Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
This has nothing to do with player vs team. Winning two nailbiters is not ownership.
I think the Giants have their number.
The Giants also beat the Pats at Gillette Stadium last year during the season, snapping a 19-game regular season home winning streak. So we're actually 3-0 vs. that Pats recently. But who's counting
Edit: check that, it was a 20 game winning streak that was snapped by the G-Men.
How convenient that you leave out a game that happened literally a month before the 2007 super bowl
And Flanz, you're OUT OF YOUR MIND comparing the AFC East to the NFC East - even this year. The AFC as a whole is a joke compared the NFC. Your argument that the AFC East has more wins than the NFC East as relevant to anything is like saying the Mid Atlantic in CFF is better than the Big 12 b/c they have more wins.
Okay, this is asinine. To compare any NFL division to college football is pointless because even the worst NFL team can beat the best NFL team.
Right now the AFC East is 6-6 against the NFC West. The NFC East is 4-6 against the AFC North. NFC West > AFC North, so why is the almighty flagship division of the universe doing worse against the bush league AFC division?
And I realize the above stat means nothing, which is the point. These comparisons don't work, but the overall wins is to show that the divisions are comparable, which they are. I don't even comprehend how someone can see that statement as insulting.
And emoney, the Jets have a 3.5% chance at the playoffs, not mathematically eliminated, but essentially out of it.
The Giants also beat the Pats at Gillette Stadium last year during the season, snapping a 19-game regular season home winning streak. So we're actually 3-0 vs. that Pats recently. But who's counting
Edit: check that, it was a 20 game winning streak that was snapped by the G-Men.
How convenient that you leave out a game that happened literally a month before the 2007 super bowl
I remember that game pretty well. That was the game that planted the doubt in NE's mind that they might have to face the Giants again when it mattered most. It's a doubt that SF and GB still have in the back of their minds. Nobody wants to face the Giants in the post-season anymore.
How so? The Giants have beaten the Pats in each of the Super Bowls they have played against each other. That is a team accomplishment. It's not like comparing two different players who are playing with different weapons and different defenses backing them up.
This has nothing to do with player vs team. Winning two nailbiters is not ownership.
lol - I agree, but if it were the other way around, I know a bunch of Patsy fans that would be saying the Pats own the Giants. That's what they do.
Post by FatKeystone on Dec 3, 2012 15:55:25 GMT -5
Also can someone just tweet Nate Silver and ask him who's going to win the Super Bowl so we can stop obsessing over which divisions suck the most and get on with our lives?
Dear Patriots - I will stop hating you and all your subhuman mouthbreathing Tawmmy From Quinzee fans if and when you beat the San Francisco 49ers in two weeks. This offer is not valid if the Seahawks somehow lose to either Arizona or Buffalo.
Thought that popped into my head today: Assuming Browner and Sherman don't win their appeals, wouldn't the 4 games include any playoff games? If they're still playing next week and then the suspension starts afterwards, I feel like it could really screw them over. I gotta think they get to 10 wins even without those two.
Thought that popped into my head today: Assuming Browner and Sherman don't win their appeals, wouldn't the 4 games include any playoff games? If they're still playing next week and then the suspension starts afterwards, I feel like it could really screw them over. I gotta think they get to 10 wins even without those two.
Popular rumor is that the suspension for both is going to be reduced to two games apiece. Supposedly the appeal is still pending, and the league won't have a final decision by this weekend, so they're both in against Arizona...but the league also doesn't want to potentially keep players out of the playoffs. Unfortunately, with the delay that means both players will be missing at least one of the same games - likely SF - so Seattle will be without its top two corners for a huge game.
You're right, though - even without Sherman and Browner I have to imagine Seattle could/should beat Buffalo and Arizona/STL in Seattle. Hell, I wouldn't even put the SF game down as an automatic loss, as I firmly believe that Seattle even without those two corners is a better team than St. Louis.
Oddly I've never thought much about Seattle, pro or con. All of a sudden, I'm really rooting against them - at least until the Redskins get schwacked by the Ravens. Then I'll root for them again.
ESPN television and national radio is absolutely awful. I couldn't believe what I was seeing Sunday morning when I turned on sportscenter and was watching them glorify Javon Belcher for his hard work ethic and for being a great guy. I wanted to throw up.
Post by RadioSpirit on Dec 4, 2012 22:13:00 GMT -5
Didn't have a chance to post this on Sunday, but the Rams beating the 49er's on Sunday made this whole season a success, especially if that ends up being the loss that hands the division to the Seahawks and keeps that asshole Harbaugh out. I don't have nearly the hate for Carroll/Seattle as I do for them. Also love being undefeated within the division.
Really love the way the Defense has been playing lately, just wish Bradford could put everything together a bit more often. Maybe if Amendola is 100% healthy next year and some of these rookie receivers keep improving, and we bring in some O-Line talent to replace this All-Star Lineup of Failed NFL Tackles, we can really get things going. I know a lot of Rams fans who really think we have a chance at a late season, miracle playoff push, and I do think our next three games (Bills, Vikings, Bucs) are winnable, but it'll come down to the Seattle game for sure, and I'm not convinced this team is capable of a 6-game winning streak culminating in beating the Seahawks in December at Qwest. Why do we always have to play in Seattle in December?? At that point I'd just as soon go to Foxborough or Lambeau than try to beat the Seahawks at home.
Oh, well, the Rams have done their part Juggs, now the Seahawks just have to do their part to keep out the 49er's.
Post by Mista Don't Play on Dec 5, 2012 11:39:33 GMT -5
I think Bradford is a more than serviceable QB and Amendola is one of the most underrated receivers in the league. The Rams are trending up, in my opinion, I don't know if that will translate into anything this season or not.
At this point, it's gotta be Tannenbaum forcing the issue. Rex definitely doesn't care much for Sanchez at this point, having pulled him for McElroy. And I don't think Woody cares for Sanchez much either, since he pushed for Tebow in the first place.
Hopefully Woody only fires Tanny at the end of the season, b/c Rex is a good coach.
Woody wanted Big Mac to start, Tanny/Sparano wanted Mark.
It was Rex's decision to make. I don't necessarily think his logic is that bad, I'm just really, really ready to move on from the Mark Sanchez era.
I'm pretty sure he's being played with the slim hope that he does well and generates even the smallest amount of trade value. Jets can pay half his 2013 salary and get him traded to a team looking for a veteran backup with experience or something.
Unlikely at best, but that's the thinking.
The team is no longer attached to Sanchez and Rex literally just said about 5 minutes ago he will not hesitate to bench Mark as soon as he starts brain farting all over the field (only a matter of time).