Pete Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 As obnoxious as Pats fans they are nowhere as obnoxious as Cardinal/Pacer fans
RJsackedagain Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Using the mother of another man's children as the punchline to a putdown is rarely funny. It's even less funny when you couldn't pick the man out of a lineup. A word to the wise. 365019[/snapback] If your boy wants to run his mouth, than he has to accept the consequences.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 If your boy wants to run his mouth, than he has to accept the consequences. 365029[/snapback] The consequences being that he gets to watch you act like an immature ass? Jesus Christ, where do you people come up with this nonsense?
RJsackedagain Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The consequences being that he gets to watch you act like an immature ass? Jesus Christ, where do you people come up with this nonsense? 365032[/snapback] RIGHT, and Crap Throwing Monkey is a very mature name to have
OJ's Glove Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 You oughta do a little homework before second guessing me ;-) AFC Domination In fact, not only does the linked article support my numbers to the EXACT percentage, it further points out that the AFC domination was greater (or to use your phrase "more staggering") than AT ANY TIME DURING THE NFC PERIOD YOU REST YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT UPON! This surely does beg the question- ARE THE PATS THE WEAKEST SUPER BOWL CHAMPS EVER? Hey- Thanks for the tipoff on opposing conference strength! I never would have bothered considering that angle if you Patsy fans hadn't taken the losing side of the "Pat's Dynasty" argument and kept on arguing it even after it was clearly out of your reach! How interesting to find out that conference strength ALSO lends further support to the "weak champion" position. 364815[/snapback] YOU DON'T GET IT. Continually. The interconference records top to bottom don't mean anything. What matters is which conference holds the top teams in each era - the teams that have a chance to go to the Super Bowl. If you were power ranking teams during the time of NFC dominance in the 80's you would list AT LEAST four powerhouse NFC teams before you would come to the first AFC team. At least. There's a reason the NFC Champ was nearly always a double-digit favorite over the AFC whipping boy. Vegas isn't stupid, and the teams backed it up. In the 70's, the only team worth a damn in the NFC was Dallas, and they could never beat Pittsburgh. Miami, Pitt and Oakland were the class of the league. That's AFC dominance, and it don't matter one whit what teams at the bottom of the standings did against other also-rans in interconference play. Irrelevant. The NFC won THIRTEEN SUPER BOWLS IN A ROW. Use your head, please. That's dominance of one conference over another. That is clearly NOT what we have now, obvious to anyone with eyes that can see. Last year, you'll find plently of people willing to argue that Philly was truly the second best team in the league. You won't find anyone with a brain who would argue seriously that Denver, Buffalo, NE or Cincy were truly the league's second-best team when they became AFC Champions in the 80's and 90's Nobody. I'm sure you can grasp what I'm getting at. SB 25 was the exception that proves the rule. It was one of the few times the AFC team was favored to win, and they STILL couldn't do it. What does that tell you? It was only after the salary cap came in that Denver was finally able to beat Green Bay and end the logjam. But even since then, The Rams and Bucs managed to win Titles, and the Rams were overwhelming favorites to win two. The AFC hasn't dominated a damned thing since the cap started. They have more SB wins than the NFC since 97, but that's nowhere close to what conferences did in years past, and you know it. It's much more balanced. Super Bowls have been more competitive overall (not always) since the cap, and that is NOT a coincidence. Again, the most competitive teams are spread out more. They aren't all stuck in one conference. New England played the second-best team in football at least twice in their three SB wins (Rams and Eagles). The Cowboys of the 90's NEVER played the second best team in the Super Bowl. The Bills and Steelers were NOT better than the Niners and Packers. But you are trying to artificially give the Cowboys more credit for beating a second-rate team in the Super Bowl, when Belichick's Pats have never played a second-rate opponent in the Super Bowl. Again, the Cowboys played close games against their toughest opponents in the NFC playoffs, and so did every other NFC team that won Titles during that time. What I'm saying is so blatantly obvious, I'm convinced you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 RIGHT, and Crap Throwing Monkey is a very mature name to have 365045[/snapback] You toss a slur about screwing the mother of another dude's child and now you're trying to pretend you're more mature than someone else? Common sense is so fuggin' uncommon.
Mark VI Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Rainbow flag huh? .... Damn, your wife has no complaints when I stop over to "visit with her". I think she likes having a real man around for a change! 365003[/snapback] Last call, kill the lights.
Recommended Posts