My theme from Sunday - No Surprises

LRJets wrote:TO THE SHEILA AND GUPPY BOARD

If this is just "THE SHEILA AND GUPPY BOARD", then I am proud to be a card carrying member.


I have not posted here since the World Series and your three week celebration of same.   I'm not in favor of feeling nauseous.

By celebrating for "only" three weeks, the triumph of not only Boston's baseball team going "worst to first", but a triumph of the very spirit of the people of the entire city in the wake of a senseless act of terrorism, I felt I was being most humble.  I don't expect all those circumstances that defined that season to ever come together again in my lifetime. 


Your recognition of the loss by NE sans excuses justified this post.  All the credit in the world should be given to Belichick for coaching the best out of his remaining players this season starting with the loss of the murdering WR.

The only "excuse" for losing is either the other team PLAYED better, or the other team simply IS better.  In this case, it was BOTH.


Losing Holmes and Revis , the two best Jets players at the time, still gave the Jets no shot of success even if they were on the field.  BB has the uncanny ability to bring out the best (like Hellmann's) in his roster.


He is probably the greatest coach of all time.   His weakness:  releasing/letting go of players who succeed on other teams.

I have not called him the greatest coach of all time.  But Peyton Manning did.  And it seemed genuine when he said it.  Whether BB is or not, I don't know.  Those kind of discussions should take place after he retires, not now.  He's no doubt "one of" the best, but he definitely has weaknesses, yes.

 
BB and Brady, who never looked so dejected IMO, did NE proud!

The effort, the desire, and the heart was there.  I'm not sure they brought the greatest gameplan with them to Denver though.  Big picture, the season did provide a bunch of achievements that went further than many expectations, which is a great thing.  Just recall some of the comments on this board at the beginning of the year as to what this season was supposed to look like for NE (I recall the word "ugly" being thrown around.)  But in the end when you make it to a championship game in the other guy's building, reality eventually slaps you in the face, and you can only go so far until a point is reached when the truth emerges that your opponent that is simply better than you.  To fail to acknowledge that the opponent is just downright superior after they just proved on the field, is to be blind. 

Can one be proud of making it pretty darn far, but not all the way?   I'd have to say yes.....in a bittersweet, subdued kind of way.

LRJets wrote:TO THE SHEILA AND GUPPY BOARD

If this is just "THE SHEILA AND GUPPY BOARD", then I am proud to be a card carrying member.





Then imagine how  proud Sheila is with 32 cards!


32?

LRJets wrote:And since my post....talk has come out in the sports media that  Belichick is blaming Welker for intentionally hurting Talib.


Guess he forgot what Richard Seymour's illegal leg whip did to Phillip Rivers.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Bill...ya didn't let me down!!


Didn't Seymour do that in 2008?   And then didn't Bill ship Seymour out of NE to be an Oakland Raider in 2009?  Bill didn't keep him around did he?  Not saying that was the reason, but it is a fact that Bill did dump him while he was still considered one of the standout D-linemen in the league.  Is Seymour one of the players you were referring to in your previous post where you pointed out Bill's "weakness" of getting rid of players who go on to help other teams?

guppy wrote:

LRJets wrote:TO THE SHEILA AND GUPPY BOARD

If this is just "THE SHEILA AND GUPPY BOARD", then I am proud to be a card carrying member.





Then imagine how  proud Sheila is with 32 cards!


32?

~Sheila~ wrote:

guppy wrote:

LRJets wrote:TO THE SHEILA AND GUPPY BOARD

If this is just "THE SHEILA AND GUPPY BOARD", then I am proud to be a card carrying member.





Then imagine how  proud Sheila is with 32 cards!


32?

I haven't a clue what any of this means.  ?


Neither do I.  I'm still in the dark as to whether the moniker "THE SHEILA AND GUPPY BOARD" was intended as some sort of snide jab that this board only has two primary contributors, or it is actually a compliment to you and I that we primarily are the ones to keep it alive.  Either way, it is of no matter.  I post what I think, and I don't mind challenging statements of others which I believe need to be challenged, and while I might come off as argumentative, I try to do so respectfully.  

