Rl'Halsinor
Explorer
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.
Rl'Halsinor said: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.
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.
Dannyalcatraz said:.
If the Pats win this time, that will be 4 in 7 years, including a perfect 19-0 season.
Goldmoon said: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.
GlassJaw said: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 said:See, I think that's where a lot of people will disagree.
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...)GlassJaw said: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.