaining to one post in a thread and instead suggests you should read the whole thread. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts