Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Like that Donovan McNabb lie you've been spreading over this forum for 2 months now? You'll see I exposed that lie in another string and proved you would continue lying even after given plenty of notice that you were being dishonest. You've not yet provided the data that you claim will "expose" my false claims. I've already said that if you post information that contradicts mine, I'll reconsider its accuracy. But you've yet to do that. You seem to prefer "Kicker's Dynastys" of 3 points or less. Anyway you cut it, only a fool calls 3 point wins "Dynastic". Three Super Bowls in four years = Dyansty. Whether by 3 points or 300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Three Super Bowls in four years = Dyansty. Whether by 3 points or 300 498010[/snapback] ......bad calls by the refs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 ......bad calls by the refs. So you're saying the Patriots would've won their Super Bowls by MORE points if the refs hadn't made bad calls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 So you're saying the Patriots would've won their Super Bowls by MORE points if the refs hadn't made bad calls? 498239[/snapback] No she is saying they would not have made it to the Super Bowl without help from the refs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 No she is saying they would not have made it to the Super Bowl without help from the refs Holy crap! I didn't even realize that's what she was implying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 That seems to include the '85-'86 Super Bowl against the Bears, and the '96-'97 Super Bowl against the Packers, which were not part of the Patriots' ongoing (as of yet) Dynasty era. You might consider editing that paragraph for intellectual honesty, because as of now, it heavily distorts reality in order to make its flawed point. 497984[/snapback] WOW, a patsie "fan" who actually knows the team was in 2 SB's before the past few. I'm shocked. 99% of patsie "fans" will claim that the patsies are 3-0 in SB's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 WOW, a patsie "fan" who actually knows the team was in 2 SB's before the past few. I'm shocked. 99% of patsie "fans" will claim that the patsies are 3-0 in SB's Nice unfounded claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Like I've been saying, that 2001 AFCCG against the Steelers in which even the horrible Drew Bledsoe couldn't lose the game after Brady went down, the 2002 season and THIS season (i.e. no top-5 scoring defense for the Pats), his defense needing to force an average of 3 turnovers in the SB, and still needing Vinatieri to make game/SB-winning FG's, are the reasons Brady is a good, not "great" QB, except to Pats fans and those with an agenda to push. I've also said that take Brady off the Pats and he never wins a SB, and that's proving itself, since Brady is having his best year statistically, but the Pats are only 4-4. And as has been mentioned, the Pats aren't a "dynasty" (except to the aforementioned groups) because they received major help from the refs getting to and/or winning the SB in 2001 and 2003, have won every SB by 3 points, and the NFL/NFC has seen it's worst quality of play these past 4 years (worse than how bad some believe the AFC was back when the Bills were so dominant). Again as I said, I'll give them credit for last year, but that does not make a "dynasty." Without the aid of the refs in 2001 and 2003, it would be like the 49'ers or Packers steadily improving each year until they won a SB (in 1994 and 1996, respectively), but no one would call THOSE teams "dynasties." And the proof is there on videotape, but conveniently explained-away by the aforementioned groups. But most people realize it, hence the reason the Pats have NEVER felt respected and have used it as motivation. Sorry if the above is "trolling" to some. It's actually the truth as I and others have witnessed. If you're a Pats fan, be happy with the trophies, ill-gotten or not. But don't make it and Brady more than what they truly are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts