Pneumonic

I realize it's not the intent of the rule. It's the reality of it however which is why it's just as silly a my previously suggested hypothetical rule to make it a requirement for teams to get more white corners on their team. Both silly and total BS. I'll tell you if I were black and offered a (token) interview for a job which I knew I was not the most qualified candidate I'd have too much pride to accept it.

The rule is explicit .... no team can hire a white candidate until they have interviewed a black candidate ..... regardless of the qualification of the black candidate.

Qualified .... what exactly is that? Have they defined it anywhere? This is not about qualified anything. It's about getting more blacks opportunity to get interviewed, regardless of qualifications.

This rule is a joke! What's next a rule that makes sure white corners get equal consideration for NFL jobs as do black corners.

Not to mention Belichick got caught cheating "up close" instead of cheating from "afar" as all other teams and players do. Whip te do.

Also keep in mind that since their last SB win in '07 Belichick has broken down and re-built his defense entirely, with the exception Wilfork. So, it's not a shock that his defense would struggle. Heck, that last SB team in '07 bears very little resemblance to recent teams with only the aforementioned Wilfork, Mankins, Welker, Ghostowski and Brady being the only leftovers. For most any team that rebuilds as such, they end up being terrible. The Pats, OTOH, since '07 have won 65 games against just 20 losses. This during a re-build!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me .... had the Pats spied on teams from afar (as all other teams do), instead of up close (as they did do), would you still consider them cheats?

All QB's play in a "system", 3 basic ones that are all the same other than the terminology required to run them. It's not like plays are different in one versus another. Heck, new plays haven't been created in eons.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/998825-dan-fouts-tom-brady-gets-special-treatment-refs.html From the above link:

..... and jealousy and envy too no doubt.

It'll be a Brady versus Rodgers battle in the SB.

Not a hater; a realist. Haing said so, the 29, 49, 30 and 37 pts the Pats scored on the Jets these last 4 games is better than the 52, 37, 31 and 49 the Pats scored on the Bills over the same timeeframe.

Ummm, the Pats scored 29, 49, 30 and 37 points against the Jets the last 2 seasons.

Not really sure Belichick would be overly worried with the Bills moves thus far. Bills hired a green HC, a green OC and a DC that will almost certainly run a defense that Belichick's Patriots haven't exactly struggled to score points against the last couple seasons.

Like with Marrone, for Hacket, it'll be a "flip your coin and hope for the best" result. Time will tell.

Cmon, man Lovie has proven he can win in this league. Just look at his W/L record. Or see how he's taken his team to the playoffs several times including a SB appearance and championship game. If that's not proof enough then I don't know what is!

Lovie can coach at a high level in the the NFL; he's proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The others, including Marrone ..... are flip a coin and hope types.

Outside of Lovie, all the HC candidates had ?'s enough that it'll be a wait and see situation. One thing is known ...... this aint the first time posters in here thought the right guy was hired only to realize later on that he wasn't.

CJ is a poor man's Chris Johnson. Neither are in the same zip code as Sanders however.

It's astonishing the degree of envy and jealousy many people in here have when it comes to Brady, Belichick and the Patriots.

Let me guess ..... you were a fan of the X Files

Watching this dominating performance by the Pats tonight .... it was obvious that they were cheating. I suspect they used satellite technology and stole the Texans signals.

It's not just the last decade that this holds true but throughout the history of the game. At least with most of the dynasty teams.

Duh! What if they have proven that they can't stop the run? Should you be expected to only pass on them then Re: proven. The day a HC lets his guard down and allows his team to stop playing because they have proven to be superior is the day said coach should retire.

The problem is when is enough, enough? Is there a specific time in the game where you propose a coach should call of the horses? And what should he tell his team to do ..... play at only, what, 75% effort so as not to embarrass the other team anymore? Would that not be an even more embarrassing thing to do to your opponent? And should the effort reduction only be required of the leading team's offense? Or does the HC also have to temper back the efforts of his defense too? Should ther be a mandatory "no blitz the QB" and "don't intercept a pass" or "recover a fumble" rule implemented on his defense too? Once the HC of the team leading calls off his horses, is the offense and defense of the trailing team still allowed to perform at full effort? I think it would be wiser to just call the game over when the lead in the game gets to be a certain amount!