Bruce Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Tackle Light retired, and now I hear there starting Guard retired, too. With Pioli at GM, they always had a stable of able-bodied replacements. Not so, anymore. Mario Williams will make Giselle cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You herd it hear last Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The reason is inertia. But the Pats* O-line is a disaster right now. How do they expect to stop the Bills front 4? PTR two words: 3 and out Tackle Light retired, and now I hear there starting Guard retired, too. With Pioli at GM, they always had a stable of able-bodied replacements. Not so, anymore. Mario Williams will make Giselle cry. Do you think she'll let him play against us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Media is lazy and they just follow what the other guy says, no original thoughts. I look at the Patriots depth chart and I don't see where they are automatically a given for the division title. Their O-Line is weak. Mankins is out to start the season, his backup is a rookie. Koppen played one game last year, Waters is 35. Vollmer started 5 games last year. Their receivers are all over 30. On Defense, we all know they were ranked 30th last year. Where did they get better on defense exactly? On paper, I believe our running game is better, our O-Line is better and our defense is better. Patriots look like an old team to me, I think we have as good a shot as anyone this year to finally take them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintmyhouse Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The Pats beat teams that .500 winning record at best during the year, that is not great by any means. You calling the Bills win against the Pats "a fluke" is hilarious. While you say it was Brady's worst game and it was all his fault, the Bills game plan on defense was to push the pocket in so Brady couldn't step up into his throws and the Bills defenders made sure to get the arms & bodies in Brady's throwing lanes. They happened to do the same thing against Mike Vick & last year's the offseason Superbowl champion Eagles. Fitz had 2 INT's as well, plus the pats blew a 21-0 lead, so keep the excuses coming. Want to talk about bad calls? Check this out: http://www.billsdaily.com/articles/1998/nep2.html Wow, you make less and less sense every time you type something. You keep saying they beat bad teams to try and make them look worse to somehow make the Bills appear stronger, and you are failing on all levels. THere were 6 teams that could have been 9-7 had they beat the Patriots, which is, I guess, a winning record. A 9-7 team won the freaking Super Bowl the last two seasons. You cannot say the Patriots just be a lot of average teams and cannot beat anyone good, that makes no sense at all, I listed all those teams a few posts ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 They play the teams on their schedule. I don't see how you can discredit them for that. Sometimes, teams get lucky. Whether it's the schedule, the ball bounces right for them in games, or whatever the case is. Luck does play a part in sports. Sometimes it's good to be lucky. Considering the Pats didn't win any playoff games between 2008-2011, and their O-line is in rough shape, if the Pats can repeat the success they had again this season, then I will give them all in the credit in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) I am not trashing the Bills here. I am trashig them because I am making sense as to why the Patriots are the clear favorite? That is not trashing the Bills. The Bills have not been in the playoffs in like 12 years. They have sucked. patriots have not sucked, that is what this guy's thread was about. Bills have a terrible QB, a terrible coach, and a terrible owner, and they play in a division where the Patriots have an incredible owner, incredible coach, and incredible QB, I really do not see the Bills doing well with this going for them. The defense should be a lot better. I am excited to see what the DLINE can do, it can be really, really good. They have good RBs who need to get the ball a lot more. The OLINE is better than average IMO. WR is below average, but not terrible. TE is below average. The Bills are looking at about 7 wins. I am still spending my money on them, flying up there for the home opener and getting Sunday Ticket. Ummm...yeah...some might call this kind of talk trashing...I know I do. I also went and read a bunch of your posts, since it seemed to me that you only speak ill of the team...and the closest thing I could find to one single positive comment about the Bills is you saying that you were excited to fly up here for the home opener. Literally, every single one of your other posts about the team are exceedingly negative (Fitz sucks, Matt Moore is better than Fitz, Jauron is better than Gailey, Jeremy Shockey is better than Scott Chandler right now, etc.). It seems to me that if you can only make a positive comment about the team when challenged to do so (and, presumably, in an attempt to prove yourself something other than 100% negative with regard to the team), that perhaps you should re-consider whether or not you actually like the team. I mean, it's not natural to be this negative about something you like. As to the factuality of your statements: - No, Fitz is not terrible. "Terrible" QBs don't finish 11th in the NFL in passing yards, 10th in TDs, and 9th in completion percentage in their first full season as a starter (one in which there was practially no off-season to speak of). Yes, he lead the NFL in interceptions, and was 22nd in both YPA and QB rating...to me that reeks of a guy trying to do too much when playing from behind, but hey, that's just coming from a guy that watched the games. - No, Gailey is not terrible. He took a brutal team with marginal NFL talent and zero depth, gutted it, and built it back up into a much, much more talented group. Are you going to argue that the current makeup of the roster isn't better? That the team isn't more competitive and trending upward? The team finished 14th in the NFL in total offense last year, by far their highest ranking since 2002 (next highest was 25th, in 2004, 2008, and 2010). You may not be his biggest fan, but good grief, give the guy some credit. - No, Wilson is not terrible. "Terrible" owners don't go out and get the best defensive free agent on the market when everyone says they have no shot. Edited August 6, 2012 by thebandit27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Wow, you make less and less sense every time you type something. You keep saying they beat bad teams to try and make them look worse to somehow make the Bills appear stronger, and you are failing on all levels. THere were 6 teams that could have been 9-7 had they beat the Patriots, which is, I guess, a winning record. A 9-7 team won the freaking Super Bowl the last two seasons. You cannot say the Patriots just be a lot of average teams and cannot beat anyone good, that makes no sense at all, I listed all those teams a few posts ago. See the bolded words, "could have been". You keep making up excuses. How many playoff wins did the Pats have between 2008-2011 "zero". How many teams did the Pats beat with a winning record in the regular season last year (actual record, not hypothetical) "zero". I keep making less sense? You're just like a broken record. The Pats got lucky last season. Their O-line is a mess, their secondary sucks, how did your beloved Pats get better? How is the Pats O-line going to do against the Bills front 4? Everything I stated was an actual fact, on the other hand, the points you made were all hypothetical. "If so and so won, they woulda been..." Edited August 6, 2012 by Jerry Jabber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintmyhouse Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) See the bolded words, "could have been". You keep making up excuses. How many playoff wins did the Pats have between 2008-2011 "zero". How many teams did the Pats beat with a winning record in the regular season last year (actual record, not hypothetical) "zero". I keep making less sense? You're just like a broken record. The Pats got lucky last season. Their O-line is a mess, their secondary sucks, how did your beloved Pats get better? How is the Pats O-line going to do against the Bills front 4? Everything I stated was an actual fact, on the other hand, the points you made were all hypothetical. "If so and so won, they woulda been..." Could have been is not an excuse in describing how the Patriots won games last year. If you think that you have real trouble understanding regular things then. You keep saying they beat no one with a winning record, but the reason they beat no one with a winning record, IS BECAUSE THEY FREAKING BEAT THEM!!!! Wow, you really are not good at this, this thing called logic. Edited August 6, 2012 by paintmyhouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I can't belive this troll is getting this much attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You herd it hear last Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 See the bolded words, "could have been". You keep making up excuses. How many playoff wins did the Pats have between 2008-2011 "zero". How many teams did the Pats beat with a winning record in the regular season last year (actual record, not hypothetical) "zero". I keep making less sense? You're just like a broken record. The Pats got lucky last season. Their O-line is a mess, their secondary sucks, how did your beloved Pats get better? How is the Pats O-line going to do against the Bills front 4? Everything I stated was an actual fact, on the other hand, the points you made were all hypothetical. "If so and so won, they woulda been..." Even a broken record is right once a song... wait, how's that go again? I can't belive this troll is getting this much attention. Umm, not just any troll... SUPERTROLL! Able to leap from topic to topic, et al... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I post real stats, I make real points, please tell me what I said in this thread was wrong and give a legit argument against it. Just throwing out he is a troll is pretty sad and weak. For your first 250 posts you said Fitz sucks... that makes you a troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 Could have been is not an excuse in describing how the Patriots won games last year. If you think that you have real trouble understanding regular things then. You keep saying they beat no one with a winning record, but the reason they beat no one with a winning record, IS BECAUSE THEY FREAKING BEAT THEM!!!! Wow, you really are not good at this, this thing called logic. You are so clueless!! You just admitted that the Pats beat no one with a winning record, but yet you still want to argue. You really are a troll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Could have been is not an excuse in describing how the Patriots won games last year. If you think that you have real trouble understanding regular things then. You keep saying they beat no one with a winning record, but the reason they beat no one with a winning record, IS BECAUSE THEY FREAKING BEAT THEM!!!! Wow, you really are not good at this, this thing called logic. We call this type of argument a "straw man". You seem to be very bottom line about wins and losses...except, of course, for when that logic doesn't support your point. The bottom line about the teams New England beat is that not one of them had a winning record. Bottom line. The reason those teams didn't have a winning record isn't simply because New England beat them, it's because they lost to at least 7 other teams as well (is this a hard concept or something?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 Even a broken record is right once a song... wait, how's that go again? Umm, not just any troll... SUPERTROLL! Able to leap from topic to topic, et al... I've made my point and I'm done with the Supertroll. If I'm wrong about the Pats, then I'll eat crow at the end of the season. Otherwise, GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Could have been is not an excuse in describing how the Patriots won games last year. If you think that you have real trouble understanding regular things then. You keep saying they beat no one with a winning record, but the reason they beat no one with a winning record, IS BECAUSE THEY FREAKING BEAT THEM!!!! Wow, you really are not good at this, this thing called logic. Hmm. If that's the case then EVERY team you claim the Pats* prevented from having a winning record by beating them, COULD have had a winning record BY BEATING ANYONE ELSE AS WELL!!! If the Eagles could have beaten the Bills, etc. So are those teams not winning teams because they couldn't beat the Pats* or are they not winning teams because they couldn't beat someone else on their schedule as well? Which is it? If you say it's just because of the Pats* then I suggest you can't follow the same logic you accuse everyone else of not being able to follow. GO BILLS!!! We call this type of argument a "straw man". You seem to be very bottom line about wins and losses...except, of course, for when that logic doesn't support your point. The bottom line about the teams New England beat is that not one of them had a winning record. Bottom line. The reason those teams didn't have a winning record isn't simply because New England beat them, it's because they lost to at least 7 other teams as well (is this a hard concept or something?). I didn't see you made the same point before I posted my response. It's pretty simple stuff but I'm not sure 'paintmyhouse' can understand. GO BILLS!!! Edited August 6, 2012 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsrhody Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Not sure how this is even a question. The patriots are assumed to win the AFC East because: - They have won the division 8 of the last 10 years (and yes, those past results do predict future success) - They have by far the best QB in the division - They have by far the best coach in the division - They have the easiest schedule in the NFL this year Other supporting facts: - They went to the Superbowl last year - Its hard to imagine their defense being worse than it was last year - They added weapons to an already loaded offense (lloyd, stallworth) I'm not trying to bash on the bills.. these are all facts people. I'd like to see someone put together a resume like that for any other team in the AFC East.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Not sure how this is even a question. The patriots are assumed to win the AFC East because: - They have won the division 8 of the last 10 years (and yes, those past results do predict future success) - They have by far the best QB in the division - They have by far the best coach in the division - They have the easiest schedule in the NFL this year Other supporting facts: - They went to the Superbowl last year - Its hard to imagine their defense being worse than it was last year - They added weapons to an already loaded offense (lloyd, stallworth) I'm not trying to bash on the bills.. these are all facts people. I'd like to see someone put together a resume like that for any other team in the AFC East.. Yeah that's pretty much the case in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cub Reporter Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 They have Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Well until the Bills knock them off, the Pats will continue to be the favorites to win the east. I dont know why the Pats* are called the best in the NFL however. I think GB has more firepower and a potentially better defense buts that JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Remember what happened the last time a team was crowned world-beaters for having "won" the offseason? I think we need to slow down, just a tad, in the rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts