The New New NFL thread

[BLU-RAY]

[quote name='Whiskeyjack' post='1592301' date='Nov 17 2008, 20.41']This has been a really fun game to watch. Beast Mode has been dominant. He and Fred Jackson have basically been the entire Bills offense, after Edwards threw a ton of interceptions early in the game.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm following on Gamecast, it looks ridiculous. Glad to see the running game is working properly, but I still say Trent's confidence has been fucked up ever since that concussion. They really should've taken an extra week to bring him back (I think this applies to most teams with QBs and relatively short term injuries; unless the QB is absolutely, unequivocally the whole team, give him an extra week and bring him back 100%).

But seriously. A 56 yard field goal? WTF?

ETA: And here we go again, maybe.

ETA2: Well, fuck me. They can make a 57 yarder, and we can't make a 47 yarder? At home? C'mon.

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='DVD ROTS' post='1592311' date='Nov 17 2008, 22.49']I still say Trent's confidence has been fucked up ever since that concussion. They really should've taken an extra week to bring him back (I think this applies to most teams with QBs and relatively short term injuries; unless the QB is absolutely, unequivocally the whole team, give him an extra week and bring him back 100%).[/quote]

Yeah, I agree. They rushed him, and it was a mistake.

[quote]But seriously. A 56 yard field goal? WTF?[/quote]

That was insane. And really lucky for Crenell....saved him after a horrible play call on 3rd down.


And Buffalo misses the game winning FG. Only 47 yards? Phil Dawson does that in his sleep. :P

[Jaime L]

Sorry, Bluray.

Great game though between two Special Teams dynamos. Really had a little bit of everything.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Talk about taking the safe choice here. I mean seriously now, of course the offense is going to decline - last season was the most dominant offense the NFL has ever seen, so anything less then the best ever is a decline.[/quote]Who said anything about last season? They're going to decline from [i] this season[/i]. You think this season has been bad and inconsistent? Well, have fun next year.

[quote]Kal, I know you would like almost nothing more then to see the Patriots fall back into NFL obscurity, but the track record would argue against it. Year in and year out they are better then virtually every other team in the league, and even this year they are still a dangerous team.[/quote]The track record has agreed with me. They've been in decline since 2004. They had one outstanding year since and in that outstanding year lost to one of the worst teams ever to win a superbowl - and that was a confluence of ridiculous events. Do you really think they're going to get the best LB on free agency for almost nothing and get two top WRs for almost nothing, or that equivalent? That was their last shot. They'll still be petering around for a while, but the age where everyone fears the Pats is done.

[Rockroi]

[quote]Who said anything about last season? They're going to decline from [i]this [/i]season. You think this season has been bad and inconsistent? Well, have fun next year.[/quote]

(Emphasis in original)

ugh... Kal... you think that losing the best QB in the NFL 8 minutes into the first game may have something to do with the "decline?" I mean, that's not exactly indicative of a team-wide "decline." Specifically, please do not TRY to say in a later post that you meant the team as a whole because you SPECIFICALLY were discussing the offense here.

Unless, of course, you are seeing what you want to see, of course.

[quote]They've been in decline since 2004.[/quote]

Like in 2007 when they went 16-0 in the regular season and then came within one (extremely unlikely) play of winning the SB? Really? on the decline? Really?

[quote]They had one outstanding year since and in that outstanding year lost to one of the worst teams ever to win a superbow[/quote]

WOW! NOBODY shares in this opinion! The Giants have proven they belonged and played a great game. They also have shown that they are very very good team- hence the one loss start THIS SEASON! With hardly any change in the core personnel (actually losing 2 of their best defensive players from the previous year). This is just cherry picking opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

And I like how you say they had one outstanding year... Kal... that was LAST year... so... unless they went 19-0 this season, it would be, by definition, a decline. Brilliant... and the 16-0 season is the obvious blunder in your theory that they have been on the decline since 2004 (and they have made the playoffs every season since, btw... but whatever) - I mean is sort of the "Well other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play" type of stat.

[quote]That was their last shot. They'll still be petering around for a while, but the age where everyone fears the Pats is done.[/quote]

By "pandering around" you mean "competing actively EVERY SEASON" in the playoffs and being at or near Super Bowl level? Because that's what they are capable of doing. I mean is there ANY question that he Pats are MAYBE 9-1 right now (possibly 10-0) with Brady? I mean, is there ANY doubt? Yet, they are "in decline" because they lost ... how many players? I mean, if they ARE on the decline its becaus eof injuries. They ARE addressing their D needs - Mayo, Merriweather, Crable, etc- so... I just think you have been waiting long and hard for the Pats decline and DAMN IT if this is not the year you will declare it! So... good for you! But please, do not try to couch this with some objective facts or make it seem like this is hard-hitting analysis. Your really deep understanding of the game has , basically, THIS one thing to say- eventually, some day, the Pats will go on the decline- and when they do you are going to "copy-paste" your post and declare that you were correct- because YES, someday the Pats WILL go on the decline. And who cares if A has ANY correlation to B because youl will be there to tell us all there was... even if there was not.

Well done sir! Maybe next week you will hit us with some deep insight as to "One day, there will be an Earthquake in California! Mark my words!"

[Chuck Klingbeil]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1592471' date='Nov 18 2008, 06.05'](Emphasis in original)

ugh... Kal... you think that losing the best QB in the NFL 8 minutes into the first game may have something to do with the "decline?" I mean, that's not exactly indicative of a team-wide "decline." Specifically, please do not TRY to say in a later post that you meant the team as a whole because you SPECIFICALLY were discussing the offense here.

Unless, of course, you are seeing what you want to see, of course.



Like in 2007 when they went 16-0 in the regular season and then came within one (extremely unlikely) play of winning the SB? Really? on the decline? Really?



WOW! NOBODY shares in this opinion! The Giants have proven they belonged and played a great game. They also have shown that they are very very good team- hence the one loss start THIS SEASON! With hardly any change in the core personnel (actually losing 2 of their best defensive players from the previous year). This is just cherry picking opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

And I like how you say they had one outstanding year... Kal... that was LAST year... so... unless they went 19-0 this season, it would be, by definition, a decline. Brilliant... and the 16-0 season is the obvious blunder in your theory that they have been on the decline since 2004 (and they have made the playoffs every season since, btw... but whatever) - I mean is sort of the "Well other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play" type of stat.



By "pandering around" you mean "competing actively EVERY SEASON" in the playoffs and being at or near Super Bowl level? Because that's what they are capable of doing. [b]I mean is there ANY question that he Pats are MAYBE 9-1 right now (possibly 10-0) with Brady? I mean, is there ANY doubt?[/b] Yet, they are "in decline" because they lost ... how many players? I mean, if they ARE on the decline its becaus eof injuries. They ARE addressing their D needs - Mayo, Merriweather, Crable, etc- so... I just think you have been waiting long and hard for the Pats decline and DAMN IT if this is not the year you will declare it! So... good for you! But please, do not try to couch this with some objective facts or make it seem like this is hard-hitting analysis. Your really deep understanding of the game has , basically, THIS one thing to say- eventually, some day, the Pats will go on the decline- and when they do you are going to "copy-paste" your post and declare that you were correct- because YES, someday the Pats WILL go on the decline. And who cares if A has ANY correlation to B because youl will be there to tell us all there was... even if there was not.

Well done sir! Maybe next week you will hit us with some deep insight as to "One day, there will be an Earthquake in California! Mark my words!"[/quote]


Are you saying Cassel has lost them four games? 'Cause thats silly. Brady wouldn't have stopped Miami from hanging 38 on them. The final score might have been closer, but...

[Rockroi]

[quote]Are you saying Cassel has lost them four games? 'Cause thats silly. Brady wouldn't have stopped Miami from hanging 38 on them. The final score might have been closer, but...[/quote]

Okay, maybe they're slumming it and at 8-2. However, I think they win the Miami game. I was at the game; the fact the the D was on the field so freakin' much lead to their decimation. I really cannot stress how brutalized they were just by attrition. Now, Cassel played horrendously that game - I believe he fumbled and could never generate any offense at all. If they have Brady, he is nbot only putting points on the board, but he is also giving the D a chance to recover and not always go 3 and out. Hence, my belief that if you put Brady in there, they win.

The only game where I hedge is the Jets game because I cannot really think of Brady having a performance that would have won the game that Cassell (30-50, 400, 2-0) did not emulate.

