14 hours later

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:

Aren't you forgetting three time Super Bowl Champion Matt Cavanaugh?

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

OMG.  Where do you come up with this stuff?

Two rings as a player, one as a coach.  He backed up Joe Montana for the first, and Jeff Hostetler with the Giants for the second.  He was a coach with the Ravens for his third ring.  In college, played on the same Pitt Panther team with Tony Dorsett, and won the national championship in the Sugar Bowl.  He was MVP of the game.  Drafted by the Pats in the second round in 1978.

Looks like he holds a great clipboard.  Mostly backed up Steve Grogan, but also (ugh) Tony Eason too.

George1963 wrote:

Old Boilermakers always seem to do alright for themselves.


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

George1963 wrote:

It just popped into my head that marginally talented wackjob Jim McMahon has won two rings. 


Two rings.  AND he's a "Bedroom MVP"

He may have retired long ago, but it looks like he's still "got game".  lol



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

guppy wrote:Give me No. 12 any day.

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

Rick wrote:

guppy wrote:Give me No. 12 any day.

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

My high school quarterbacks father was the first guy to ever where #12 for the Patriots. BB came to his wake. To this day nobody knows why.

Remember when we sucked and weren't gonna make the playoffs and we had to trade Brady? remember that? that was funny

George1963 wrote:

Rick wrote:

guppy wrote:Give me No. 12 any day.

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

My high school quarterbacks father was the first guy to ever where #12 for the Patriots. BB came to his wake. To this day nobody knows why.

Were there snacks?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Snacks?  You must be thinking of a different head coach.


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

George1963 wrote:My high school quarterbacks father was the first guy to ever where #12 for the Patriots.

Allard, right?
Did you ever know what happened to him? He had kind of a nothing pro career for the fourth pick in the draft.

Rick wrote:

George1963 wrote:My high school quarterbacks father was the first guy to ever where #12 for the Patriots.

Allard, right?
Did you ever know what happened to him? He had kind of a nothing pro career for the fourth pick in the draft.

No idea. He got hurt I would guess. I didn't even know he had played at all until years later. He was just a neighborhood dad.

When I was a kid, if my Dad was an ex pro I never would have shut up about it.

Did last nights game work for your plan?

Perfectly. Now if Cincy can win 1 of 2 from Pitt the Colts need no help from anybody.
The Pats are in the same boat by the way. Better really. I'm just talking about a bye for the Colts. NE has a realistic shot at #1. Tough, unlikely IMO, but it's all up to them. No help needed.

George1963 wrote:

NE has a realistic shot at #1. Tough, unlikely IMO, but it's all up to them. No help needed.


Well, they do have some help actually - for three remaining games at least.  They have what I heard someone somewhere recently call the "unnatural" advantage of playing at home.  LOL.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:

NE has a realistic shot at #1. Tough, unlikely IMO, but it's all up to them. No help needed.


Well, they do have some help actually - for three remaining games at least.  They have what I heard someone somewhere recently call the "unnatural" advantage of playing at home.  LOL.

George1963 wrote:

BB had something taken away in '07, but he found something that works even better. But only in Foxborough.


Maybe you can be the one to find out what that "something" is, and then clue the rest of the world in on it.  You should do it.  Think of how famous you'll be.

But not so fast.  Three times during your 07 to present time frame when it was most important - the playoffs - the "something" that you suggest exits failed to work at home.  At Foxborough, they lost twice to the Ravens and once to the Jets during that time.  That makes them 6-3 in the playoffs at Gillette since '07.  That's just OK, not unnaturally stellar in my book. 

We'll see how good of a road team they are next week when they have to deal with artificially piped in crowd noise when they have the ball on offense.  I'm very nervous about the game in Indy because the closest the Pats have come to winning a road game against a quality team is the win at Buffalo, which is not saying a hell of a lot.  Other than that, they have yet to shine on the road, and in my opinion have not yet proven they are a good road team.


So, while I acknowledge that so far they have done squat on the road, the most recent home victory was truly satisfying.  Even though BB must have employed that mysterious "something" because they were at home, it is still nevertheless a great thing to pin another destruction on a Peyton Manning-led team, and I hope you enjoyed the experience of seeing it up close and personal.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:

BB had something taken away in '07, but he found something that works even better. But only in Foxborough.


Maybe you can be the one to find out what that "something" is, and then clue the rest of the world in on it.  You should do it.  Think of how famous you'll be.

I don't want to be famous, and I have no idea, besides the obvious homefield crap they pull, what they're doing. But it's something. Actually I have a couple of ideas, but that's based in part on a completely disreputable source, Doug Flutie, so....

But not so fast.  Three times during your 07 to present time frame when it was most important - the playoffs - the "something" that you suggest exits failed to work at home.  At Foxborough, they lost twice to the Ravens and once to the Jets during that time.  That makes them 6-3 in the playoffs at Gillette since '07.  That's just OK, not unnaturally stellar in my book.

