More Tom Brady protection by the league

[MAJBobby]

51 minutes ago, Success said:

I could barely walk at 42, and I didn’t play football for 20 years.  

 

Not or sure how he pulls it off. I eat avocados, too.  

 

HGH

[Don Otreply]

45 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

In modern sports, when you see outstanding performance at an elevated age, all roads lead to performance enhancing drugs.

 

It's like when Barry Bonds was putting in some of his best batting seasons ever in the last several years of his career.  No way that can be done without PEDs.

 

I'd be shocked if Brady isn't doing something illegal to enhance his performance, particularly given the fact that he is an enormous competitor by nature...the sort who will take every advantage he can get.

 

He reminds me a lot of Lance Armstrong in many ways...another cheater who used PEDs and doped like fiend to gain every advantage he could.

 

The teams and riders Lance Armstrong competed against were all doping as well, it was like baseball during the homerun era everyone was doing HGH, EPO, among other PEDs. In my opinion Lance won on an even playing field. Sure he was a Ricardo Cabaza, he will admit to that himself,  he was made the scapegoat for the era. It was so bad that for many years there is no declared winner of the Tour de France.  Oh, and F K Tom Brady...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Don Otreply

[LABILLBACKER]

53 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

I mean seriously, who post crap that has already been posted elsewhere....

 

I think I am something like 0 for 20 on original news

Oh poor baby, did this annoy you.....Good!

[Stevie Ray]

Just now, LABILLBACKER said:

Oh poor baby, did this annoy you.....Good!

Yeah i dont get this, the other thread was talking about Giselle's weird rituals with Tom. What you posted is totally different. I guess we need to read every single page of that thread to know this topic was going to be in it???? ?

[WideNine]

3 hours ago, Stevie Ray said:

Yeah i dont get this, the other thread was talking about Giselle's weird rituals with Tom. What you posted is totally different. I guess we need to read every single page of that thread to know this topic was going to be in it???? ?

 

No worries...it's a fan board not a test.

 

The mods try to keep it clean and threads on topic. Some folks get their undees in a bunch, but there is this cool "ignore" feature.

 

It's like "haters be gone" spray.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by WideNine

[Rocket94]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

 

Heck, if he played in 80s/90s he’d have finished long before 20 years.  Bruce, Jason Taylor, Sack Exchange, etc.  would have crushed him.

 

 

Brady would be toast!

[The Dean]

2 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Seems like I read this somewhere recently

 

 

It might be nice is someone criticising the OP provided a link to the thread where this is already being discussed. Not obvious at all from the titles of the recent threads. Also some things are a bit hard to search for. I'm a pretty good Google master, and I'm having trouble thinking of search terms that would give me good results and not be completely muddled with unrelated threads that mention Brady, protection. Best I could  think of was "stay off tom" (quotes included.) That search yielded zero results.

Edited September 21, 2019 by The Dean

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

in

Do you get alerts when someone criticizes the Pats so you can react so quickly?

[Another Fan]

I remember watching the pre-season game with the Lions.  On the "interception" Josh threw one of the Lions got called for imo a B.S. roughing the passer penalty for lightly pushing him after throwing the ball.  My first thought after that was: Brady is getting older so there's more and more rules to protect the QB.

 

I mean I know as a Bills fan it's easy for me to be jaded/skewed/etc...   But the article the OP posted shows I'm not crazy!!  Well when it comes to football anyway ?

And props to McMillian for speaking up 

[LABILLBACKER]

47 minutes ago, The Dean said:

 

 

It might be nice is someone criticising the OP provided a link to the thread where this is already being discussed. Not obvious at all from the titles of the recent threads. Also some things are a bit hard to search for. I'm a pretty good Google master, and I'm having trouble thinking of search terms that would give me good results and not be completely muddled with unrelated threads that mention Brady, protection. Best I could  think of was "stay off tom" (quotes included.) That search yielded zero results.

Thats because wide nine just assumed this thread was the same as the Giselle thread. Maybe he should buy some "spay" for being lazy.....millennials, they're so adorable...

[formerlyofCtown]

1 hour ago, The Dean said:

 

 

It might be nice is someone criticising the OP provided a link to the thread where this is already being discussed. Not obvious at all from the titles of the recent threads. Also some things are a bit hard to search for. I'm a pretty good Google master, and I'm having trouble thinking of search terms that would give me good results and not be completely muddled with unrelated threads that mention Brady, protection. Best I could  think of was "stay off tom" (quotes included.) That search yielded zero results.

Oh maybe you should quote everyone else that did the same.  Its the OPs job to use the search function not mine.

But hey maybe you could have provided the link snowflake.