[CelticBrennus]

Kal: Come on now, you are not even trying anymore. Its kinda sad, you used to make decent points and buttress them with some evidence. But now? People can simply write off anything you say about the Patriots due to your sheer and obvious hatred.

But I will still play

[quote]Who said anything about last season? They're going to decline from this season. You think this season has been bad and inconsistent? Well, have fun next year.[/quote]

What is going to change next season that will make them worse? Brady's return? Is the O line going to fall apart totally? Will all their running backs get injured again? What?

[Kalbear]

[quote]ugh... Kal... you think that losing the best QB in the NFL 8 minutes into the first game may have something to do with the "decline?" I mean, that's not exactly indicative of a team-wide "decline." Specifically, please do not TRY to say in a later post that you meant the team as a whole because you SPECIFICALLY were discussing the offense here.[/quote]The team as a whole will be in decline, but I was specifically talking about the offense. I realize that it's not a popular opinion, but it's something I've been consistent about. I said that this year was really the last shot that the Pats were going to have, and I said that last year. With Brady gone - that's it.

[quote]What is going to change next season that will make them worse? Brady's return? Is the O line going to fall apart totally? Will all their running backs get injured again? What?[/quote]Brady isn't going to be the same player he was a year ago. The O line hasn't been particularly solid this year. Their running game has been horrendous, and they've still not got any solid running starter. Next year Moss will likely be a good but not stellar WR. And while Cassel is no Brady, I really do believe that Brady isn't going to be close to what he was before, and you'll actually see a controversy over them letting Cassel go. Also, you're seeing coaches being able to outcoach Belichick consistently. We saw that last season in the superbowl, we're seeing it now with odd things like the Wildcat completely obliterating his team. We'll see more of that going forward.

I know it sounds farfetched. And I don't have any metrics to base this on, other than things like when players start to decline (WRs around Moss's age start now, for instance, especially if they have a history of injury) or how players come back from serious injury (name one QB that has ever come back from a serious injury that kept them out a year or ended their season that ever approached what they were like before. I'll wait. Now name 5 that played this year that sucked more.)

[quote]WOW! NOBODY shares in this opinion! The Giants have proven they belonged and played a great game. They also have shown that they are very very good team- hence the one loss start THIS SEASON! With hardly any change in the core personnel (actually losing 2 of their best defensive players from the previous year). This is just cherry picking opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.[/quote]So you're saying that we can use this year to justify a 9-7 team last year? Does that mean because the Pats aren't so hot this year we can say that's why they lost to the superior Giants team? Seriously, what kind of logic is this? The Giants are right now the best team in football. But they absolutely were not the best team in football last year, and were it not for some massive luck and a great matchup they would have been a footnote to the best season in NFL history.

Any team can play one, single, great game. That doesn't make the team great. And I never said that it was fact. It's an opinion that a 9-7 team that was the 6th seed of the playoffs and was the statistically most unlikely team ever to win the superbowl is one of the worst teams ever to win the superbowl. Hmm. That sounds more like an opinion based on facts.

And as for my hatred of the Pats - as I've always said, it's not the Pats I hate. I'm actually a bit bummed by the notion that the Pats are basically done. It sucks to think that Brady's career has peaked, though it certainly was a hell of a great peak.

[quote]Your really deep understanding of the game has , basically, THIS one thing to say- eventually, some day, the Pats will go on the decline- and when they do you are going to "copy-paste" your post and declare that you were correct- because YES, someday the Pats WILL go on the decline.[/quote]I thought I was specific about it, but I'll be more specific: the Pats are going to be worse [b]next year[/b] than they are this year. On offense. They'll probably be about the same on defense.

[Rockroi]

[quote]I know it sounds farfetched. And I don't have any metrics to base this on,[/quote]

This is the irksome part. Had anyoen else had the NERVE to say this to you after you have been a platinum mmeber in Football Outsiders all these yeras, you would have ripped their head off. Basically, you are getting an oppertunity to pee all over the Pats, and DAMN IT if you are not going to pass that up. You love the stats, etc, but here...

[quote]The O line hasn't been particularly solid this year.[/quote]

Most of the sacks they have given up have been Cassell's fault as he is adjusting. He had virtually no pocket presence at the start of the season and he has graduated from there. The O-line has plyed actually really well in this system.

