PDA

View Full Version : O-U-C-H-ouch-ouch-ouch!



ouch
01-24-2010, 04:55 PM
My Jets seemed to forget that there are two halves to a football game.

I knew it was over when they let them back into the game at the end of the first half. Oh, well. I guess I can wait another 41 years.

GoldenMonkey
01-24-2010, 05:01 PM
LOL....I thought this was a "congrats on 22K posts!" post...

thirdeye
01-24-2010, 05:05 PM
Yep, the QB forgot his pantyhose again....:mad3:

bythbook
01-24-2010, 05:05 PM
My Jets seemed to forget that there are two halves to a football game.

I knew it was over when they let them back into the game at the end of the first half. Oh, well. I guess I can wait another 41 years.

Overachievers....

They're gonna be fun to watch ALL of next year.

brianw
01-24-2010, 05:14 PM
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhah, Go Viqueens

TimmyBoston
01-24-2010, 05:14 PM
My Jets seemed to forget that there are two halves to a football game.

I knew it was over when they let them back into the game at the end of the first half. Oh, well. I guess I can wait another 41 years.

Remember our bet? Where's my pie?

castlecraver
01-24-2010, 06:16 PM
Remember our bet? Where's my pie?

I'm packaging up the CrabFlatulence that Jay ordered now. It'll be on it's way first thing in Monday morning.

TimmyBoston
01-24-2010, 06:19 PM
I'm packaging up the CrabFlatulence that Jay ordered now.

That was actually a red velvet cake. I want pie.

Nick!!!!!!! :letterk2:

richmondesi
01-24-2010, 06:30 PM
At least they tried to win at least :001_rolle

My anger at the Colts is increasing by the minute:mad3:

castlecraver
01-24-2010, 06:44 PM
My anger at the Colts is increasing by the minute:mad3:

Because I know you're not trolling, I'll take the bait. As a former pro athlete (right?) how can you be so appalled? Isn't getting the backup and utility guys some innings when the opportunity presents itself an important part of managing a baseball team? How about skipping a guy in the rotation if he's got a little tweak that'd be safer with more rest? I don't really see all that much difference.

Anyway, it looks like the strategy has paid off so far. Getting to (and winning) the SB is far more important than a perfect season. It would have been nice to get both, but given a choice, I'll take what we've got now.

perry
01-24-2010, 06:59 PM
Go Colts!

richmondesi
01-24-2010, 06:59 PM
Because I know you're not trolling, I'll take the bait. As a former pro athlete (right?) how can you be so appalled? Isn't getting the backup and utility guys some innings when the opportunity presents itself an important part of managing a baseball team? How about skipping a guy in the rotation if he's got a little tweak that'd be safer with more rest? I don't really see all that much difference.

Anyway, it looks like the strategy has paid off so far. Getting to (and winning) the SB is far more important than a perfect season. It would have been nice to get both, but given a choice, I'll take what we've got now.

Yes...

But there is a huge difference in baseball and football. No team will ever approach perfection in a 162 game baseball season. Even at that, you play every game in an attempt to win it.

If you can win the game, you do it. Did you see how smart Peyton Manning was today? Had the pocket collapsing around him, and he fell down rather than taking a hit early on... He's hardly ever injured because he takes care of himself.

Herm Edwards sums up my opinion better than I can express it, but what it boils down to is there will likely never be a chance to achieve a perfect season by those players again. Also, it's not a zero sum situation. We aren't talking about them winning the Super Bowl OR going 16-0 in the regular season. We are talking about a team having a chance to go down as the best team in the history of the NFL, and them saying to their fans (and football fans everywhere) and their players that it didn't matter what they wanted... They weren't even going to attempt to achieve greatness. There is a SB champion every year, there may never be a team go undefeated. The fact that they didn't try is unforgivable :thumbdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

SalvadorMontenegro
01-24-2010, 11:00 PM
But they DID try. They put their starters in for a while, took the lead and then put in the back ups. You think the back ups didn't try? I'll bet you they played their asses off. Some of you guys seem to think the Colts threw the game, which isn't the case. I highly doubt Coach Caldwell told the back ups, "All right, guys, let's go out there and throw it to the other team, let's not score any points, let's not pressure them on defense, LET'S JUST SUCK!!!!!!"

Anyway, did anyone seriously think the Jets were going to win? Mark Sanchez versus Peyton Manning? Come on! Although, Sanchez did play well.

richmondesi
01-25-2010, 05:03 AM
But they DID try. They put their starters in for a while, took the lead and then put in the back ups. You think the back ups didn't try? I'll bet you they played their asses off. Some of you guys seem to think the Colts threw the game, which isn't the case. I highly doubt Coach Caldwell told the back ups, "All right, guys, let's go out there and throw it to the other team, let's not score any points, let's not pressure them on defense, LET'S JUST SUCK!!!!!!"

Anyway, did anyone seriously think the Jets were going to win? Mark Sanchez versus Peyton Manning? Come on! Although, Sanchez did play well.

Organizationally, they absolutely did NOT try to win. They told the '72 Dolphins that their record was meaningless, and they told the rest of football fans that they couldn't care less about they and their own players wanted. 100% of them wanted to go for perfection... Unforgivable :thumbdown

Baloosh
01-25-2010, 05:55 AM
It really is an either/or thing, but I can tell you feel pretty strongly about it.

*If* they did go 16-0 and then somehow lost the SB, or in the playoffs, how would this year's team look 10 years from now? Nobody would be talking about the '72 Dolphins today, had they not won the Big Game. The only reason people do is because they DID win the Superbowl that year.

One of the requirements of even being considered "greatest team of all time" is a SB win. That's the only real long-term win that should be considered.

SRock
01-25-2010, 06:02 AM
Sorry about the loss Jay. I knew the Colts were going to win (I think most people expected it). The Jets D did a good job in the first half of keeping Manning on his toes. However, near the end of the first half he started to figure them out and formulate the dominance that was forthcoming.

The Jets can hold their heads high. A rookie coach took the Jets to the 2nd biggest dance in all of Football on the shoulders of a rookie QB. If NY plays their cards right I'd say there future is looking much brighter.


It really is an either/or thing, but I can tell you feel pretty strongly about it.

*If* they did go 16-0 and then somehow lost the SB, or in the playoffs, how would this year's team look 10 years from now? Nobody would be talking about the '72 Dolphins today, had they not not win the Big Game. The only reason people do is because they DID win the Superbowl that year.

One of the requirements of even being considered "greatest team of all time" is a SB win. That's the only real long-term win that should be considered.

Very well summed up. You are exactly right. No one mentions the 16-0 Patriots and its not like that was decades ago. The only reason people talk about the Dolphins is because they did in fact win the SB.

richmondesi
01-25-2010, 06:12 AM
It really is an either/or thing, but I can tell you feel pretty strongly about it.

*If* they did go 16-0 and then somehow lost the SB, or in the playoffs, how would this year's team look 10 years from now? Nobody would be talking about the '72 Dolphins today, had they not not win the Big Game. The only reason people do is because they DID win the Superbowl that year.

One of the requirements of even being considered "greatest team of all time" is a SB win. That's the only real long-term win that should be considered.

No it's not an either or thing. There is absolutely no reason why anyone anywhere should think that if they had gone 16-0 that they would not have won the Super Bowl. That's specious.

Of course part of being the best team ever is the Super Bowl win, that goes without saying. Winning those last two games wouldn't affect their ability to do that.


Sorry about the loss Jay. I knew the Colts were going to win (I think most people expected it). The Jets D did a good job in the first half of keeping Manning on his toes. However, near the end of the first half he started to figure them out and formulate the dominance that was forthcoming.

The Jets can hold their heads high. A rookie coach took the Jets to the 2nd biggest dance in all of Football on the shoulders of a rookie QB. If NY plays their cards right I'd say there future is looking much brighter.



Very well summed up. You are exactly right. No one mentions the 16-0 Patriots and its not like that was decades ago. The only reason people talk about the Dolphins is because they did in fact win the SB.

The reason NOBODY will mention the 2009 Colts as the best team (proven on the field) is because they turned their back on history, their fans, and players:thumbdown

I'm done with this discussion

ouch
01-25-2010, 06:20 AM
I've been a football fan long enough to know that of the four teams that played on Sunday, my Jets were the least qualified to be there. Their vaunted defense and rushing games were overated all year. But that's one of the great things about sports- it's not always the best team that wins, and when it comes down to a single game, you never know what can happen.

SRock
01-25-2010, 06:33 AM
I've been a football fan long enough to know that of the four teams that played on Sunday, my Jets were the least qualified to be there. Their vaunted defense and rushing games were overated all year. But that's one of the great things about sports- it's not always the best team that wins, and when it comes down to a single game, you never know what can happen.

As they say, any given Sunday! I don't know if I'd call the Jets overrated, Jay. I think they were impressive as heck for a young team or for any NFL team for that matter especially in the latter half of the season and especially given the experience level of the guys at the helm. :thumbup1: Were they the least qualified of the final four, maybe, maybe not. Not many rookie QB's make it that far and not many rookie coaches either. Like I said, the Jets had a season to be proud of and will likely have many good seasons coming up in the very near future.

Baloosh
01-25-2010, 08:00 AM
No it's not an either or thing. There is absolutely no reason why anyone anywhere should think that if they had gone 16-0 that they would not have won the Super Bowl. That's specious.

Of course part of being the best team ever is the Super Bowl win, that goes without saying. Winning those last two games wouldn't affect their ability to do that.

The reason NOBODY will mention the 2009 Colts as the best team (proven on the field) is because they turned their back on history, their fans, and players:thumbdown

I'm done with this discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_season

The 2nd sentence of that article. Patriot fans, which would you rather have had, given the choice:

A 16-0 season with a loss in the SB?

A 14-2 season with a win in the SB?

Basically, would you trade a 16-0 season for a win in the SB?

Even though you're done with this discussion, it's not a guarantee/given that if a team goes 16-0 they have a lock on a Superbowl win that year. It comes down to which is more important: A perfect regular season, or the best chance for a SB win? I'll take a SB win any day.

Maybe that's part of why the '72 Dolphins are so revered -- they managed to do BOTH in the same season (perfect regular and SB win)... which obviously is much harder than doing one *or* the other.

jazzman
01-25-2010, 08:58 AM
I've been a football fan long enough to know that of the four teams that played on Sunday, my Jets were the least qualified to be there. Their vaunted defense and rushing games were overated all year. But that's one of the great things about sports- it's not always the best team that wins, and when it comes down to a single game, you never know what can happen.

And you're forgetting the NFL's official "Weeb Rule": "No team may win the Super Bowl more than once with a head coach who formerly worked for any Baltimore franchise." You had your shot in '69.:001_tt2::001_tt2::001_tt2:

htownmmm
01-25-2010, 11:18 AM
Yep, the QB forgot his pantyhose again....:mad3:

and white shoes....and fur coat!


marty

Seraphim
01-25-2010, 12:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_season

The 2nd sentence of that article. Patriot fans, which would you rather have had, given the choice:

A 16-0 season with a loss in the SB?

A 14-2 season with a win in the SB?

Basically, would you trade a 16-0 season for a win in the SB?

Even though you're done with this discussion, it's not a guarantee/given that if a team goes 16-0 they have a lock on a Superbowl win that year. It comes down to which is more important: A perfect regular season, or the best chance for a SB win? I'll take a SB win any day.

Maybe that's part of why the '72 Dolphins are so revered -- they managed to do BOTH in the same season (perfect regular and SB win)... which obviously is much harder than doing one *or* the other.


I'd take 14-2 with a win in the SB, just like the Pats did in both the 2003 and 2004 seasons.

However, I don't think they threw any of the "2" games in those two seasons, did they?

Bad form on the Colt's part.

Baloosh
01-25-2010, 12:10 PM
However, I don't think they threw any of the "2" games in those two seasons, did they?


Of course not -- wasn't trying to imply that they were. Sorry if it came across that way.