 

You should try "Can not hit Tom Brady period"

Edited September 22, 2019 by formerlyofCtown

[The Dean]

23 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Oh maybe you should quote everyone else that did the same.  Its the OPs job to use the search function not mine.

But hey maybe you could have provided the link snowflake.

 

You should try "Can not hit Tom Brady period"

 

 

I wasn't picking you out in particular, though it may have seemed like that. And I would have GLADLY provided the link, had I found one.  Not sure how any of that can be considered "snowflake" in any way whatsoever.

 

Just a courtesy I always try to extend, not only for the OP,  but also to us innocent bystanders who happened upon the scene. So far, many have commented this was a topic already being discussed. If there is, I haven't found it.

[1ManRaid]

2 minutes ago, The Dean said:

 

 

I wasn't picking you out in particular, though it may have seemed like that. And I would have GLADLY provided the link, had I found one.  Not sure how any of that can be considered "snowflake" in any way whatsoever.

 

Just a courtesy I always try to extend, not only for the OP,  but also to us innocent bystanders who happened upon the scene. So far, many have commented this was a topic already being discussed. If there is, I haven't found it.

Yeah I didn't see THIS topic being discussed.  Noticed there is a bit of a double standard on who gets given crap for topics that have even a tertiary relation to something else being discussed.

[LABILLBACKER]

I searched and found nothing. But there it is under "vague title". I was wrong and I apologize to wide nine and anyone else. This is why I rarely post.  There's always 20 guys who have the story first. 1000 lashes.....

[Tatonka68]

Hopefully the Jets "take care" of him.

[Mr. WEO]

4 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Do you get alerts when someone criticizes the Pats so you can react so quickly?

 

Is your owner named Pavlov?

[Richard Noggin]

This is the narrative that upsets my already tenuous equilibrium: a privileged, cheating, protected athlete receiving additional, informal, untraceable protections beyond the scope of league-wide rules. 

 

The Tuck Rule was retroactively created to justify Brady's horribly botched AFC Championship fumble ruling.

 

The silly below-the-knee restriction for QB protection was enacted following Brady's only major injury.

 

He is allowed to turf the ball--and therefore avoid negative outcomes/real-world consequences--without penalty any time the called play is effectively disrupted by the defense. No other professional, proficient, otherwise precise NFL QB enjoys such freedoms, to suddenly be bad enough at throwing a football that it bounces roughly five yards from the feet of a nearby receiver when the pass rushers are closing in. 

 

One needs not venture beyond the football field to find the ammunition necessary for a proper, justified Brady-bashing. He is Dan Marino x10.

[1ManRaid]

3 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

This is the narrative that upsets my already tenuous equilibrium: a privileged, cheating, protected athlete receiving additional, informal, untraceable protections beyond the scope of league-wide rules. 

 

The Tuck Rule was retroactively created to justify Brady's horribly botched AFC Championship fumble ruling.

 

The silly below-the-knee restriction for QB protection was enacted following Brady's only major injury.

 

He is allowed to turf the ball--and therefore avoid negative outcomes/real-world consequences--without penalty any time the called play is effectively disrupted by the defense. No other professional, proficient, otherwise precise NFL QB enjoys such freedoms, to suddenly be bad enough at throwing a football that it bounces roughly five yards from the feet of a nearby receiver when the pass rushers are closing in. 

 

One needs not venture beyond the football field to find the ammunition necessary for a proper, justified Brady-bashing. He is Dan Marino x10.

What the hell do you mean the Tuck Rule was "retroactively created" to justify helping Brady?  The first application of the rule was AGAINST the Patriots earlier that year in a game against the Jets, before Brady became the starter.  It was actually the game Bledsoe got injured in that led to Brady becoming the starter in the first place.  Brady was just some nobody backup at the time the Tuck Rule came into being so it couldn't have been created to help him.

 

Patriots head coach Bill Belichick referred to this game after the subsequent Tuck Rule Game, telling ESPN, "I knew what the ruling should have been because we had dealt with that play a little bit earlier in the year on the other side of it."

[formerlyofCtown]

9 hours ago, The Dean said:

 

 

I wasn't picking you out in particular, though it may have seemed like that. And I would have GLADLY provided the link, had I found one.  Not sure how any of that can be considered "snowflake" in any way whatsoever.

 

Just a courtesy I always try to extend, not only for the OP,  but also to us innocent bystanders who happened upon the scene. So far, many have commented this was a topic already being discussed. If there is, I haven't found it.

I gave you the title.

[dollars 2 donuts]

13 hours ago, 1st&ten said:

 

It's called Human Growth Hormones---the wonder of modern science---only available to the very rich.

 

 

It’s called The Super Mighty Pack —- it is about $10 and I do some nice human growth after one of those...and nachos.