[quote]Their running game has been horrendous[/quote]

They are the #8 rushing offense in the NFL. Yes, some of that is from Cassell, and I wish he would stop, but #8 does not = "horrendous." Again, your counter can only be "I don't consider statistics, only what I see" and the Kal I know would have had an appoplectic fit had somebody had the nerve to say something like that. Kal, seriously, in an argument like this, you do not have your fastball.

[quote]So you're saying that we can use this year to justify a 9-7 team last year? Does that mean because the Pats aren't so hot this year we can say that's why they lost to the superior Giants team? Seriously, what kind of logic is this?[/quote]

No, I justify it in a number of ways- ONE the Giants were playing the best D in the playoffs and that usually counts for something; TWO the Giants had put together a string of really good games from the end of the reg season (incl the loss to the Pats) and into the Playoffs; THREE they defetaed 2 very good NFC teams to make it to the SB; FOUR when you look at the Giants NOW its confirmation that the team that ENDED the 2007 season was not "lucky" but good as they have continued to roll into the 2008 season; FOUR there is no way the 2007 Giants are the worst team to be in a Superbowl. The 1994 Chargers, 1998 Falcons, the 2000 Giants, the 2005 Seahawks (and seriously, possibly the 2005 Stealers), and the 2006 Bears were probably all worse (Grossman killed your team to the point that their D did not matter). Again, its not a worthwhile argument but it makes your defactor proclemation taht the 2007 Gianst are the worst team to BE in a SB that much more ludicrious.

[quote]I thought I was specific about it, but I'll be more specific: the Pats are going to be worse next year than they are this year. On offense. They'll probably be about the same on defense.[/quote]

Sounds like a wager to me. We would have to compare the 2008 Pats' offensive stats to the 2009 Pats' offensive stats (regular season stats only). Simple up and down measurements- overall rating, rushing and passing. I say they will be better, you say they will be worse. Wager is that the loser CANNOT comment on NFL threads for the 2009 post season (which will finish in 2010... long bet) and they cannot make their first comment until after the victory parade (all bets are off if there is a lock-out, etc due to the CBA).

You in?

[Kalbear]

[quote]This is the irksome part. Had anyoen else had the NERVE to say this to you after you have been a platinum mmeber in Football Outsiders all these yeras, you would have ripped their head off. Basically, you are getting an oppertunity to pee all over the Pats, and DAMN IT if you are not going to pass that up. You love the stats, etc, but here...[/quote]What, I can't have opinions that aren't perfectly couched in absolute fact?

You're betting that Brady will be fine after an ACL injury. I'm betting not. Which is more based in fact?
You're betting that their receivers will be as good as they were before. I'm not. Which is more based in fact?
You're betting that they'll be able to find a consistent running back that will not be injured. I'm not. Which is more based in fact?

There aren't a ton of metrics out there that indicate these things. There's no FO stat for QBs who have been injured and come back and how they've performed. The play of 'sample size theater' is very small here. At the same time though, look at the QBs who have come back after injury. We have Carson Palmer - who had basically the same injury and has been at best mediocre afterwards (and more prone to injury afterwards). We have Culpepper, who played with Moss - and afterwards was simply meh and washed out of the league. Bulger & Green both have suffered injuries and have not been the same despite being stellar QBs.

[quote]FOUR there is no way the 2007 Giants are the worst team to be in a Superbowl.[/quote]I didn't say they were the worst team to be in a superbowl. The 1985 Pats were far worse than the 2007 Giants. Please, do try and read what I wrote. I said that they are one of the worst teams to win a superbowl. I stand by that.

[quote]They are the #8 rushing offense in the NFL. Yes, some of that is from Cassell, and I wish he would stop, but #8 does not = "horrendous." Again, your counter can only be "I don't consider statistics, only what I see" and the Kal I know would have had an appoplectic fit had somebody had the nerve to say something like that. Kal, seriously, in an argument like this, you do not have your fastball.[/quote]It's even worse than that; FO ranks their running game as #2. So you're right - they're pretty good no matter how you measure it. This is more a measure of their RB issues, with Morris, Maroney, etc. I could be wrong here; they were pretty good last year too despite having no consistent RB, so it's clearly a measure of perception.

A side note though - accusing someone of having apoplectic fits (or even mentioning it) is much easier to digest when you're not saying things like "mmeber", "yeras", "oppertunity". It really looks like you're just freaking out and having the hardest time typing because you're so full of rage.

[quote]Wager is that the loser CANNOT comment on NFL threads for the 2009 post season (which will finish in 2010... long bet) and they cannot make their first comment until after the victory parade (all bets are off if there is a lock-out, etc due to the CBA).[/quote]Done. With the caveat that we use simple metrics rather than any advanced metrics like FO so that others can more easily judge it. So basically yards, offensive points scored...anything else? I'd rather not use passer rating, but that can be snuck in here. The alternate is to simply use their DVOA from this year vs. next year, which has the advantage of being a unified stat - but also has the perception that I'll somehow use magic beans to prove my point.

[Swordfish]

I hate the Pats as much as the next guy, but calling the giants the worst team to ever be in a superbowl is a pretty far out fantastical notion.

[Slurktan]

Kalbear,

Trent Green was superior after his initial season ending knee injury('98-'99 Rams). He was a decent QB in Washington for 1 season previously.

I'm honestly curious as to why you would rank the '08 Giants below under say the '00 Ravens, the '01 Patriots, or the '90 Giants?

[Kalbear]

[quote]I hate the Pats as much as the next guy, but calling the giants the worst team to ever be in a superbowl is a pretty far out fantastical notion.[/quote]I agree. It's a shame no one actually said that, because we could all be in agreement about how that person was pretty stupid.

[quote]I'm honestly curious as to why you would rank the '08 Giants below under say the '00 Ravens, the '01 Patriots, or the '90 Giants?[/quote]'00 ravens were an absolute beast of a team. They had played well the entire season and had been dominant on defense. They weren't as good as the Titans, but they certainly were a very good team throughout the season - and them not being as good as the Titans was why they were a wild card. They had the best defense possibly ever that year. One of the worst offenses until they wised up and got someone who was mediocre at QB, but still - having statistically the best defense of all time does not, in my mind, say 'worst team ever'.

The '01 Pats were also a good team. Their defense was one of the best that year, and their offense wasn't horrible. While it was considered this huge upset, it wasn't that surprising that the Pats won given how closely they had played earlier that year and how well they were doing in general. Their defense was top 10, their offense top 10 in scoring. That sort of team tends to win championships.

The 1990 Giants led the league in scoring defense, had the second-highest scoring differential and the second-highest takeaway differential. Their offense was only meh, but that was another team with a great defense and okay offense. They also were 13-3, which says to me that they were pretty decent.

[url="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=479"]here's a good analysis that talks about various statistical measures of how the NYG rank[/url]. They also rank the 2001 Pats fairly low, and I can understand why.

[Rockroi]

[quote]Done. With the caveat that we use simple metrics rather than any advanced metrics like FO so that others can more easily judge it. So basically yards, offensive points scored...anything else? I'd rather not use passer rating, but that can be snuck in here. The alternate is to simply use their DVOA from this year vs. next year, which has the advantage of being a unified stat - but also has the perception that I'll somehow use magic beans to prove my point.[/quote]

Use Overall offense rating. If they are #14 this season they would have to be #15 or worse next season for you to win.

[quote]I agree. It's a shame no one actually said that, because we could all be in agreement about how that person was pretty stupid.[/quote]

You said they were "one of" the worst which is utterly unmeasurable. Therefore, its as if you said nothing. I mean, are the Giants a good football team or not? I say that there have been AT LEAST 10 teams WORSE than the 2007 Giants to play in a SB since 1990, hence, they COULD NOT BE "one of the worst" but then ... again, its as if you said nothing. I guess, kal you want it BOTh ways- say the Gianst were a a bad team without saying they were the WORST! I guess its the kind of hair splitting we all have come to love and respect from you.

[Slurktan]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1592978' date='Nov 18 2008, 14.28']'00 ravens were an absolute beast of a team. They had played well the entire season and had been dominant on defense. They weren't as good as the Titans, but they certainly were a very good team throughout the season - and them not being as good as the Titans was why they were a wild card. They had the best defense possibly ever that year. One of the worst offenses until they wised up and got someone who was mediocre at QB, but still - having statistically the best defense of all time does not, in my mind, say 'worst team ever'.[/quote]

I thought they were the number 2 rated defense that year to Tennessee? They did give up less points, I think 5, but then again Tennessee had a harder schedule. Having possibly the greatest defense of a Super Bowl participant (although I'd put the '85 Bears ahead) points towards not being the worst champ, however the fact that the Offense was also very possibly the worst of a Super Bowl participant cancels that out.

So you believe the '01 Pats, the '80 Raiders, the '00 Ravens, the '90 Giants (With their backup QB starting which your page ignores) would beat the Giants from last year?

[Kalbear]

[quote]You said they were "one of" the worst which is utterly unmeasurable. Therefore, its as if you said nothing. I mean, are the Giants a good football team or not? I say that there have been AT LEAST 10 teams WORSE than the 2007 Giants to play in a SB since 1990, hence, they COULD NOT BE "one of the worst" but then ... again, its as if you said nothing. I guess, kal you want it BOTh ways- say the Gianst were a a bad team without saying they were the WORST! I guess its the kind of hair splitting we all have come to love and respect from you.[/quote]

WIN. Not PLAY IN. WIN. I'll USE CAPS to EMPHASIZE WORDS so that ROCKROI CAN LEARN TO READ. You even quoted me saying that! Here, this is what I said - this time with ROCKROI EMPHASIS:
[quote]They had one outstanding year since and in that outstanding year lost to one of the worst teams ever to [size=6][b]WIN[/b] [/size]a superbowl - and that was a confluence of ridiculous events.[/quote]

So instead of 'one of the worst teams to ever win a superbowl' - if you like, I'll make it stronger - the 2007 Giants were THE worst team that ever WON a superbowl. I think that's fairly arguable, honestly - there are some bad teams out there that won one. They certainly had the worst scoring differential, the worst record (tied, actually), the worst percentage, and had the least convincing wins (that travesty against Philly early in the season comes to mind here), but I could see arguments for the 2001 Pats.

[quote]I thought they were the number 2 rated defense that year to Tennessee? They did give up less points, I think 5, but then again Tennessee had a harder schedule. Having possibly the greatest defense of a Super Bowl participant (although I'd put the '85 Bears ahead) points towards not being the worst champ, however the fact that the Offense was also very possibly the worst of a Super Bowl participant cancels that out.

So you believe the '01 Pats, the '80 Raiders, the '00 Ravens, the '90 Giants (With their backup QB starting which your page ignores) would beat the Giants from last year?[/quote]The 00 Ravens had the best defense statistically in history. [quote]The Ravens relied heavily on their defense, which set several records during the 2000 season, including fewest points allowed during a 16-game season (165) and fewest rushing yards allowed (970). The defense finished the season number one overall in both yards allowed and points allowed[/quote].

Anyway, I think that the 00 Ravens would have beaten the 07 Giants without really any question. The 90 Giants also had a stellar defense; I figure they would've won more than they lost against the 07 Giants, even with their backup playing. The 80 raiders are an interesting point; they had a better season record and won their superbowl more handily, but they were fairly weak statistically. I do think the Plunkett-led raiders were stronger offensively, but their defense wasn't as good. Probably be a pretty close game.

To be clear, I also think that 9 times out of 10 the 2007 Pats win that game too.

[Rockroi]

[quote]To be clear, I also think that 9 times out of 10 the 2007 Pats win that game too.[/quote]

And somehow, that makes it worse....

[Slurktan]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1593051' date='Nov 18 2008, 15.11']The 00 Ravens had the best defense statistically in history. .

The Ravens relied heavily on their defense, which set several records during the 2000 season, including fewest points allowed during a 16-game season (165) and fewest rushing yards allowed (970). The defense finished the season number one overall in both yards allowed and points allowed[/quote]

Wherever you got that quote from was incorrect. The Titans had the least amount of Total Yardage Allowed with 3,813. The Ravens had 3,967 occording to the league stats on NFL.com. Hence my saying the Titans were the number one D that year. granted not in points against or specific rush D.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1593051' date='Nov 18 2008, 13.11']WIN. Not PLAY IN. WIN. I'll USE CAPS to EMPHASIZE WORDS so that ROCKROI CAN LEARN TO READ. You even quoted me saying that! Here, this is what I said - this time with ROCKROI EMPHASIS:[/quote]


i hate the pats as much as the next guy, but saying the giants were one of the worst teams to ever win a superbowl is a pretty far out fantastical notion.