AKC Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 In the end, the question asked is "how many championships did you win", not 'how much did you win them by'? 364382[/snapback] Sorry to interrupt your turnip dig but the actual question was whether the Pats could be considered even the lesser title a "dominant" champion or even if that did they reach the level of "Dynasty"? But don't let a few tugs on that bottle of Old Spice keep you from your regular fiddling with the altar boys at service tonight ;-)
PancakeBlock Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 From among the 15 times that NFL teams have won consecutive championships I challenge you to identify any of those teams with LESS convincing back to back wins than the two 3-point squeakers the Pats eked out in '04 and '05. tick.... tick...... tick..... tick...... 362463[/snapback] From among the 15 times that NFL teams have won consecutive championships I challenge you to identify any of those teams with a better record than the New England Patriots over those consecutive years and one that had a winning streak of 21 games. tick.... tick...... tick..... tick......
AKC Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 From among the 15 times that NFL teams have won consecutive championships I challenge you to identify any of those teams with a better record than the New England Patriots over those consecutive years and one that had a winning streak of 21 games. tick.... tick...... tick..... tick...... 364524[/snapback] I see no reason for you to be embarassed by the fact that your team has been unable to exhibit dominance over anyone in a championship game. But it is a simple fact. Thanks for making your first post as in insect with us- now back to the question on the table- Cite for us JUST ONE of the teams who have consecutive championship wins that were less convincing than the Patriots 3 point "kicker" victories. Once we have your answer we'll be able to consider the basis for your additional inquiry. In the meantime see how long you can balance that cone-shaped cap on your head!
PancakeBlock Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Your first post! And with that you've rudely interrupted a conversation about whether the Patriots deserve either a designation of "dominant" or "Dynastic". So we'll wait for you to enter the conversation based upon the facts at hand- Cite for us JUST ONE of the teams who have consecutive championship wins that were less convincing than the Patriots 3 point victories. Once we have your answer we'll be able to consider the basis for your additional inquiry. 364540[/snapback] Surely dominance should be based on wins? I'm afraid to say the amount of points you win by means zilch in the NFL so I'm not quite sure how point differential is relevant. But since you seem stuck on this mentality what would be your assessment of the Pats holding the league's best offense to 3 pts and then following up the next week by scoring 41 pts on the league's best defense?
PancakeBlock Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 I see no reason for you to be embarassed by the fact that your team has been unable to exhibit dominance over anyone in a championship game. I'd say they showed a consistent dominance with a 34-4 record over the last two years, which is more impressive than dominating a team in one game, no?
AKC Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 what would be your assessment of the Pats holding the league's best offense to 3 pts and then following up the next week by scoring 41 pts on the league's best defense? 364548[/snapback] I don't see that as any more impressive than the Titans putting up 48 against the Packers in week 5, because after all the subject we're talking about is championship games ;-) You bandwagoneers are so stuck on believing your team is something they're not that you can't process the fact that they've dominated no one in the big game, unlike the teams in NFL history considered by all rational fans of the game as dominant. You've tried to argue your losing position under three different names today and the result is the same- you're simply wrong to try to pass off the Pats as a "dominant" champion, and if you're not a dominant champion it takes an awful lot of spelled glue tubes to make the jump from "non-dominant champion" to "Dynasty".
PancakeBlock Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 I don't see that as any more impressive than the Titans putting up 48 against the Packers in week 5, because after all the subject we're talking about is championship games ;-) You bandwagoneers are so stuck on believing your team is something they're not that you can't process the fact that they've dominated no one in the big game, unlike the teams in NFL history considered by all rational fans of the game as dominant. You've tried to argue your losing position under three different names today and the result is the same- you're simply wrong to try to pass off the Pats as a "dominant" champion, and if you're not a dominant champion it takes an awful lot of spelled glue tubes to make the jump from "non-dominant champion" to "Dynasty". 364556[/snapback] So you don't see a difference between putting up 48 points against a weak packers defense in week 5 then putting up 41 pts on the top ranked defense in the NFL, in their house, for the chance to go to the Superbowl? Oh dear. By the way, that was a championship game. It's obivous you can't handle the Pats success, but I recommend you deal with it. I haven't argued under any different name, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
erynthered Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Sorry to interrupt your turnip dig but the actual question was whether the Pats could be considered even the lesser title a "dominant" champion or even if that did they reach the level of "Dynasty"? But don't let a few tugs on that bottle of Old Spice keep you from your regular fiddling with the altar boys at service tonight ;-) 364429[/snapback] You're killin me, !@#$!!
AKC Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 I haven't argued under any different name, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's obivous you can't handle the Pats success 364584[/snapback] Well Sybil, your other personalities have been less embraceful of the AFC championship game as a measure of anything- in fact the 4 the Bills won in a row have been laughed off as no accomplishment at all by your other screen names in this very string- so no, I'm hardly feeling munificent enough to grant praise on pulling off a two-score win two weeks prior to the big game; your Pats still have never won a championship by more than the gayly stockinged little toe of your kicker's foot. Now on the other hand I'll have to concede to you anything "obivous" since among the 5 languages I speak fluently you've discovered a word I'm unfamiliar with. Perhaps you'd care to explain it to all of us?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Hey EryRetard why cant you just leave me out of your posts or mind? I stoped responding to you in that other thread. Why cant you just drop it? You in love with me or something? God damn man stop mentioning my name! 362966[/snapback] "EryRetard"? What the !@#$ is wrong with you?
Ghost of BiB Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 "EryRetard"? What the !@#$ is wrong with you? 364730[/snapback] Touchy, isn't he?
Alaska Darin Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Touchy, isn't he? 364732[/snapback] Nah, it's everyone else's problem.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Nah, it's everyone else's problem. 364735[/snapback] Remember when people like that used to get beat up a lot? Just because? Times were simpler then.
RJsackedagain Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Nah, but most of them are douche bags. 363844[/snapback] There's an intelligent statement
Alaska Darin Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 There's an intelligent statement 364754[/snapback] As opposed to your very high brow "put down the crack pipe" reset?
RJsackedagain Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 As opposed to your very high brow "put down the crack pipe" reset? 364757[/snapback] his comments were rambling babble .... I figured I was doing him a favor by assuming he was on crack when he wrote it
Alaska Darin Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 his comments were rambling babble .... I figured I was doing him a favor by assuming he was on crack when he wrote it 364759[/snapback] First, it's totally MY job to rip Eryn for his spelling and grammar. I've been doing it for years. He's actually light years ahead of where he used to be - as hard to believe as that may be. Second, I know Eryn. Crack would improve his typing. He's not exactly a cunning linguist.
RJsackedagain Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 First, it's totally MY job to rip Eryn for his spelling and grammar. I've been doing it for years. He's actually light years ahead of where he used to be - as hard to believe as that may be. Second, I know Eryn. Crack would improve his typing. He's not exactly a cunning linguist. 364763[/snapback] Wow, I didn't realize that Eryn was really Buffalo News scrub Bucky Gleason
PancakeBlock Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Now on the other hand I'll have to concede to you anything "obivous" since among the 5 languages I speak fluently you've discovered a word I'm unfamiliar with. Perhaps you'd care to explain it to all of us? 364710[/snapback] Think about it, I'm sure you can figure it out if you try harder.
PancakeBlock Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 your Pats still have never won a championship by more than the gayly stockinged little toe of your kicker's foot. Why is that a bad thing? There's no better feeling than winning at the last second, maybe one day you'll experience it as a Bills fan. A win is a win, the manner in which the Pats have won the last two years shows how clutch they are when it matters most.
Recommended Posts