Speaking of challenging the statements of others, and what gets my goat, I read plenty of post game posts taking delight in the Patriots loss to the Broncos, which is fine, but what gets me is when people absolutely make stuff up out of thin air that has zero basis in reality.  One poster cackled, "I love watching Brady cry after losing, and he is such a sore loser."  I want to say to that moron, please show us where he was crying or being a sore loser.  Come on internet tough guy.  Show us your best example.  I saw Brady's post game comments, and I heard his radio interview today.  All I heard was nothing but class, grace and humility.  Everything was along the lines that he and the team "weren't good enough" and  "came up short", and the Broncos are "a great team", Broncos were "flawless" and "they deserved to win" etc. etc. etc.  Zero evidence of being a "sore loser"  Zero "crying".   Zero excuses.  Did not blame lack of home field; "its not where we played, its how we played."  When these fools just outright LIE because their lack of brain power can't come up with anything resembling intelligence or truth, it just makes me shake my head and say there is a lot of America that is just plain stupid.  And you can't fix stupid. 

LRJets wrote:Didn't Seymour do that in 2008?   And then didn't Bill ship Seymour out of NE to be an Oakland Raider in 2009?  Bill didn't keep him around did he?  Not saying that was the reason, but it is a fact that Bill did dump him while he was still considered one of the standout D-linemen in the league.  Is Seymour one of the players you were referring to in your previous post where you pointed out Bill's "weakness" of getting rid of players who go on to help other teams?


If you have to ask that question,  George and I have been dealing with Rags under a different screen name.
Or...........is it just a "NE thing" to twist things better than Chubby Checker?


I mentioned two dates:  1) the date of the event you saw fit to bring up, Seymour's leg whip on Phillip Rivers - 2008; and 2) the date of Seymour's release from NE - the very next year, 2009.  Was anything I said not factual?  Were my dates correct or not? 

I did not state a conclusion to be drawn from the proximity of the two dates.  I left that to the reader to draw his or her own.  Or not.

So where is the Rags style twisting?

Please explain your argument, which escapes me.  Why bring up the Seymour incident from five years ago?  How, in your view, does it correlate to the Welker hit on Talib, and specifically BB's view of it?  Are you saying BB actually coached Seymour to leg whip?   And therefore, BB is a hypocrite for calling out what he perceives to be a dirty play by Welker, an opposing player?  That's the only thing I can figure is your theory.  If it is, you should say so directly rather than leave it to innuendo, which leaves me befuddled as to your precise meaning.  For example, if you had put it this way:  "BB is a hypocrite because five years ago I'm pretty sure (although I have no actual proof) that he actually coached one of his own players to blatantly commit  a leg whip, which is a dirty play.  Yet, now when he thinks an opposing player commits a dirty play, he has the outright nerve and gall to call him out for it.  What a hypocrite." then I would have understood your argument.  But by bringing up Seymour's trip of Rivers, and somehow drawing a parallel to Welker's hit on Talib, vis a vis BB's connection to both incidents, and coming up with the punch line, Bill "didn't let you down", you totally lost me.  

So because I'm not too bright when it comes to innuendo, I ask you directly:  Is your argument that BB is directly responsible and accountable for actually coaching Richard Seymour five years ago to stick his leg out and trip an opposing runner if he ever found himself on the ground and getting beat by that runner?  And if so, that now makes BB a hypocrite, because on the one hand he coached one of his own players to play dirty, yet on the other hand, he now complains of a perceived dirty play by an opposing player?

Have I re-stated your hypothesis accurately?  Or am I still operating under a misunderstanding?

 

LRJets wrote:You're a righteous dude, Gup.
Just it gets exhausting at times with innuendos as you say, or translations,explanations.


Best analogy is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Didn't mean to get overly reactive, but your post bringing up the Seymour incident from '08 in the context of BB's comment on Welker in '14 did leave me wondering.  If I was to ask you who do you hold responsible for Richard Seymour's leg whip on Phillip Rivers in 2008?  Is it Bill Belichick, the coach of the player, or is it Richard Seymour, the player who himself actually committed the leg whip?  

