Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Brady is one of the best QBs ever to play, with a large part of him being so great is his confidence if not arrogance. That's a mental thing and genuinely helps him. He's also a whiny arrogant prick. That's part of him, too. And because he is an arrogant prick he got suspended. So we should look at it is we did beat Brady and the Pats because Brady and only Brady took himself out of the game because of who he is. The good and the bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Brady is one of the best QBs ever to play, with a large part of him being so great is his confidence if not arrogance. That's a mental thing and genuinely helps him. He's also a whiny arrogant prick. That's part of him, too. And because he is an arrogant prick he got suspended. So we should look at it is we did beat Brady and the Pats because Brady and only Brady took himself out of the game because of who he is. The good and the bad. We beat them in the Super Bowl!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 We beat them in the Super Bowl!! Angry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 We didn't have Sammy Watkins, Marcel Dareus, or our top 2 draft picks who were expected to start. Also, Brady doesn't play D. their entire D was healthy. So I don't feel sorry for them at all, or that it was someone not a real win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 We didn't beat Brady. The Patriots didn't beat Watkins, Ragland, Lawson, or Dareus. Kind of a dumbass thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Angry? Not at all! My man TT made many NNNTT's look the fool today. I'm just having a little fun at expense of the imagination of the OP. Edited October 2, 2016 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2016 Author Share Posted October 2, 2016 We didn't beat Brady. The Patriots didn't beat Watkins, Ragland, Lawson, or Dareus. Kind of a dumbass thread. The point is it's unfortunate for the Pats that they didn't have Garapollo. He got hurt. All teams have injuries but when your QB gets hurt your team suffers and it's often a reason your team loses. Like last year the Bills in London. But it wasn't an injury or unfortunate that Brady was out, Brady was out because Brady is Brady. They win mostly because Brady is Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) We didn't have Sammy Watkins, Marcel Dareus, or our top 2 draft picks who were expected to start. Also, Brady doesn't play D. their entire D was healthy. So I don't feel sorry for them at all, or that it was someone not a real win. In fairness, if Ragland had played the way Zack Brown has thus far he'd be the lead candidate for rookie of the year. So not sure we're really "missing" much there. Edited October 2, 2016 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Can't we just enjoy this win for what it is? Why do some people insist on either diminishing it or making it out to be more than what it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Aye aye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 The point is it's unfortunate for the Pats that they didn't have Garapollo. He got hurt. All teams have injuries but when your QB gets hurt your team suffers and it's often a reason your team loses. Like last year the Bills in London. But it wasn't an injury or unfortunate that Brady was out, Brady was out because Brady is Brady. They win mostly because Brady is Brady. Serious question...if the actual Brady pats shut out our second game starting 3rd string rookie (backed up by, say, Goodwin at QB), would you credit NE with a huge win? Can't we just enjoy this win for what it is? Why do some people insist on either diminishing it or making it out to be more than what it is? Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2016 Author Share Posted October 2, 2016 Serious question...if the actual Brady pats shut out our second game starting 3rd string rookie (backed up by, say, Goodwin at QB), would you credit NE with a huge win? Amen No. And it would have nothing to do with my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 No. And it would have nothing to do with my point. you mean the point that we actually beat Brady and the pats today?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 The point is it's unfortunate for the Pats that they didn't have Garapollo. He got hurt. All teams have injuries but when your QB gets hurt your team suffers and it's often a reason your team loses. Like last year the Bills in London. But it wasn't an injury or unfortunate that Brady was out, Brady was out because Brady is Brady. They win mostly because Brady is Brady. Nice thought, but one data point. Let's beat "Brady" without Ragland, Dareus, and Lawson. Only 3 starters on defense that would likely (opinion) have made the game more lopsided than what it was. Sorry to say, but you put the "aint" in "taint". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2016 Author Share Posted October 2, 2016 you mean the point that we actually beat Brady and the pats today?.... Yes. The point that we beat Brady's Pats because Brady was Brady, the arrogant prick, the only reason he was suspended. So Brady the player was the reason Brady the player was not out there. It wasn't unfortunate it was because of an unforced error by Brady. Nice thought, but one data point. Let's beat "Brady" without Ragland, Dareus, and Lawson. Only 3 starters on defense that would likely (opinion) have made the game more lopsided than what it was. Sorry to say, but you put the "aint" in "taint". Oh of course. I will be fairly shocked if we beat them in the next game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Serious question...if the actual Brady pats shut out our second game starting 3rd string rookie (backed up by, say, Goodwin at QB), would you credit NE with a huge win? It would give it the same worth as when the Pats* beat JP Losman by 45 on Sunday night. 1 win Regardless of who is playing in the NFL, they are still NFL players. Bills got a big win in a hostile environment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 It would give it the same worth as when the Pats* beat JP Losman by 45 on Sunday night. 1 win Regardless of who is playing in the NFL, they are still NFL players. Bills got a big win in a hostile environment I'm not sure how hostile it was.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Yes. The point that we beat Brady's Pats because Brady was Brady, the arrogant prick, the only reason he was suspended. So Brady the player was the reason Brady the player was not out there. It wasn't unfortunate it was because of an unforced error by Brady. Oh of course. I will be fairly shocked if we beat them in the next game. Does that mean the Jags beat Tyrod and the Bills last year, because Tyrod got hurt because of his mobility? Which is a huge factor of his as a player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Yes. The point that we beat Brady's Pats because Brady was Brady, the arrogant prick, the only reason he was suspended. So Brady the player was the reason Brady the player was not out there. It wasn't unfortunate it was because of an unforced error by Brady. Oh of course. I will be fairly shocked if we beat them in the next game. Me too! Because I think the next game they're playing is against the Rams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Yes. The point that we beat Brady's Pats because Brady was Brady, the arrogant prick, the only reason he was suspended. So Brady the player was the reason Brady the player was not out there. It wasn't unfortunate it was because of an unforced error by Brady. Yes, so... ah, never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts