My 'Boys were Alive and Kicking - SD is out - GB down - NY for the win!!!

[Rl'Halsinor]

Unfortunately Brett returned to his old form from the pass 5 years in the second half. He was forcing passes and that interception in overtime killed the Pack's chances.

 

[GlassJaw]

Finally, a nice, warm weather game that will allow the Pats offense to return to form and blow the Giants off the field. Giants had a nice run through the playoffs but no one is stopping the Pats!

 

[kenobi65]

Unfortunately Brett returned to his old form from the pass 5 years in the second half. He was forcing passes and that interception in overtime killed the Pack's chances.

Indeed. If you give a kicker 3 tries at winning the game, sooner or later, he's going to hit one of them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm rooting for the Pats.

1) I'm soooooooo tired about hearing about the '72 Dolphins.

2) I still have a chip on my shoulder about Eli's egotistical demand that he didn't want to play for San Diego.

Well, when they manage to get another NINE league championships to match the Packers record of TWELVE, then we'll consider them a candidate for the greatest team in NFL history.

The Packers have the great team history...but those championships were spread out in different decades.

I'd define "team" in this case as a particular core line-up of players. Most people do when they talk about "greatest team ever," like Staubach's or Aikman's Cowboys, Montana's 49'rs, or Bradshaw's Steelers. IOW, "Dynasty teams."

The Packers have 4 in the 1930's, plus one in 1929 and one in 1944. They also have 5 in the 1960s. The 12th was Favre's.

If the Pats win this time, that will be 4 in 7 years, including a perfect 19-0 season. Their forseeable main competitors for the top will remain the Colts, Bolts, 'Boys & Pack (based on current perssonnel and organizational philosophy). All of those would be with Brady at the helm- definitely a contender for the title of a "Dynasty" team, and consideration for "Greatest Ever."

 

[Goldmoon]

.
If the Pats win this time, that will be 4 in 7 years, including a perfect 19-0 season.

And 3 of them (Possibly 4) are clouded/tainted with alligations of cheating. I have no doubt they will win the Super Bowl this year. I mean, from what Ive seen the last half of the year, It doesnt matter how bad they play, theyll get calls to go their way and somehow, amazingly the Giants will find a way to lose.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What?

Cheating in pro sports?

NO!

If you've ever listened to any of the interviews given by the retired NFL pros and their coaches, they'll tell you things like:

1) Holding occurs on every play.

2) Whenever there is a pile of players, people are being bitten, gonads are being punched or squeezed.

Besides, the cheating the Pats were accused of was minimal- what they learned through "cameragate" was available through other, legit sources.

Were the Bronco's victories "tainted" by the accusations of illegal chop blocks? Was it cheating for a team to bring out a piece of grounds maintenance equipment to clear a spot in the snow for the FG kicker?

 

[GlassJaw]

And 3 of them (Possibly 4) are clouded/tainted with alligations of cheating. I have no doubt they will win the Super Bowl this year. I mean, from what Ive seen the last half of the year, It doesnt matter how bad they play, theyll get calls to go their way and somehow, amazingly the Giants will find a way to lose.

LOL!!

[Emperor Palpatine voice]Release your anger...[/Emperor Palpatine voice]

Reading things like will make the Patriots victory even better. I'm actually a little disappointed it's not the Packers because the Patriots would be universally scorned throughout the whole country even more than they are now.

I actually think the Giants will give the Pats a better game than the Pack would have.

Edit: By the way, Roger Goodell specifically said the NFL found no evidence that what the Pats did affected the outcome of any past game in the past, Superbowl or otherwise. To still cling to the idea that their past victories are "tainted" is sour grapes and nothing else.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Edit: By the way, Roger Goodell specifically said the NFL found no evidence that what the Pats did affected the outcome of any past game in the past, Superbowl or otherwise. To still cling to the idea that their past victories are "tainted" is sour grapes and nothing else.

See, I think that's where a lot of people will disagree.

Just because what the Pats did didn't directly affect the outcome of the game doesn't mean their victories weren't tainted. In fact, I'd say it makes it worse, because they obviously didn't need to.

 

[GlassJaw]

See, I think that's where a lot of people will disagree.

What's to disagree about?

The NFL said they found no evidence the Pats had taped anything in the past. Period. End of story. So I guess you could argue that the NFL is lying about that but then I would go to back to my "sour grapes" statement.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

What's to disagree about?

The NFL said they found no evidence the Pats had taped anything in the past. Period. End of story. So I guess you could argue that the NFL is lying about that but then I would go to back to my "sour grapes" statement.

My argument is that cheating is cheating is cheating, no matter if it affected a game or not. Its still cheating. This argument doesn't settle only on the Pats, either...for me, at least, it goes for anyone or any team that cheats(there's a reason I avoid MLB discussions...)

Yes, the NFL found no evidence the Pats had done it in the past...but then again, I may be remembering this wrong, but wasn't it the Jets that brought the accusations, NOT the NFL? So, in a sense, if not for the Jets speaking up, the NFL wouldn't have found anything at all.