I'm really not sure which one of those two individuals in your estimation is more responsible for that on the field transgression.

LRJets wrote: He also mentoned it was the anniversary last week-end for thePats on the Tuck Rule giving them their first Lombardi.


The Tuck Rule occurred in the Superbowl?

guppy wrote:

LRJets wrote: He also mentoned it was the anniversary last week-end for thePats on the Tuck Rule giving them their first Lombardi.


The Tuck Rule occurred in the Superbowl?

LRJets wrote:

guppy wrote:

LRJets wrote: He also mentoned it was the anniversary last week-end for thePats on the Tuck Rule giving them their first Lombardi.


The Tuck Rule occurred in the Superbowl?

I believe it happened in the snow.  There never was (until this one) any shot of a snowy SB.  : )
Didn't it allow NE to go to the SB.....meaning the AFCC?


Oakland was leading in the game by 3.  The Pats had the ball and were trying to get into FG range, but it was 4th down and they had one more shot to keep the drive going.  Brady dropped back and was hit causing him to "fumble".  Oakland recovered.  Game over.  But wait.  After review, it was called "not a fumble" because Brady's arm was moving forward to "tuck" it into his body, which, under the rule was an incomplete forward pass.  The call allowed NE to keep the ball on downs instead of it going over to the Raiders who could then run out the clock.  The call basically only allowed play to continue with NE in possession of the ball.  The call did nothing more than give NE a second chance.  NE did not write the rule.  NE did not manipulate the system.  NE got lucky, that's all.  Because of a stupid rule, but a rule in place nonetheless, a rule which was repealed a dozen years later, NE got another snap.  Once NE was given this second chance, they still had to do something with it.  The call did not "give" NE the victory.  NE still had to make the plays to tie the game, then win the game, then move on to the next game, then play that game, then win that game.  In other words, NE had to successfully execute a LOT of plays after the Tuck Rule was called in order to gain the Lombardi.  Thus, your statement that the Tuck Rule "giving NE its first Lombardi" needed to be clarified.  The call "gave" them a second opportunity to make a play in a game where they were trailing by 3.  That was a lucky break.  Brady then took advantage of the second chance given to him by then moving NE into FG range to tie the game.  Then the two teams had to play overtime.  In the overtime, NE made the plays and Oakland did not.  NE got another Vintieri FG, this time in OT to win it.  The Tuck Rule did not "give" them their first Lombardi.  It only gave them a lucky second chance to win a game that had the call not been made, they definitely lost.  If you're lucky enough to be given a second chance, it is still up to you to make the most of it.  They did.

Doesn't matter anyway.  Its water long ago under the bridge.  The only reason I took the time to type the above explanation was to kill time so I don't have to turn my attention to doing work, which is what I should be doing.

George1963 wrote:Oakland was leading in the game by 3.  The Pats had the ball and were trying to get into FG range, but it was 4th down and they had one more shot to keep the drive going.  Brady dropped back and was hit causing him to "fumble".  Oakland recovered.  Game over.  But wait.  After review, it was called "not a fumble" because Brady's arm was moving forward to "tuck" it into his body, which, under the rule was an incomplete forward pass.


How'd they keep the ball on an incomplete pass on fourth down?

My statement that it was 4th down was incorrect.  You caught my error before I did, you sharpie.  It was actually 1st and 10 when the play happened and the call was made. So the fact that Oakland recovered the ball was critical.  If a Patriot had recovered the ball, history is quite different, the Pats would have kept possession and had three more downs anyway, and the call itself would have been a little remembered footnote to the game.  And if history went that way, the Tuck Rule probably would have never been repealed, because nobody would have been paying much mind to it.  Other than that slip up by myself getting the down wrong, I hope the rest of my narrative meets with your high standards of accuracy.  I do hope I am forgiven, as I was doing my best to recount an event that took place 12 bleeping years ago.  12 years is a long time isn't it?  And a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then (except to Raider fans, of course) .

LRJets wrote:

Gup, your manners amaze me. 


How so?