Kyyle23 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 07:50 AM) So...did Pratt go into hiding or did he do something else drastic??? he is looking up every available definition of "class" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 12:27 AM) That play needs a name... It ranks up there with others The emaculate reception The holy roller The catch The tuck rule The Scramble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 It was that NFC speed baby! AFC is weak like the Ukraine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 02:24 AM) No way. 4th and 2 to end the damn game, you go for it right there, period. And like Herbstreit once said, VY was going to score whether he got that ball around the 40 or around the 20, it didn't much matter. He was unstoppable in that 4th quarter/the entire game. No f'in way I want to give him the ball back if I don't have to, even if I give it to him at the 1 yard line. Texas scored on a 4th down play with 20 seconds left, if they had to have gone an extra 25 yards (a quarter of the field!), it makes a big difference. And the equally big problem was Carroll's arrogance to just run it up the middle with LenDale White and not even have the threat of Reggie Bush on the field. It was debateable if going for it was right or wrong, it was not debateable that running it up the middle with Bush not even on the field with the season on the line was idiotic. And, on a lighter note, what does Kirk Herbstreit matter? If his opinion were gospel, Les Miles would be the Michigan coach and Ohio State would have beaten Illinois by 2 touchdowns last season. QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 09:03 AM) It was that NFC speed baby! AFC is weak like the Ukraine. Haha, spoken like a true angry/bitter/sarcastic Ohio State fan. Edited February 4, 2008 by whitesoxfan101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Well Simmons actually didn't pull a Belichick and run and hide...Dap to him. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...=simmons/080204 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 3, 2008 -> 09:17 PM) f*** Fox, seriously -- great job having Bradshaw up there. His voice sounds like one of those old-women who has clearly been smoking for 50+ years. Yeah and he didn't gave Manning a chance to give his own speech and thank anyone. I had the MVP thanking his teammates first and due to Bradshaws stoopid questions instead of just getting out of the way...Manning thanked nobody and I'm out 65 bucks!!!!!!!!! As for the game....18-1 NE...same as the Bears only the Bears won the big one. I also think the way NE played with a tough Defense in their face proves Hampton correct. Hampton: We would have pounded Brady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 While we're at it, Easterbrook gives the summary of pretty much where everything stands Re: the Pats videotaping scandal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo's Drinker Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 11:42 AM) While we're at it, Easterbrook gives the summary of pretty much where everything stands Re: the Pats videotaping scandal. Fantastic article, cannot wait to see how this ends up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 10:47 AM) As for the game....18-1 NE...same as the Bears only the Bears won the big one. I also think the way NE played with a tough Defense in their face proves Hampton correct. Hampton: We would have pounded Brady Haha, Hampton is such a clueless retard and it's proven yet again. The whole reason the Giants won was they established pressure with ONLY their front 4 early, then blitzed Brady after he was beaten up and confused to the point where he wasn't getting good reads. The Bears exclusive blitzing, 46 defense for 60 minutes style would have been beaten to a pulp by New England. That's not the Bears fault, it's just how it is, just like the Bears would have killed any of those Packers teams from the 60's. Football players just get bigger and faster and better every year, which is why comparing teams from different eras is stupid and pointless. Edited February 4, 2008 by whitesoxfan101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) Haha, Hampton is such a clueless retard and it's proven yet again. The whole reason the Giants won was they established pressure with ONLY their front 4 early, then blitzed Brady after he was beaten up and confused to the point where he wasn't getting good reads. The Bears exclusive blitzing, 46 defense for 60 minutes style would have been beaten to a pulp by New England. That's not the Bears fault, it's just how it is, just like the Bears would have killed any of those Packers teams from the 60's. Football players just get bigger and faster and better every year, which is why comparing teams from different eras is stupid and pointless. Yet you just did it. Beaten to a pulp?? Ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 08:55 AM) he is looking up every available definition of "class" Well done. Oh, very well done. The Pratt e-vigil continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Buffalo Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) Haha, Hampton is such a clueless retard and it's proven yet again. The whole reason the Giants won was they established pressure with ONLY their front 4 early, then blitzed Brady after he was beaten up and confused to the point where he wasn't getting good reads. The Bears exclusive blitzing, 46 defense for 60 minutes style would have been beaten to a pulp by New England. That's not the Bears fault, it's just how it is, just like the Bears would have killed any of those Packers teams from the 60's. Football players just get bigger and faster and better every year, which is why comparing teams from different eras is stupid and pointless. The 85 Bears were not smaller and slower than today's players. They match up quite well physically with modern players. Go back to the teams from the 70s and 60s, and your argument about the speed/size factor is much better. Basically, as Hampton said, the 85 Bears' strengths were running the ball and pressuring the QB. That plays well into the weaknesses of the 07 Patriots. Who would win? I wouldn't bet against the 85 Bears against any team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(Middle Buffalo @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) The 85 Bears were not smaller and slower than today's players. They match up quite well physically with modern players. Go back to the teams from the 70s and 60s, and your argument about the speed/size factor is much better. Basically, as Hampton said, the 85 Bears' strengths were running the ball and pressuring the QB. That plays well into the weaknesses of the 07 Patriots. Who would win? I wouldn't bet against the 85 Bears against any team. On Friday Boers and Bernstein compared the sizes of the 85 Bears defensive line vs the 07-08 Patriots offensive line, the only player that was smaller than his opponent was Steve McMichael. And I wouldnt bet against Mongo either, against any offensive lineman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 01:47 PM) Yet you just did it. Beaten to a pulp?? Ok I did the best I could, and it still made no sense, which is part of the point. I know I can't win this argument here since everybody will be homers for the '85 Bears, but they'd have just given up a ton of big plays with all the blitzes against a quasi run and shoot offense, and that goes beyond the differenta eras thing. On Friday Boers and Bernstein compared the sizes of the 85 Bears defensive line vs the 07-08 Patriots offensive line, the only player that was smaller than his opponent was Steve McMichael. And I wouldnt bet against Mongo either, against any offensive lineman C: Hilgenberg: 6'3, 256 RG: Thayer: 6'4, 270 RT: Van Horne: 6'6, 280 LG: Bortz: 6'6, 270 LT: Covert: 6'4, 275 TE: Moorehead: 6'2, 220 FB: Suhey: 5'11, 215 LE: Hampton: 6'5, 264 LDT: McMichael: 6'2, 270 RDT: Perry: 6'2, 335 RE: Dent: 6'5, 265 LOLB: Wilson: 6'2, 227 MLB: Singletary: 6'0, 230 ROLB: Marshall: 6'1, 230 They were TINY. If somebody wants to argue their chances against New England than whatever, but that team is TINY outside of the Fridge. I guess you could argue, in theory, that the front 7 is the size of one of the smaller few defenses in football today like Tampa Bay, but there is no way in hell they are anywhere near as fast. Maybe you were listening to "imaginary radio". I especially can't get over the size of that offense, the FB is the size of a RB, the TE is like a WR, and Hilgenberg is like the size of a TE. Edited February 4, 2008 by whitesoxfan101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 By the way...does anyone think we've officially seen the last of teams resting their regulars in week 17 if they have nothing to play for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 03:55 PM) By the way...does anyone think we've officially seen the last of teams resting their regulars in week 17 if they have nothing to play for? Not at all. Dungy & Gruden'll do that forever. There will always be coaches who believe in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 02:55 PM) By the way...does anyone think we've officially seen the last of teams resting their regulars in week 17 if they have nothing to play for? No way. Even the Bears do that. I do think the Giants doing it was a good move though. You dont want to go into the playoffs getting pounded in week 17. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 09:49 AM) Texas scored on a 4th down play with 20 seconds left, if they had to have gone an extra 25 yards (a quarter of the field!), it makes a big difference. And the equally big problem was Carroll's arrogance to just run it up the middle with LenDale White and not even have the threat of Reggie Bush on the field. It was debateable if going for it was right or wrong, it was not debateable that running it up the middle with Bush not even on the field with the season on the line was idiotic. And, on a lighter note, what does Kirk Herbstreit matter? If his opinion were gospel, Les Miles would be the Michigan coach and Ohio State would have beaten Illinois by 2 touchdowns last season. Haha, spoken like a true angry/bitter/sarcastic Ohio State fan. I'll still say VY would have taken them down and scored, regardless of yardage needed. I agree with you that not