StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2007-12-30 01:59pm**

Tinkerbell wrote:That being said, anyone watching the last Eagles game today?

I'm watching it. Well, I have it on in the background while doing other things. It's not a very good game to this point. The highlight so far is that Westbrook has broken a few team records, but it will be interesting if they stick Kevin Kolb in the game at some point. He's the backup QB today, when most of the year he's been listed 3rd after Feeley.

Master of Ossus wrote:Is it just this site or are ALL Patriots apologists total retards who know nothing of football? They did play the Jets again, you fucking idiot. They beat them 38-14 in the first week, and 20-10 in Week 15. Since the Jets and Pats are in the same division, they ALWAYS play each other twice in a season.

Even if they never played them again, the fact remains, they did cheat, even after been specifically warned by the league not to do so. If they had never benefited from the videotaping, it's still a violation. Cheaters are scum, even if they don't benefit from the cheating.

Posted: **2007-12-30 02:44pm**

Even if they never played them again, the fact remains, they did cheat, even after been specifically warned by the league not to do so. If they had never benefited from the videotaping, it's still a violation. Cheaters are scum, even if they don't benefit from the cheating.

Not to excuse the Pats, but it's extremely unlikely that the Patriots were the only team doing this sort of thing, they just got caught. Sure it's bad form no matter who does it, but I get tired of people squawking at the Patriots rather then focusing on what is/was likely a league-wide issue. Not that you are saying this Targetdrone, but lots of people are just using this to try and say that the patriots winning is the RESULT of cheating, which is just bogus whining.

Posted: **2007-12-30 04:02pm**

The Original Nex wrote:Not to excuse the Pats, but it's extremely unlikely that the Patriots were the only team doing this sort of thing, they just got caught. Sure it's bad form no matter who does it, but I get tired of people squawking at the Patriots rather then focusing on what is/was likely a league-wide issue. Not that you are saying this Targetdrone, but lots of people are just using this to try and say that the patriots winning is the RESULT of cheating, which is just bogus whining.

Oh, I've no doubt that other teams have broken the rules, but as you say, the Patriots were caught doing so. So, they are rightly criticized for doing so. Their poor sportsmanship isn't lessened because others may have engaged in it. I get tired of people who wail about this pile-on against the Patriots. Their supporters and fans have nowhere to stand. Who knows how much the cheating helped them to win? It's probably impossible to quantify exactly what they were able to do with the inappropriately-acquired information, what they gained from it.

I have no particular dislike for the Patriots (no more so than every other team that isn't the team I follow). I'm not criticizing the Patriots because they are the Big Bad Undefeated Team Who Rolls Over Their Opposition And Runs Up The Score At Every Opportunity. Some people find that objectionable, but these players are adults, not little kids. What I object to is the cheating itself. And if the team I followed (the Eagles) were found to be cheating, whether they had a playoff season, or still ended up with the 8-8 record they are about to have, I'd be just as annoyed.

Cheating should be roundly criticized and penalized, no matter what the result is.

Addendum:

Eagles hold off the Bills, 17-9, finishing with a pathetic 8-8 season.

Posted: **2007-12-30 04:11pm**

Even if it was a meaningless game, it was nice to go out on a win. Curtis seems to have mastered the art of the fumble-made-touch-down

Posted: **2007-12-30 04:16pm**

Tinkerbell wrote:Even if it was a meaningless game, it was nice to go out on a win. Curtis seems to have mastered the art of the fumble-made-touch-down

Yeah, that was a nice move. As was Rocca's tackle and Westbrook's record-busters.

Posted: **2007-12-30 06:55pm**

Master of Ossus wrote:
Fleet Admiral JD wrote:Yeah, asterisk for having a video camera on the sidelines for the first game. . . against an opponent they never played again. . . so it wouldn't have helped at all even if they were cheating. The Patriots kick ass, and some people just don't want to accept it.
Is it just this site or are ALL Patriots apologists total retards who know nothing of football? They did play the Jets again, you fucking idiot. They beat them 38-14 in the first week, and 20-10 in Week 15. Since the Jets and Pats are in the same division, they ALWAYS play each other twice in a season.

Exactly. And who knows how long they had been doing it before getting caught? What other methods did they use to cheat with? Did they fuck with radio signals as had been alleged?

Every single win they have is now in question since we know for an absolute fact that they were willing to cheat. And what's more, they got away with it.

Posted: **2007-12-30 07:34pm**

Flagg wrote:Exactly. And who knows how long they had been doing it before getting caught? What other methods did they use to cheat with? Did they fuck with radio signals as had been alleged?

Every single win they have is now in question since we know for an absolute fact that they were willing to cheat. And what's more, they got away with it.

Not to stray into other sports, but it's no different from supporting people like Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds: "Well, they may have used steroids, but they were Hall of Fame players before they allegedly juiced up!"

It doesn't matter when they cheated. Nor does it matter how often, or even if it helped them! Assuming they took such a substance, they cheated, they intended to do something to produce an advantage over the opposition. And that's enough for me. It doesn't matter if the other side cheated too.

Posted: **2007-12-30 09:36pm**

I hate the Patriots as much as the next guy but I always hesitate to jump on the 'zomg cheaters' tract just cause our best linebacker doped up.

That being said, the Ravens beat their fucking asses.

So make that not one but two asterisks on their heretofore 16-0 season.

Posted: **2007-12-30 10:01pm**

FSTargetDrone wrote:
Flagg wrote:Exactly. And who knows how long they had been doing it before getting caught? What other methods did they use to cheat with? Did they fuck with radio signals as had been alleged?

Every single win they have is now in question since we know for an absolute fact that they were willing to cheat. And what's more, they got away with it.
Not to stray into other sports, but it's no different from supporting people like Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds: "Well, they may have used steroids, but they were Hall of Fame players before they allegedly juiced up!"

It doesn't matter when they cheated. Nor does it matter how often, or even if it helped them! Assuming they took such a substance, they cheated, they intended to do something to produce an advantage over the opposition. And that's enough for me. It doesn't matter if the other side cheated too.

I love it when people trot out the "but their cheating didn't even help them any!!", (which is debatable, but we'll give the benefit of the doubt).

That doesn't lessen them being cheaters. It just makes them stupid cheaters. I don't see anyone rushing to Sammy Sosa's defense just because corking a bat does jack shit.

Posted: **2007-12-30 10:19pm**

Flagg wrote:I love it when people trot out the "but their cheating didn't even help them any!!", (which is debatable, but we'll give the benefit of the doubt).

That doesn't lessen them being cheaters. It just makes them stupid cheaters. I don't see anyone rushing to Sammy Sosa's defense just because corking a bat does jack shit.

I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Think it helps a defense to know what's coming at them? The Pats won three Superbowls by less than a touchdown. I think that knowing what the offense is calling is worth at least a score over the course of a close game. If they were doing the same thing back then, I think that it's reasonable to attribute their SB victories to cheating. And that doesn't even count the playoff games they had.

Posted: **2007-12-30 10:31pm**

Master of Ossus wrote:I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Think it helps a defense to know what's coming at them? The Pats won three Superbowls by less than a touchdown. I think that knowing what the offense is calling is worth at least a score over the course of a close game. If they were doing the same thing back then, I think that it's reasonable to attribute their SB victories to cheating. And that doesn't even count the playoff games they had.

That's what gets me with respect to the Patriots. They were caught, were warned about doing it again, then Belichick does it again anyway! That's what makes him arrogant, not running up the score. More important, it makes him a cheat.

Posted: **2007-12-30 10:37pm**

So anyway on a subject other than the Pats:

Skins win...by 21. Seriously how is that for symbolic victories. Winning by 21 against Dallas at home to make it into the playoffs as the hottest team in the NFC.

Honestly the playoof picture in the NFC is truly interesting. Nobody is a runaway favorite. Dallas has looked incredibly beatable and they gained 1 fucking yard on the ground despite having their starting O-line and backs in the whole game. That is a team with serious flaws and they have less than no momentum plus the still uncertain stats of Owens. Tampa Bay and Seattle have both looked weak at different points all season. Tampa because they got their division yet only finished 9-7 which doesn't inspire dread and Seattle because until recently (and not really even today) have they gotten their run game on track in any meaningful way. The Giants are looking like the team that went on a run after beating the Skins back in Wk4 yet the loss of their center means the run may slow down leaving an often erratic Eli running things. The Skins are playing on pure emotion with the defense finally moving and the offense clicking but Collins doesn't have a truly big arm plus he's about due for a bad game as he's had nothing but excellent ones and this is still the same team which has blown 5 second half leads. Honestly Green Bay has looked the most consistently impressive yet they got torched by Chicago (admittedly in bad conditions but they'll be at home with bad conditions against everybody except Dallas).

So anyway at this point I'd go with Favre and the Packers as they've looked the most well rounded but nobody from 3-6 is out of the question for the NFC championship game. I won't say the Cowboys will lose in the 2nd round but Phillips is 0-3 in the postseason with a team that has no rhythm so I have no faith that they will ride the 1 seed into the Super Bowl.

Posted: **2007-12-30 11:11pm**

Oh man, was anyone watching the Titans @ Colts game?
The Colts only started their offensive players through the 1st quarter or so and defenders much further than that, about the 3rd (I sorta started browsing while watching in the 2Q-3Q time frame so I'm not sure).

But anyway, we all know the Titans win, they're in but a loss or tie, and the Browns are in. Well, the Colts down 16-10 with a backup QB threw a huge 4th and 11 pass with 2 minutes to go, it hit the recievers hands but the defender jarred it loose and the game will end with the Titans going to San Diego next Sunday no doubt.

But the song they played in the ensuing commercial break?
Duh-duh-duh, another one bites the dust!

Sorry Browns fans, but I had to point it out. No hate.

Posted: **2007-12-30 11:19pm**

Master of Ossus wrote:
Flagg wrote:I love it when people trot out the "but their cheating didn't even help them any!!", (which is debatable, but we'll give the benefit of the doubt).

That doesn't lessen them being cheaters. It just makes them stupid cheaters. I don't see anyone rushing to Sammy Sosa's defense just because corking a bat does jack shit.
I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Think it helps a defense to know what's coming at them? The Pats won three Superbowls by less than a touchdown. I think that knowing what the offense is calling is worth at least a score over the course of a close game. If they were doing the same thing back then, I think that it's reasonable to attribute their SB victories to cheating. And that doesn't even count the playoff games they had.

I meant that only in the point I was making. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt doesn't help their cause.

Posted: **2007-12-30 11:30pm**

Despite not making the playoffs, this is the best season the Browns have had in a while. Now to come back next year and make it...

Posted: **2007-12-31 12:08am**

SPC Brungardt wrote:Oh man, was anyone watching the Titans @ Colts game?
The Colts only started their offensive players through the 1st quarter or so and defenders much further than that, about the 3rd (I sorta started browsing while watching in the 2Q-3Q time frame so I'm not sure).

But anyway, we all know the Titans win, they're in but a loss or tie, and the Browns are in. Well, the Colts down 16-10 with a backup QB threw a huge 4th and 11 pass with 2 minutes to go, it hit the recievers hands but the defender jarred it loose and the game will end with the Titans going to San Diego next Sunday no doubt.

But the song they played in the ensuing commercial break?
Duh-duh-duh, another one bites the dust!

Frankly, I'm somewhat glad Cleveland's not going any further. It's their best season in a while, but I saw too many close calls and bonehead plays to believe that they'd be ready. I'd rather they go out with an improved season than embarass themselves in the postseason.

Sorry Browns fans, but I had to point it out. No hate.