Yea, that kinda plays into the pre spygate 7-2 playoff record against teams they'd already faced, 3-6 post thing. Add to that in the playoffs the NFL is crawling all over the host stadiums. They don't completely take over, they're not tearing tickets or pulling beers, but it's close. 

We'll see how good of a road team they are next week when they have to deal with artificially piped in crowd noise when they have the ball on offense.  I'm very nervous about the game in Indy because the closest the Pats have come to winning a road game against a quality team is the win at Buffalo, which is not saying a hell of a lot.  Other than that, they have yet to shine on the road, and in my opinion have not yet proven they are a good road team.

Hold tight to that Buffalo win Guppy. You'd have to go back 4 years to find another road win against a good team. If not for that win in Orchard Park, Every team in the league would have a more recent road win against a quality opponent than the Patriots.
The numbers are startling. Leave out this year (The Bills might wind up sub .500 and the Pats might win another one. Or not. Who knows?).  Without going into the long boring story of why I started looking at this, call 07-13 a seven year run for the Pats. They were .773 at home, .421 away against +.500 teams. I looked at all the 7 year +.700 runs I could find, 12 of them, and there was only one other team that was even sub .500 on the road. The early 70s Cowboys. A good number of them were actually better on the road. Including the 00-06 Patriots, who weren't quite 700, but I looked anyway.
During longest run of all time, .741 over 18 seasons the '81-'98 49ers were .686 at home, .577 on the road. A team being that much better at home is bizzare, and the difference in the Pats home/away w/l percentages is unprecedented. (That I could find)
It's one of the many "unnatural" things about the BB Patriots including the previously mentioned "owning"  teams they'd already seen then suddenly, not.
Brady is .704 lifetime at home against teams with winning records, 473 at home. The 'product of the dome, can't win on the road" Manning is .608 and .568.
Then again, Andrew Luck is .875 and .200. So all this probably means nothing.


So, while I acknowledge that so far they have done squat on the road, the most recent home victory was truly satisfying.  Even though BB must have employed that mysterious "something" because they were at home, it is still nevertheless a great thing to pin another destruction on a Peyton Manning-led team, and I hope you enjoyed the experience of seeing it up close and personal.

Enjoyed the hell out of it, but next time I'll fly. Or time it better. I somehow hit like 4 different rush hours.

George1963 wrote:

Add to that in the playoffs the NFL is crawling all over the host stadiums. They don't completely take over, they're not tearing tickets or pulling beers, but it's close. 



Right.  The clock.  All the technology stuff.  Its all league equipment, all controlled by the league.  As you say, there's no room to get away with funny stuff.  Yet, the unnatural home dominance continues, the most recent evidence being the dismantling of the previous "best team in football". 

So what are we to do? 

How 'bout we just call them a great home team, and an average road team who is prone to let downs on the road.  How 'bout that?  It doesn't require as much thinking.  Their performances at home is who they are.  Their disappointing performances on the road is not who they are, and they should be called out for it.  That's my take.  They should not be let off the hook for the abomination that was the Kansas City game.  Totally unprepared.  They had a whole training camp and preseason to get their act together fer chrissake.  No excuse for a complete no show against the Chiefs.  I know the O-Line grouping was not figured out yet.  But it should have been, is my point. 

Either we tip our cap to BB for the "something" he's found that works at home, or we criticize him for allowing his team to lose focus on the road.  One or the other.

Then again, how 'bout we give BB (and the player personnel people in the front office) credit for moves like picking up linebacker Akeem Ayers from the Titans, a former second round pick.  At Tennessee he had been on the field for a total of 10 defensive snaps this year, still struggling after coming off two knee operations, yet he comes to the Pats (whose starting middle linebacker is on IR) and two weeks later he plays a HUGE role in the game against the Broncos, playing in 77 of 82 snaps, including getting a big sack on Manning.  Now that's pretty damn good.  That's how you do the little things running a team that keeps the train rolling.

George1963 wrote:

  Without going into the long boring story of why I started looking at this,


Ya, don't.  We don't want to go down that road.     

I respect your football knowledge a hell of a lot more than the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theory crowd, and I want to keep it that way.


And don't think I'm not aware that, not counting the Superbowls which are on "neutral" fields, and Brady's 3-2 record in those games, that his lifetime record in playoff games away from Gillette at the Bad Guys' stadiums is 3-3.  I'm very much aware of that fact. 

But still, his overall playoff record (home, away, neutral fields) is 18-8, with the 18 wins being the most by any QB, two more than Montana.  Of the active QBs I think Big Ben (10) has the best chance of catching TB, more so than Peyton (11), simply because Ben will be playing longer than Peyton.  Brees has 6, and Rodgers only 5, so they both have a long way to go.  Luck is still just a baby, so his playoff book has not been written yet.  It all depends on how long TB plays and how many more he can add to his current total, but his lead is going to be safe for quite a few years anyway.

So my advice is to not concern yourself so much with the home vs. away performances.  It involves too much analysis and twisting of skull imploding metrics.  And then after you go through all that exercise, you finish up with the sentence, "It probably all means nothing anyway."  lol 

George1963 wrote:

Hater.

At least you admit it.