having Bush on the field was stupid. I was basically only talking about the decision to go. And you are wrong, Herbstreit is gospel, that guy is the f'in man! But he said it right after that game was over and I remember him saying it, that's the only reason I threw it in there. In other words, not my original thought, twas his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSoxfan1986 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 This sucks. My whole life I wanted to see a team go undefeated to shut up the 72 Phins, and I figured this would be the year. f*** Shula, Csonka, Mercury Morris and the rest of those f***s. QUOTE(Shadows @ Feb 3, 2008 -> 09:01 PM) POP THE CHAMPAIGNE THE 72' DOLPHINS ARE STILL THE ONLY UNDEFEATED TEAM IN LEAGUE HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 85 Bears are still the best team of all time. The Dolphins are still the 5th best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 08:11 PM) This sucks. My whole life I wanted to see a team go undefeated to shut up the 72 Phins, and I figured this would be the year. f*** Shula, Csonka, Mercury Morris and the rest of those f***s. The 85 Bears are still the best team of all time. The Dolphins are still the 5th best. The 85 Bears can sit and spin Only one undefeated, only one that ever will.. best team of all time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSoxfan1986 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 QUOTE(Shadows @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 08:45 PM) The 85 Bears can sit and spin Only one undefeated, only one that ever will.. best team of all time They can always have the title of the only undefeated team, but anyone who's not a coward and looks at facts will say there is no way they were the best team ever. 1. 85 Bears 2. 91 Redskins 3. 84 Niners 4. 89 Niners 5. 72 Dolphins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 12:46 AM) They can always have the title of the only undefeated team, but anyone who's not a coward and looks at facts will say there is no way they were the best team ever. 1. 85 Bears 2. 91 Redskins 3. 84 Niners 4. 89 Niners 5. 72 Dolphins Its a matter of opinion, so save your rankings they don't mean jack to me.. The only undefeated team in league history is the best, you wont change my opinion on that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 12:46 AM) They can always have the title of the only undefeated team, but anyone who's not a coward and looks at facts will say there is no way they were the best team ever. 1. 85 Bears 2. 91 Redskins 3. 84 Niners 4. 89 Niners 5. 72 Dolphins I had this debate with a friend yesterday, and we came up with 12 teams that were for sure better and another 6 which might have been. The 1972 Dolphins know this though, they're not stupid, which is why they root so hard for 17-0 to stand IMO. They know they were just a really good (not great) team that took advantage of a very poor NFL that year, and that if somebody goes 19-0, they'll be forgotten forever not only as the only perfect team, but also as a great team in general. As for Dolphin fans who sit there and say the '72 Dolphins are still the best team, well of course they are going to say that, it's their favorite team. They are wrong, and most weren't even around to see that team play, but it's their team. Dolphins fans will say the '72 team is the best, Bear fans will say the '85 team is the best. It's just how it is, fans are homers who can't put away personal loyalties to look at things in perspective, and that's a shame. Edited February 5, 2008 by whitesoxfan101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 08:45 AM) I had this debate with a friend yesterday, and we came up with 12 teams that were for sure better and another 6 which might have been. The 1972 Dolphins know this though, they're not stupid, which is why they root so hard for 17-0 to stand IMO. They know they were just a really good (not great) team that took advantage of a very poor NFL that year, and that if somebody goes 19-0, they'll be forgotten forever not only as the only perfect team, but also as a great team in general. As for Dolphin fans who sit there and say the '72 Dolphins are still the best team, well of course they are going to say that, it's their favorite team. They are wrong, and most weren't even around to see that team play, but it's their team. Dolphins fans will say the '72 team is the best, Bear fans will say the '85 team is the best. It's just how it is, fans are homers who can't put away personal loyalties to look at things in perspective, and that's a shame. You dont quite understand the concept of "opinion" whether you think they are better or not, it doesnt matter because you are comparing eras. Your opinion on who is better isnt going to sway my opinion, or shadows opinion, and sitting there and telling us we are wrong and blind homers is the pot meet kettle. Im not even a Dolphins fan, and I despise the 72 Dolphins, but Im not goign to sit here and tell Shadows that he is wrong because he thinks his favorite team, the last undefeated team in NFL history, is the best. Edited February 5, 2008 by kyyle23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.