Posted: **2007-12-31 12:57am**

Out of laziness and other distractions, I've neglected to make picks for two weeks. However, here's a set of predictions I can't resist:

The Monday following the last regular season game is when the blindfold, block and broadaxe are put to use. That's right -it's time to fire some coaches! Who gets the chop first? Here are some coaches who will face the headsman in the morning, even though they don't deserve to have their heads on spikes atop Bad Football Gate:

1) All you 49er fans should keep your fingers crossed that the rumors coming out of Detroit are true and the Lions fire Mike Martz. See, he's the offensive coach, so it's his fault the Lions gave up 444 points this season. Just like with the Lambs, his offense is to blame when the defense gives up multitudes of points, therefore he must be fired. No, I don't get the logic, either. If he does get canned by another team run by morons, San Francisco would be a perfect fit as OC. He's a proven winner with a real gift for handling QBs. Best of all, he runs the same Don Coryell offense Norv Turner runs, so there should be consistency for the players, who won't have to learn a new scheme.

2) The entire staff in Atlanta. I hope Petrino offers to hire some of these guys after fucking them over by bailing to go to Arkansas. On the other hand, given a choice between unemployment and living in Arkansas, I'd get used to collecting aluminum cans.

3) Cam Cameron is probably a goner, even though he doesn't deserve to be fired. He took over a team with two talented players on offense -one of whom (Chris Chambers) was shipped off to San Diego. The defense's best players are Jason Taylor and Zach Thomas, both of whom are well into their 30s. The team is a joke. But the punchline is going to be Bill Parcells.

Once again, the owner of the Dolphins has been bamboozled by someone willing to prey on his ignorance of football and all-around stupidity. First it was Jimmy Johnson goading Huizenga into sandbagging, then firing Don Shula. Johnson loaded the coaching staff with his old cronies and left the team a shambles, then retired. Then he was hoodwinked into hiring Nick Saban, who milked him for a few million then ran back to coach in college, where second-rate teams had more talent than the Dolphins. Now we have Bill Parcells. What will he do? Oh, I don't know... load the roster and coaching staff with his old flunkies, milk Huizenga for millions and then retire?

I pity poor Chardok, knowing his team will probably have Drew Bledsoe starting at QB and Me-Shawn Johnson at wideout in next September's season opener. If being a washed-up coach with a pair of Super Bowl wins (with someone else's talent, by the way) makes you qualified to run all operations on a football team, why not Tom Flores or George Siefert? At least they wouldn't bring Me-Shawn out of retirement.

4) I get the sinking feeling that Marvin Lewis and/or Mike Nolan might get the axe, which would be too bad.

Coaches who should be fired but won't be:

1) Brian Billick (he must have video of the Ravens' owner on To Catch A Predator or something).

2) Eric Mangini (just on general principle)

3) Herman Edwards (There are only so many times you can get a bad team to play way over their heads.)

4) Mike Shanahan (That whole scheme where you keep trading away running backs, re-shuffle the DL every year, and chuck a proven winner like Jake Plummer for a weenie like Jay Cutler isn't working, is it Shanahan? Oh well, you still have O-linemen who dive at opposing players' knees from behind...)

On the other hand, I'm a San Diego fan, so Shanahan's fuckups and Edwards' wacky incompetence are a boon for the Chargers. Keep up the good work!

Posted: **2007-12-31 02:27am**

FSTargetDrone wrote:Eagles hold off the Bills, 17-9, finishing with a pathetic 8-8 season.

You know, it occurs to me that we've been a little spoiled during the Andy Reid era where we get to the point that 8-8 is "pathetic".

Then again, it felt that way to me too. I stopped paying attention a few weeks in, and gave the season up for a complete bust. But really, I don't care about our record anymore. I want a Super Bowl, dammit. And I wasn't impressed with McNabb this season, either. Maybe he's got another season in him, but I think we may need to rebuild the team with a young quarterback pretty soon.

Posted: **2007-12-31 03:15pm**

On the note of the Eagles how is it that both the AFC South and the NFC East managed to get every team to at least .500 and send 3 teams to the playoffs? You want some parity there it is. Its also why I almost respect the Colts 14-2 more than the Pats 16-0 because they won a division with, again, every team playing at least .500 ball while the Pats are the only .500 or better team in their division.

Posted: **2007-12-31 03:28pm**

CmdrWilkens wrote:On the note of the Eagles how is it that both the AFC South and the NFC East managed to get every team to at least .500 and send 3 teams to the playoffs? You want some parity there it is. Its also why I almost respect the Colts 14-2 more than the Pats 16-0 because they won a division with, again, every team playing at least .500 ball while the Pats are the only .500 or better team in their division.

I think those two divisions sent 2 teams each to the playoffs, not three, but you make a good point. The Patriots had a piss-easy division this year and they might never have had that record if they'd been in the AFC South.

Still, the Colts were 13-3, not 14-2, and one of those 3 losses was to the Patriots. I really don't think they're a better team than New England, but I'll sure as hell root for them if they play the Pats in the AFC Championship, which I think they will. I'm tired of the Patriots. I usually root for Boston teams as my second rooting interest (my whole family's from there) but not this time. They're like the Empire, and Bill Belichick is Darth Vader.

Posted: **2007-12-31 05:04pm**

Well, according to the CHFF website, this is how their bracket will shape up for the playoffs

Washington at Seattle
Jacksonville at Pittsburgh
New York Giants at Tampa Bay
Tennessee at San Diego

Seattle at Green Bay
San Diego at Indianapolis
Pittsburgh at New England
Tampa Bay at Dallas

Indianapolis at New England
Green Bay at Dallas

Green Bay at New England

But I'm going solely based on which teams I like more, as you may recall, so this is my playoff bracket.

Washington at Seattle
Jacksonville at Pittsburgh
New York Giants at Tampa Bay
Tennessee at San Diego

Seattle at Green Bay
San Diego at Indianapolis
Tampa Bay at Dallas
Pittsburgh at New England

Pittsburgh at San Diego
Tampa Bay at Seattle

Seattle vs. Pittsburgh

Posted: **2007-12-31 05:05pm**

Discombobulated wrote:I think those two divisions sent 2 teams each to the playoffs, not three, but you make a good point.

No, they both have three going to the Playoffs.

AFC South
Colts
Jags
Titans

NFC East
Cowboys
Giants
Redskins

Posted: **2008-01-02 03:48am**

So... would the Football Gods frown upon my brandishing this signature? I mean, it's LT scoring an overtime TD against a team we play host to in the post-season this Sunday. Oh, and we got a semi-lucky review on a 4th down conversion thrown our way in the game-tying drive.

I'm feeling the jinx and desperately want to win a damned playoff game in the LT era finally!

But what say y'all?

Posted: **2008-01-02 02:08pm**

Elfdart wrote: Coaches who should be fired but won't be:

1) Brian Billick (he must have video of the Ravens' owner on To Catch A Predator or something).

Well I hate to break it to you, but Billick did get canned. The day after the Ravens' last game. High time also, because i'm sick of football commentators gobbling over how much of an offensive genius he is, when the offense could only score over 20 points if the defense was giving up 30.

Posted: **2008-01-02 03:45pm**

Discombobulated wrote:You know, it occurs to me that we've been a little spoiled during the Andy Reid era where we get to the point that 8-8 is "pathetic".

Then again, it felt that way to me too. I stopped paying attention a few weeks in, and gave the season up for a complete bust. But really, I don't care about our record anymore. I want a Super Bowl, dammit. And I wasn't impressed with McNabb this season, either. Maybe he's got another season in him, but I think we may need to rebuild the team with a young quarterback pretty soon.

Well, you're probably familiar with the "gold standard" comment from the ownership way back when. The Eagles have failed to deliver on the implications of that, especially with the "multiple Superbowls" comment awhile back. Maybe they meant, "We won't be getting to multiple Superbowls anytime soon."

8-8 is just sad. Yes, they went on a bit of a tear at the end, but that doesn't help us. They started poorly and then couldn't even get to, let alone maintain, .500 for the longest time. They've certainly been competitive (if not so much in the last season or two), but that time seems to have swiftly come to an end.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

NFL 08 Thread