Punch

Wow. Hardly. The point you've "proven" is not the point you were making. Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger were not game managers no matter how tightly you close your eyes and click your heels. I've never heard anyone suggest such a thing. The average statistics for a top tier QB from 2002-05 would be considered slightly below average today. In later seasons, the passing game came to the forefront in both New England and Pittsburgh, statistics became exaggerated across the NFL and the team's offenses became arguably less balanced. I've already agreed that the versions of the Pats and Steelers with more sparkling passing numbers and shoddier defenses have had difficulty winning in the postseason, but this is obvious and also not the point you were making. There is ample evidence that both Brady and Roethlisberger were responsible for several dramatic comebacks and winning performances during that stretch. Their "legend" was born out of such performances. Not from "game managing" as other players led the way.

You're insane. It is possible you are suggesting that they were not able to win all by themselves, which is obviously true. The most complete team wins, and any team relying on the passing game alone will not win. That is the extent of the benefit of the doubt I will give you. Tom Brady's statistics were amongst the league leaders in every year since 2002. As the NFL passing game has evolved, so have his statistics (and those of other top QBs) improved. In 2005 Ben Roethlisberger started only 12 games due to injury. His cumulative statistics were not amongst the league leaders, however, he led the league in the following categories: Yds/Pass Att - 8.9, Yds/ Pass Comp. - 14.2, Passing TD% - 6.3% and was 3rd in Passer Rating - 98.2 I don't know what else to say. "Game manager" is a term reserved for the likes of Trent Dilfer, Alex Smith & Christian Ponder. There is no corroborative evidence or commentary that suggests either of them were considered "game managers" of the vintage you offer. Yes, the Patriots are cheaters. And the Seahawks were perhaps cheated out of a competitive chance at a Super Bowl victory.

Is this some kind of joke? Passing statistics have increased exponentially over the past decade. Fitz' stats in 2011-12 would have been top 10 or even top 5 in 2002-05. Tom Brady was not considered a game manager in 2003-04. Ben Roethlisberger was not a game manager. Your point is what exactly?

In 12 games as a 2nd year player during the 2005 season, Ben had 2385 yds, 17 TDs, 9 INTs and a 62.7% comp. He had a terrible Super Bowl, and the Steelers won by the skin of some terrible officiating. Neither Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger were considered "game managers" aside from very early in their careers--- essentially the first 2 seasons for each. I'm not really sure what the argument is.

??? Am I allowed to look up the stats?

Brady was considered a game manager in the Super Bowl against the Rams, but that was it. Roethlisberger was considered a game manager as a rookie, but not beyond then and certainly not during either of their SB wins.

I don't know man. Bellichick has earned his accolades. He unarguably went too far, but his preparation, strategizing and will to win are unparallelled.

You could arguably add Scott Pioli and Thomas Dmitroff to that list as executives. But that's just what happens. The Bill Walsh coaching tree is largely unimpressive. Several Bills free agents from the Super Bowl era went on to receive relatively big paydays with other teams, including Ray Bentley and Mitch Frerrotte.

Fitz went to Harvard.

That seems a bit much, no? I can't imagine anyone noticing this. If it happens, it's ridiculous. Obviously, the incidental swearing is also ridiculous. Carry on.

Why would they?

Aaah, he didn't list them correctly, but he's right.

Me too. What's this now?

Yes, because they are a great franchise that consistently wins. Don't you want to be measured that way?

In my experience (in Northern VA) Spygate looms large in the minds of fans of other teams. Personally, I started hating the Patriots long before they were caught cheating, and it was because they were suffocatingly dominant. I actually rooted for them in the Super Bowl against the Rams and felt it was a great story. That feeling quickly dissipated. It's hard to say, though. The petulance and whining wasn't evident right away. I think the tantrums came along because they expect to win like a spoiled child expects to get the toy he/she wants. Maybe it's all so intertwined that it's difficult to split hairs at this point. Anyway, !@#$'em. EDIT: I should add, the Packers, Steelers, Giants et al have not dominated even remotely as the Pats have dominated. 3 Super Bowl wins in 4 years to begin their dynasty is more dominant than any team since the AFL-NFL merger.

Does that tarnish their run though? Or does it merely mean that arguably it's over?

Well, yes. I was being sarcastic.

Everyone outside of New England hates them because they win. And then they were caught for cheating, but they still win. The fact that they are petulant babies is, at best, the 3rd best reason to hate them.

It would suck to have success measured only by Super Bowl wins.

Aside from 76* regular season games and 5 playoff games? You're right, nuthin'. *an average of 12.7/year over 6 years.

Although I sort of agree, I think it's obvious why--- a player the Bills have been tied to in several mock drafts at a position of desperate need has been accused by the media of essentially being a sociopath (though this is likely not the case). In light of the Bills' season being over, the new coach and staff being hired--- that's pretty relevant, no?

They will be remembered as the dominant franchise of this era. Some will (perhaps rightfully) assign an asterisk to their accomplishmets, but it will not be be the prevailing view. Does a dynasty last forever? The 49ers eventually slowed down but it didn't taint them.

Only one season in that span did the Bills not play the AFC representative (2008 Steelers). Of the remaining 5 seasons, the Bills lost to each team except the 2009 season finale against the Colts, where Indy rested many of their starters in the 2nd half: 2006: Colts 17-16 2007: Patriots 38-7, 56-10 2008: DNP the Steelers 2009: Colts 7-30 2010: Steelers 19-16 OT 2011: Patriots 31-34, 49-21

"Considered a #1 pick by the time of the draft" to me was in reference to the mock drafters ad commentators. His "stock" does appear to be rising.

You suggested that Notre Dame would likely not stage a press conference defending Te'o if their investigation(s) did not obtain hard evidence, such as specifics regarding receipts for the flowers and Manti's phone records. This has proven to not be the case. Their investigation was farcical at best. Yet you are now convinced. I was only asking why. "Complicit on some level" is rather obvious: at what point did he believe the lie and to what extent did he embellish the relationship. I know he acknowledged embellishment, but the Jim Rome interview is extraordinarily unsettling, for example, if he did not have those phone conversations. Obviously, as you say, the psychology typical of a catfishing victim could cause him to build these things up in his mind. Perhaps that is the final verdict, after all. I have nothing at stake, in fact I was clearly very ready to believe him as I understand the plausibility of his stated case. Your first paragraph is exactly the type of "proof" you suggested earlier in the thread would be insufficient. The hoaxer has not actually come forward yet. The apologetic tweet is suspect at best, although it could prove to be legitimate. I guess as a casual fan, I'd ask why you're in such a rush to declare his innocence with no actual evidence, aside from hearsay. Honestly, I'm fatigued by this whole story. Perhaps it is best to not go further down the rabbit hole.