All of them. The Who trashed all of them.
Until today I didn't realize that NFL teams took regular planes that are part of a normal flight rotation.
Wild Card Weekend Gamethread
- Thread starter Dr. Gonzo
- Start date
Until today I didn't realize that NFL teams took regular planes that are part of a normal flight rotation.
Giants fans have the same smug moral superiority trip that Duke basketball fans have. It's wonderful to see their team finally exposed as cheating, immature lunkheads.
Working in Midtown, I feel like most Giants fans show the most bravado when talking about the Pats, and sadly rightfully so, but that they are generally pretty reasonable outside of that. Many of the Giants fans I know are defeatist in nature, almost Jets-like. And they should be because their team almost never shows any week-to-week consistency.
How many times have you posted this?
Let's try a different approach this time.
"Since the 80's"
So 1990 would be the starting point, but let's skip that year because the Patriots were 1-15 and for some unknown reason the New York Football Giants hired their coach the next year as defensive coordinator! Besides, the New York Football Giants probably won at least 2 games that year.
The Patriots had 67 regular season wins from 1991-99, four playoff appearances, three wins, and one super bowl appearance.
Compared to 70 regular season wins, and two playoff appearances with only one win the entire time.
Let's not compare 2000 also, since that was such an embarrassment against the Ravens.
I didn't get to see any of these games live, but I do get to hear the Rod Rust story a lot.
Twice. Does it bother you?
Like I said, it's a sore spot - not rational - can you blame us? I'm sure I inserted some hyperbole, and apologize for polluting the thread. But I did see all those games live. My main point was that since 2007 (yes I will admit to moving the goalposts) the Giants have been wildly inconsistent, and it boggles my mind that we lost two Super Bowls to them. They just don't seem like a very well-run organization.
All that being said, I wanted NY to win the game against GB, because I want Brady to be the undisputed GOAT.
Last edited:
Rodgers isn't even in the conversation, and likely won't be. And Brady won't be the greatest of all time for all time, or even for our lifetimes.
If Brady gets #5 (fingers crossed), who is beating that resume in this day and age? And that's not a rhetorical question. I want you to identify which current 2 year-old will surpass him so that we can start teaching that kid basketball or something.
Give me a second to text all my exes, and I'll get back to you.
It might not be a ring, thing, but statistics and perhaps longevity. It's a bit of a long shot, but people have been saying that forever about athletes in their lifetimes. Of course, the fact that football might not last another 50 years gives Brady a leg up.
I was listening to some back-bench radio clowns during the holidays (my fault for do so) and they were discussing Brady's "legacy" and how "important" it was that his teams are now 4-2 in Super Bowls instead of 3-3. If I weren't driving (and if I owned a cellphone) I would have called into their show and asked them to compare even a 3-3 record against all other quarterbacks who have started in SIX FUCKING SUPER BOWLS. And for good measure asked them to name all the quarterbacks who had started Super Bowls THIRTEEN YEARS APART.
Brady gets judged on a playing field where he's the only one to compare himself to. I'd like to see the fifth championship, to tie him with Starr, because then maybe the narrative would gain some perspective
What I learned from this post is that you don't have a cell phone. You're the last person in America.
I will be mailing you a sternly worded letter ... written in cursive, on stationery
Having been in a lot of meetings, symposiums, lectures, etc. with some of the thought leaders in the field of concussion research/prevention, I think the bolded may be exactly wrong. The absolute worst big hits for the brain are the ones the recipient (victim?) doesn't see coming. The primary damage to the brain is not caused by the impact, but by the motion of the brain inside the skull, and then against the skull. When a player sees a hit coming, he can tense up his neck and shoulder muscles and limit some of that shaking/jarring. When he doesn't see the hit coming, there is no tensing in the muscles and thus you get more motion and more impact within the skull.
This is also the reason concussions due to heading the ball are more common in women's soccer than they are in men's soccer - because women's neck muscles tend to be less developed and do less to prevent the whiplash effect in the brain.
Note: I am not even close to a doctor - I just have heard variations on this explanation many times from people who are. I could be explaining it poorly, so take it for what it's worth.
What's the point of even saying that? Obviously any 36 yr old (or 39 yr old) QB is on the back nine of his career and his team has to plan for the future. Does Reese like to hear himself talk that much that he has to say this publicly?
Good gracious we've been so lucky with Belichick.
Thanks for that. Very interesting and educational.
I suppose that distinction is part of the genesis of protecting a "defenseless receiver", and of banning blocks in the back. Perhaps the definition of defenseless could be extended to cover some of those blindside hits at speed. There's a reason shoulder charges in association football are legal only if you aren't coming from a great distance or with great speed, so that there's not "excessive force" used in knocking someone off the ball. Maybe a similar standard should apply to these kind of hits.
