Wow

Fiction Tag

19-0 T-shirts.I've seen a guy wearing it at a company in Boston I visited last week.

"Winning is not everything;the desire to win is" - Vince Lombardi

by rangerover76 on Jan 28, 2008 8:17 PM EST reply actions

I don't think it will be very long until they claim that Lugo is the best SS in the league, or that Rondo guy is better than Steve Nash. When a team of the area is on, it's ON. Now, when they suck, most part of the local fans don't give a shit about them (even if they say otherwise, it's true).

Walk on, walk on With hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone You'll never walk alone

by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 28, 2008 8:24 PM EST reply actions

Well

Could have sworn this was a Colts Site. Maybe you could review some Manning Commercials or whatever the Colts are doing with their off season.

by ZTurgeon on Jan 28, 2008 9:17 PM EST reply actions

Boston:

It's the Fairweather Fan Capital of the World!

Seriously, where were the Boston fans when the Pats went 1-15? Where were the Boston fans when Bill Buckner let the ball roll through his legs in '86? What about the last few years when the Celtics were stinking up the Fleet Center and hovering around the bottom of the league? It's a whole city of Johnny-from-Quinzee-come-latelys. So yeah, let them have 19-0. The Patriots aren't built to last. Talk about one and done; the Pats mortgaged their future for one last title. Gotta admit, it's a hell of a way to go out.

Check out my blog, Sports Circuits! - http://sportscircuits.wordpress.com/

by MonkeyBusiness on Jan 28, 2008 9:22 PM EST reply actions

You sir have the honor of being the poster of the most ill informed post I have ever read. Pats fans were hear when they were 1-15, but tried not to be to vocal about, you'd understand. It's alot like those years before Manning came to the Colts, no one talks about those either.

Buckner was damn near cruicified for years for what happened, that's where the fans were. They were so angry about the lose, that they ran him out of town. The Celtics haven't meant much to Boston for a long time, and even now in such a dominant season, they are third banana. They were just managed into the ground.

I'll be the one to say that the Bruins have no fans. I refuse to even turn on a Bruins game until the team changes ownership to someone who won't just sell talent that goes on and wins the cup. I don't care if they win it every year for the next decade, I still won't watch a Bruins game.

And I don't think the Pats have morgaged there future for this at all. The Main differences from last year, are 3 WRs, who all game with a very cheap price tag, and a LB with plenty of years left in him. Yes, the defense is getting old, but the people behind them are gearing up to be starters. There will be holes at LB, but that is what free agency is for.

So yes, I see nothing of worth in your post, beyond saying that NE Fans are vocal about winning, just like everyone else, and they make a good person to hate, just like you were last year, and the Steelers the year before.

by ZTurgeon on Jan 29, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions

This is exactly

What we are trying to drill into Pats fans. Nobody is hating you guys just because you win games. Everybody hates you guys because dirtbags in your team are not only tolerated, but deified.
Get it?

"Winning is not everything;the desire to win is" - Vince Lombardi

by rangerover76 on Jan 29, 2008 1:40 AM EST up reply actions

Pats fans don't get it

and probably never will. I have explained several times in great detail exactly why and how the Pats' behavior causes them to be disliked by so many. The response from Pats fans is always along the lines of, "Uhhhh... you hate us because we're good! Everybody is jealous! 18-0 baby! Enjoy the Super Bowl!" They're either irretrievably stupid (which is rare) or they're willfully ignoring the truth because they know they can't defend the Pats' behavior, and so have to change the subject (which is more likely).

by ctnyc on Jan 29, 2008 11:45 AM EST up reply actions

Don't get me wrong

The Pats are a very dirty team in my eyes, but football is a very dirty game. Yes, Wilfork does throw late hits, Yes, Harrison hits harder then anyone else even when not nessessary, but that is not different then alot of the other dirty teams like the Chargers, Giants, Ravens, and Steelers.

And in 2 years, no one will remember what teams went and played dirty. You either are forgotten, like how just a couple years ago the Steelers took a blatent cheap shot and injured Palmer on their way to the superbowl, or your immortalized, like the Bears and Raiders who have made franchises on being the hard hitting bad boys of the 70s and 80s.

But all that doesn't stop the fact that if the Pats were 10-6, and going to the Superbowl with the same style and same things happen, they would have alot less hate coming at them. It's not always envy, but the top team in any sport always gets hated no matter what you did to deserve it.

by ZTurgeon on Jan 29, 2008 12:24 PM EST up reply actions

Well

you get at least some credit for admitting that the Pats are dirty -- something very few Pats fans that I have seen are willing to do. But (and with Pats fans there is always a "but"... no pun intended), your argument is another familiar one: "everybody does it."

Yes football is a hard-hitting and violent game. But it is not in its nature a dirty game, as you claim. In fact there are many, many rules in place to prevent it from being a dirty game. It's just that some choose to ignore these rules.

You are correct to say that the Pats aren't the only dirty team, and I'm sure there are dirty players scattered all throughout the NFL. It's just that the Pats seem to have more low-lifes than any other team, and at key positions (Belichick, Harrison, Wilfork, Vrabel, Moss, etc.) These are the ones we know for sure about, there have also been allegations of douchebaggery against players like Seymour and Light. In different ways, these players have all shown themselves to be worthy of scorn.

That's what I think people are railing against: there are other isolated incidents to be sure, and there are teams who have bad reputations, but the Pats have taken this to a whole new level. When a team is so rife with jackasses, it is going to be despised no matter how good it is. HGH, Spygate, cheap hits, eye pokes... these are the reasons your team is so hated, not their record. Sure everybody roots for the top dog to be knocked down a peg, but this hatred goes far beyond the normal rooting for the underdog.

And you're right that in a couple of years many people will probably not remember the specifics of this season. But that's more a function of our collective short attention span than the infractions themselves. All we need to do is to look at how often bad episodes in history repeat themselves to see that people often are "asleep at the switch."

by ctnyc on Jan 29, 2008 1:17 PM EST up reply actions

Here's my view

The Patriots are dirty? Of course they are. Are there others in the league like that? Yes, that's why no one likes the Raiders. Other teams do it but with little success. The reason everyone hates the Pats is because when they play dirty or cheat they do it very well. If they were at the bottom of the league doing this, we'd complain but probably not to this extent.

by bleedingblue @ Stampede Blue on Jan 29, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions

I agree

that the hatred of the Pats is probably intensified by their success. Nobody likes to see cheaters prosper, and there wouldn't be nearly as much discussion of them on this site or in the national media if they sucked.

However, my point has always been that the root of the hatred is the Pats' dirty play and cheating, not their success. Pats fans would have us believe that virtually the whole country is rooting against the Pats simply because the Pats are 18-0. I think this argument is simple-minded and thoroughly false. It is the Pats' behavior and not their record that is to blame for the ill will; ratcheted up though it may be due to their success.

There have been plenty of successful teams in the past (Packers in the '60s, Cowboys in the '70s and '90s, 49ers in the '80s, the Colts right now, etc.) who -- disliked to some extent because of their successes -- were not nearly as strongly and universally loathed as this version of the Patriots. There is such a concentration of jerks on the Pats right now that the collective sports world outside of New England is repulsed. And I maintain that this would hold true regardless of the Pats record, although it would certainly be easier to ignore them if they weren't so continually promoted by the national media (which is due almost entirely to their record.)

by ctnyc on Jan 29, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions

ill informed poster?

Apparently while not watching the Bruins you also have not attended any English classes in your life.

"Hear" are some examples from your post:

Here, not Hear
Too, not To
Loss, not Lose
Came, not Game

You sir, should learn to write.

by johnnyU on Jan 29, 2008 1:42 AM EST up reply actions

Sorry about the Mistakes

But typos from late last night do not make my points any less correct. If the worst you can do is pick out spelling and grammar mistakes online then I guess that the argument was won for me.

by ZTurgeon on Jan 29, 2008 12:15 PM EST up reply actions

Actually

I did not look that closely at your argument (Really don't care). Just throwing out that before you act high and mighty, you may want to proof read your post so you don't sound like a fool.

by johnnyU on Jan 29, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions

then what are you

the grammar police? by your own admission you 'weren't even reading the argument'.. then were you just reading for spelling and grammar? Really most of us here are interested in discussing the colts, not bashing bloggers for poor spelling..

by bluegirl on Jan 29, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

Not that I have to defend myself but

I began to read his post then lost interest when it appeared to be written by someone with an IQ of 7. Excuse me for pointing out that even if you have a good point, (which maybe he did or perhaps he was a Patriots fan trying to rile up argument) it was lost in his ignorance.

by johnnyU on Jan 29, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

You Sir

are an ass. Simple as that. I am not here to stir anything. I have been debating on this site for all of this season. I have made it known that I am a Pats fan, like the Colts (but hate Dungy more then anyone else in football), and most importantly, am here to talk and not start flame wars.

Apparently you are here not to discuss anything but instead go straight to trivial insults and spelling mistakes. So yes, perhaps you do go over your posts with a fine toothed comb to clean out those typos, but all that means is you are a troll with excellent grammar and form.

by ZTurgeon on Jan 29, 2008 6:32 PM EST up reply actions

I apparently struck a cord

and I did not insult you personally (just your writing style)...anyway, easy dude...I am letting it go. Just trying to engage in some harmless Patriots/Colts fan back and forth. Did not want to ruin your day. However, I am curious as to how you like the Colts but hate Dungy more than anyone else in football. I am not in love with Tony but he certainly is not my most hated person in the game.

by johnnyU on Jan 29, 2008 6:59 PM EST up reply actions

Dungy

I don't like him becuase of his personal veiws. He is a great coach, and has defined one of the best defenses in this era (tampa 2) but I do not like him going around and using his position in the media to preach. With the rumors surrounding his son's death never confirmed, you would have thought he would have cooled off the hyper christian thing, but instead he goes off saying things like he wouldn't have gay football players on his team. Combine that with him always coming off as very whiny and controlling at the compitition committee seeming to push an agenda.

I'm fine with him having his beliefs, but I don't like anyone who goes out and preaches just because he is in the spotlight, and Dungy does that more then anyone else in the NFL

by ZTurgeon on Jan 29, 2008 7:57 PM EST up reply actions

Great Post!

by standingpat on Jan 29, 2008 1:47 AM EST up reply actions

Thank you

I will be "hear" all week.

by johnnyU on Jan 29, 2008 1:57 AM EST up reply actions

I wasn't talking to you

I was talking to zturgeon

by standingpat on Jan 29, 2008 2:08 AM EST up reply actions

Then you need to

click on the "reply to post" button. Zturgeon can't spell and you can't figure out the complexities of a blog...maybe you are the same person.

by johnnyU on Jan 29, 2008 2:13 AM EST up reply actions

maybe i watch the wire too much..

"this game is fuckin' rigged!"

by tenyardfight on Jan 29, 2008 12:54 AM EST reply actions

You would

You would believe anything else before you would believe the truth, the Pats are the best team in football.

by standingpat on Jan 29, 2008 1:51 AM EST reply actions

gk0oakohgj

Oh yeah? Prove it.

by KingRichard on Jan 29, 2008 2:06 AM EST up reply actions

They already have

But for you unbelievers, you will have to wait until next sunday before the prophecy is fulfilled.

by standingpat on Jan 29, 2008 2:11 AM EST up reply actions

glajgjag

Where's the proof again?

by KingRichard on Jan 29, 2008 2:13 AM EST up reply actions

18-0

there, you forced me to say it. And the giants are a team they already beat this season in their own house. W/ 2 weeks to prepare, Belichik and the Pats are going to soundly defeat this team.

by standingpat on Jan 29, 2008 2:28 AM EST up reply actions

gopagopj

What does being 18-0 prove?

by KingRichard on Jan 29, 2008 2:31 AM EST up reply actions

KR...

If, as you imply, the New England Patriots are not the best team in the NFL - please make your case for the team that you believe is the best. What is the team that impresses the King?

If 18-0 means nothing... if besting the top teams in the league is meaningless - what would you accept for evidence of the Patriots greatness?? Would a second win over the Colts this year have done it for you?? If only Indy had been good enough to get to the AFCCG...

by horseofadifferentcolor on Jan 29, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

bgoaojgb

That's just the point genius, there is no "best team ever."

by KingRichard on Jan 29, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions

Ahhh...

The line was: the best team in football. You argued that the Patriots are the not the best team in football. Please make your case for the best team in pro football, if it isn't N.E. who is it??

And.. nobody used the word "ever".

I await your response.

by horseofadifferentcolor on Jan 29, 2008 5:00 PM EST up reply actions

The best team in football ...

that doesn't cheat is the Colts.

If you include cheaters, then sure, we have to give it to the Patriots.

by PaytonMenning on Jan 30, 2008 1:35 AM EST up reply actions

only in your delusional world

by Terry @ Stampede Blue on Jan 30, 2008 9:21 AM EST up reply actions

I love this reply

Injected right into the middle of a heated rivalry is a non-sequitur which (I assume) is based on the poster's belief in the superiority of the Cowboys.

I never thought I'd see the day when a comment by Terry made me laugh in a good way.

by ctnyc on Feb 3, 2008 2:28 AM EST up reply actions

I hear ya...

The Patriot's cheating was especially rampant in the Nov. 4th Colts contest... it's the only reason N.E. won that game. Yeah... those cheatin' Pats.

No doubt - when the cheaters are not included (Pats, Chargers, Giants, Packers, Jaguars) the Colts stand tall. Did I leave anyone out?

by horseofadifferentcolor on Jan 30, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions

Straw man

...

by PaytonMenning on Feb 1, 2008 1:57 AM EST up reply actions

Why is this being argued?

The best team is the one that wins this Sunday. The Colts were the best last year. This year, it's either the Pats or the Giants. I guess you would have to say the best team in the game that doesn't cheat is the Giants then. And then maybe the Packers or Chargers.

by yellowsnow on Jan 31, 2008 8:15 AM EST up reply actions

Why??

Because the fans that populate this site are having a difficult time with their biggest rival being the best team in pro footbal right now. Because they are having difficulty with the premature departure (once again) of their favorite football team from this year's playoffs.

The only way for these fans to get through the horror of these realities is to bad-mouth, deride, ridicule and insult the New England Patriots. If you can't beat em'... call 'em cheaters.

The consensus here is that the Pats aren't better than the Colts 'cause they're cheaters. The Pats aren't better than all the top teams 'cause they're cheaters. How convenient an excuse. We'll dismiss all the Pats incredible accomplishments this season, 'cause don't cha know.. they're cheaters.

No one here has the balls (my apologizes to bluegirl) to admit that the video snafu in game-one had nothing whatsoever to do with N.E.'s winning ways this season - the lament simply remains: the Patriots are cheaters... the Patriots are cheaters.

It's not an easy thing to admit to your team's playoff shortcomings, it's harder still to heap praise on the team you love to hate... this I understand. But, these Colt fans are living in a world of serious denial these days. Scary in a way.

by horseofadifferentcolor on Jan 31, 2008 12:30 PM EST up reply actions

Jesus Christ

you really are tiresome. I long ago gave up on changing your tiny little mind, but is it really to much to ask for you not to continually lie to make your discredited points? Talk about living in denial. Genius: the Patriots ARE CHEATERS. I know you'd like to pretend it didn't happen, but there are literally hundreds of news reports about it. Again I refer you to a really helpful site called "Google." There you will be able to find many, many reports -- including statements from the NFL -- about how the Patriots cheated. So you can continue to pretend that Colts fans are making it all up, but you're only making yourself look more and more ignorant.

As for your lie about nobody admitting that Spygate had nothing to do with the Pats's season, I have addressed that at great length as well. And I have further stated that whether it helped this particular season or not (unlikely), it's still cheating. And that it is reasonable to assume that it helped them in other seasons. Remember in another thread when I made the analogy about getting caught cheating for a test? And how it's still cheating even if you're caught before it can help you? Sure you do. It was just a couple of days ago. But now you choose to lie and imply that this issue has never been addressed, hoping that we've all forgotten.

Seriously dude, you realize that we can go back and re-read everything that has been posted on this site, right? Who did you think you were fooling when you misrepresented the nature of our arguments?

When you first came here I actually thought you occassionally had something interesting to say. I did not join in the calls for your banishment because I thought that these differing opinions could be valuable. Now it is clear that you have no agenda other than to stir up trouble. You continue to make the same assertions and arguments over and over while never addressing the arguments of others. You never defend your arguments when others prove them invalid, you simply make them again in exactly the same way. You add nothing to the discussion, nothing to further the debate. And now you have taken to flat-out lying to keep up your charade. You are the very definition of a "troll."

by ctnyc on Jan 31, 2008 12:49 PM EST up reply actions

ctnyc

This particular post was in response to the premise layed out above by PM... the Patriots are the best team in the NFL with rule violation and the Colts are the best team that hasn't had a rule vilolation.

My point in mentioning the other successful playoff teams from this season, is to show that if the Colts are the best team that doesn't cheat, then these other teams must cheat as well since they demonstrated (by winning in the playoffs) that they were better than Indy this season.

You restated your silly argument that the Patriots video taping was analogous to cheating on a test. It seems to me that it is the correct answers to the test that is the advantage gained by cheating. This we agree on. But, I'm unclear on the "correct answers" the Patriots gleaned from the eight minutes of Jets videotape which they never got possession of. The Patriots were accused of this one violation only - your assumption that N.E. has done this forever is based on what... your certainty that the Pats are cheats... right? Well... the Patriots level of play certainly doesn't support your assumption - logic tells us that we should have witnessed a sharp drop-off in the Pats play without the video taping to help them out. This of course didn't happen but why let logic get in the way of your argument. The Pats are cheaters and we all know it. No team plays this well without cheating! Blah... blah.. blah.

we have been both steadfast in our positions-

You believe the Patriots aren't the best team in the league because the on-field videotaping is an NFL rule violation and any rule violation equals cheating and cheating equals an unfair advantage over teams that have not been involved in rule violations - teams like the Colts.

I believe that the Patriots are the best team in the NFL because of what they have done on the field this season and the off-field rule violation did not gain them an unfair advantage.

The irony of the situation is - the penalty and the media attention that resulted from the rule violation motivated New England to do great things this year. Without the rule violation fallout, we probably wouldn't be about to celebrate the greatest single season the NFL has ever seen.

Call me a troll if you like.. if it makes you feel better. I state my case for the Pats being the best... you argue against it. I notice that you never make a case for the "real" best team, instead you endlessly rail against the Patriots. You feel that the Patriots don't deserve the title of "best team in the NFL".. I do.

by horseofadifferentcolor on Feb 1, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions

Actually

I don't believe I've ever entered the discussion about which team is "better" or "best" on either side. Others have, but I don't recall a single comment I made about that issue. If I'm forgetting something it is minor. My point is and always has been that the Patriots cheated. Simply that. You and many other Pats fans have repeatedly tried to obfuscate this basic fact. I am merely standing up for the truth.

As the saying goes, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. The fact is that the Pats cheated. Your opinion is that it didn't matter to their historic season. As I have said several times now in various posts, that is likely correct. However, your assertion that "the Patriots were accused of this one violation only" is only true in a roundabout way. It is technically true that they were punished just this once. But it is also true that they had been warned several times, including in past seasons, about this. In fact during one game from a previous season (I believe it was either against the Packers or the Lions), the Pats sideline was warned about videotaping after a complaint from the opposing team, stopped the taping, and then began again when the league official left. My "assumption," as you call it, is based on newspaper and web reports. What is yours based on?

Further, the Spygate incident is not the only one I have mentioned and that bears mentioning. What about Rodney Harrison's HGH use? Is this not cheating? I based my "assumption" about that incident on newspaper articles and the league's punishment and official statments.

Again, on what do you base your assumption that the Pats don't cheat? It seems to me that everybody else, and most importantly the league, understands that they have cheated repeatedly in several different ways. You take one bit of circumstantial evidence -- that the Pats have had a great season after being caught cheating -- and try to spin this into a "that proves the Pats don't cheat" argument. And you are questioning my logic? Let's check the scoreboard on this one:

Me: Multiple examples of the Pats cheating from various published and confirmed sources, including the league itself, leads me to the obvious conclusion that the Pats are cheaters.

You: Because the Spygate cheating probably didn't help them this season, and they were only actually penalized this once (except for Rodney Harrison), the Pats aren't cheaters.

Now which account do you think an objective observer would find more logical? Never mind. The obvious answer is my account, but you being a blind Pats troll, you would say yours.

You claim to like this site better than Pats Pulpit, and yet you behave just like a Pats Pulpiteer. I had almost exactly this same debate with them some months ago. I even supplied them links, quotes, and various web sites to check that all supported my position that the Pats cheat and are generally engaged in a pattern of bad behavior (I'm not doing so here, because frankly, I don't care enough to go digging them all up again). Despite a mountain of evidence on my side, the site administrator continually insisted that I had no proof, and then banned me. The only difference in your arguments is that while he took the "you have no proof" tack, you take the "you're just jealous" tack. Other than that, your methods are exactly the same, and just as inflexible even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Which leads me to wonder: maybe you'd be happier over there with your like-minded brethren?

by ctnyc on Feb 1, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions

Nope

it ain't the Giants. Sorry bub. They're not even the best in the NFC. As much as I hate them, the Cowboys are better.

by PaytonMenning on Feb 1, 2008 1:58 AM EST up reply actions

so by that reasoning

the colts are better than the chargers right?

give me a break.

by schultz950 @ Stampede Blue on Feb 1, 2008 11:11 AM EST up reply actions

By what reasoning?

I wasn't applying any specific reasoning or logic, just an opinion.

To quote Art Blakely, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one [sic].

by PaytonMenning on Feb 2, 2008 10:28 PM EST up reply actions

okay, declare a national holiday

Menning and I agree on something

by Terry @ Stampede Blue on Feb 1, 2008 2:13 PM EST up reply actions

never thought I'd see the day

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com/

by shake n bake on Feb 3, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions

Do you have anything

else to ask but the same question 3 times?

by standingpat on Jan 29, 2008 2:45 AM EST reply actions

gjpojapgojag

Depends on when you plan on answering my first question.

by KingRichard on Jan 29, 2008 2:47 AM EST up reply actions

18 -0 is like star trek

It goes where no man has gone before. The accomplishment is already greater than any nfl team has done.

by standingpat on Jan 29, 2008 2:54 AM EST reply actions

And yet

It means absolutely nothing without a Super Bowl win. Nothing.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by Brad Wells on Jan 29, 2008 7:24 AM EST up reply actions

c'mon shoe...

an undefeated regular season is a hell of an accomplishment, especially when along the way you beat the NFC champion Giants, the Colts, the Chargers twice, the Steelers, the Jags, the Cowboys etc. if they end up 18-1 they wont be the greatest team ever and Pats fans will be pissed, but an undefeated season is laudable.

by Ed OG on Jan 29, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions

Undefeated regular season

Means nothing without a Super Bowl. The regular season means nothing in comparison to the playoffs and the Super Bowl. The Pats must win it all in order for it to mean anything.

Trust me, they are all aware of that.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by Brad Wells on Jan 29, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions

18-0

means theyre a good team. there can be multiple good teams in the NFL. If they lose the SB, they were a great team that either choked (if you're a pats fan) or cut it close too many times and was vastly overrated (if youre a colts fan). The season still means something...having an undefeated season is remarkable. but theyre not considered the greatest team ever if they dont win it.

by Ed OG on Jan 29, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions