Left Overture Posted November 2, 2005 Posted November 2, 2005 100" screen with HD -- it hit the ground and I could see the blades of grass moving from it. Ok, I exaggerate about the grass, but it definately hit the ground. CW 492894[/snapback] I know how it sounds, but I love my new TV. By the time the wife got home from out of town, it was too late. I had the surround sound installed, the wires run, and my golden calf setup in my living room. She still gives me grief. 100 in... I would have to put an addition on the house - hehehehe!
Left Overture Posted November 2, 2005 Posted November 2, 2005 I watched the game in super-triple HD projected on a 50 foot side of the Empire State Building and I saw Joe Theismann's nose hairs, while three women brought me drinks and massaged my feet. In case you didn't catch the sarcasm, the HD screen-size bravado here is getting to be a little ridiculous. 493036[/snapback] oh yeah??? They started it
AKC Posted November 2, 2005 Posted November 2, 2005 *sigh* The catch that wasn't. Sometimes life just isn't fair. 491399[/snapback] You're ignoring the silver lining- The Pats, a team who has regularly ridden the Zebras in the recent past to stave off elimination in the playoffs have reached a new low- needing the referees to help them eke out a home win against a divisional lackey who will likely be picking among the top 8 come draft day. Hope they sold a lot of jerseys during the run- history shows their fan base won't be too hot for their gear for the next 50 or so years.
ATBNG Posted November 2, 2005 Posted November 2, 2005 Hope they sold a lot of jerseys during the run- history shows their fan base won't be too hot for their gear for the next 50 or so years. 493666[/snapback] I would say that there is a 99% chance that the Patriots will sell out every home game they have in the next fifty years as they have for the last 12. 50,000+ fans are on the season tickets waiting list, which you have to pay $50 to join. For the rest of the public, you have about 45 minutes each year to buy the leftover tickets on a Saturday morning toa game or two, so better be sure not to miss it. History is utterly irrelevant.
The Dean Posted November 2, 2005 Posted November 2, 2005 There just wasn't a good enough view of the ball to get the conclusive eveidence needed to overturn a call made on the field. If it had been called incomplete on the field, there wouldn't have been enough evidence to overturn that either. 491319[/snapback] Although I'm certain the ball hit the ground, I knew that, given the views we had, the call would not be reversed. And, had they ruled it incomplete, there was not evidence to overturn that either. BUT don't ask me to BELIEVE they wouldn't have overturned it if the call had gone against NE in NE. I CAN NOT and WILL NOT believe that. I have too much evidence to the contrary...and that was before the Bruschi (We're not worthy!) bash.
Orton's Arm Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 You're ignoring the silver lining- The Pats, a team who has regularly ridden the Zebras in the recent past to stave off elimination in the playoffs have reached a new low- needing the referees to help them eke out a home win against a divisional lackey who will likely be picking among the top 8 come draft day. 493666[/snapback] Excellent post. It's nice for the NFL to get a break from the Pats' domination.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 Excellent post. It's nice for the NFL to get a break from the Pats' domination. It's even nicer to see the Pats get a break from their former domination. It will probably be a LONG break, at that. Oh wait, I just jinxed that. The Pats will now win every SB until Brady and Bellichick depart the Pats.
AKC Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 It's nice for the NFL to get a break from the Pats' domination. 494243[/snapback] The Pats dominated no one and nothing. They were in fact the least dominant champion of the Super Bowl era, playing against the weakest NFC in well over a decade while living by the 3-point win of their kicker's toe in each championship game and also many of the critical games along the way. Dominance is on display with regularity in the NFL. You'd want to tune into the next MNF broadcast to establish a measure for what dominance is all about.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 The Pats dominated no one and nothing. Try telling that to the teams that lost 34 games to them in '03-'04.
justnzane Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 Try telling that to the teams that lost 34 games to them in '03-'04. 494309[/snapback] they definitely didn't dominate crap this year... even on sunday the looked like a bad team
AKC Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 Try telling that to the teams that lost 34 games to them in '03-'04. 494309[/snapback] You're still hummin' Auld Lang Syne while the more observant among your "base" are shopping for Bengal jerseys ;-) One of those teams will be in that MNF match mentioned- tune in and you can have a look at what it's like to convincingly whip the snot out of a football team like an actual dynasty does with regularity!
ATBNG Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 You're still hummin' Auld Lang Syne while the more observant among your "base" are shopping for Bengal jerseys ;-) One of those teams will be in that MNF match mentioned- tune in and you can have a look at what it's like to convincingly whip the snot out of a football team like an actual dynasty does with regularity! 494379[/snapback] Regularity....well, so far this century..... January 16, 2005 - Pats 20 Indianapolis 3 September 9, 2004 - Pats 27 Indy 24 January 18, 2004 - Pats 24 Indy 14 November 30, 2003 - Pats 38 Indy 34 October 22, 2001 - Pats 38 Indy 17 October 1, 2001 - Pats 44 Indy 13 I had to edit my post - very funny.
AKC Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 Regularity....well, so far this century..... January 16, 2005 - Pats 20 Indianapolis 3 September 9, 2004 - Pats 27 Indy 24 January 18, 2004 - Pats 24 Indy 14 November 30, 2003 - Pats 38 Indy 34 October 22, 2001 - Pats 38 Indy 17 October 1, 2001 - Pats 44 Indy 13 I had to edit my post - very funny. 494709[/snapback] Memories......
stuckincincy Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 Regularity... 494709[/snapback] Stick around.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 they definitely didn't dominate crap this year... even on sunday the looked like a bad team No argument from me there. I was referring the Pats '01-'04 dynasty, particularly the last two years. As for this actual topic, I just had a chance to watch my tape of the game, and can confirm that the call on the Branch catch was correct. The ball hits the ground, but there's no visual evidence that his forearm is not under the ball (his upper arm blocks the view). One can conclude, though, that his arm was indeed under the ball, for the following reason. As Branch bounces off the turf, the ball follows the EXACT same trajectory. It does not lag behind in the least. Therefore, if it was supported by his arm well enough to bring it up with him when he bounced, then he must've had enough control for it to be a catch.
ATBNG Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 Memories...... 494728[/snapback] Facts. Until they beat NE once, I'm not impressed by the kings of fantasy football. I'd be curious to see how many times Indy has been favored in this streak too. If the world wants to overhype a 7-0 team that has played exactly one team with a winning record, let 'em.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 If the world wants to overhype a 7-0 team that has played exactly one team with a winning record, let 'em. A mediocre Rams team was dominating them until they lost Bulger. I remain cautiously optimistic about Monday night.
cåblelady Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 As for this actual topic, I just had a chance to watch my tape of the game, and can confirm that the call on the Branch catch was correct. 494755[/snapback] *cough* bull *cough* crap *cough*
MadBuffaloDisease Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 A mediocre Rams team was dominating them until they lost Bulger. I remain cautiously optimistic about Monday night. You "remain cautiously optimistic" because the Rams were dominating the Colts (thanks to Bulger's much greater ability to hit the deep pass than Brady has shown this year) until Bulger got hurt? Because the Bills dominated the Pats in NE for 3 quarters, despite the Pats having 2 weeks to rest and prepare, whereas this time the Colts will have 2 weeks to rest and prepare? Because in the past the Colts have always lose thanks to having crappy defenses, whereas now they have a good one? Or because the Bruschi (We're not worthy!) lovefest will continue for a 2nd straight week and the NFL not wanting to upset the good vibe by having the Pats lose?
Recommended Posts