T_Brady12
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 766
- Reaction score
- 1
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Kinda hard to "run up the score" by choosing to try for 2 versus 1. Just like the Colts did in '05, it made sense for N.O. to try to take it to a 3 TD+(3) 2 point conversion lead.
21 point lead is better than 20
24 point lead is better than 23
You are ignorant to suggest that either of these coaches were trying to rub anything in. If NO's was, Bress would have dropped back and thrown a THIRD 70 yard scoring strike
And you don't think the Pats would be crucified if they did this? Your blind hatred for this team is showing through. Please don't ever refer to yourself as impartial on this forum again.
When were they crucified for going for 2 versus 1?
You guys have a hard time telling the differnce between 55-7 and 51-29
Why am I here? Why are you here? Difficult, but NOT impossible. Colts have erased 17 and 21 point deficits with under 5 minutes to play. Packers are a team that has the skill position players to do the same. Going for two would have given the Saints a 24 point lead. That would require either 4 scores (3 TD's and a FG), or three TD's + (3) 2 point conversions. I guarantee McCarthy wasn't put off by the decision, I doubt a Packer fan was put off by the decision, why would you be. If NE were in that spot, and decided to do the same, no one would question it. To suggest folks would care is actually pretty smug on your part. And I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between a 24 point lead and a 41 point lead, but believe me, there is a HUGE difference.Because there is no difference. 51-29 is still very difficult to impossible to come back from in the final quarter. Is there anything else you want to cry about today? Tell me, why the hell are you even here? Are you obsessed or just bored?
Why am I here? Why are you here? Difficult, but NOT impossible. Colts have erased 17 and 21 point deficits with under 5 minutes to play. Packers are a team that has the skill position players to do the same. Going for two would have given the Saints a 24 point lead. That would require either 4 scores (3 TD's and a FG), or three TD's + (3) 2 point conversions. I guarantee McCarthy wasn't put off by the decision, I doubt a Packer fan was put off by the decision, why would you be. If NE were in that spot, and decided to do the same, no one would question it. To suggest folks would care is actually pretty smug on your part. And I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between a 24 point lead and a 41 point lead, but believe me, there is a HUGE difference.
What exactly IS it that I am crying about?
Do you honestly think that even if the Packers offense would have scored 21 more points in the 4th quarter that their defense was anywhere near capable of stopping the Saints offense at that point? And you're using the Colts to make your point as well? What makes you think up to this point that Aaron Rodgers is anywhere near Peyton Manning's neighborhood? He's a good quarterback, don't get me wrong. But Manning is one of the all-time great quarterbacks in the game. He's also had more than enough big game experience to pull his team together all by himself. Rodgers is simply not the leader Manning is.
And smug? Nope. I'm just battle weary. If Bill Belichick even so much as farts the wrong way, it's the main storyline on ESPN. Then when you click the link, it's just thousands of people spewing vitriol at this team for any reason other than the fact are that people are just sick and tired of seeing us being successful. If that's why you're tired of us, fine. Just admit it and don't cry about every little thing that we do. That's just annoying to me.
Do you honestly think that even if the Packers offense would have scored 21 more points in the 4th quarter that their defense was anywhere near capable of stopping the Saints offense at that point? And you're using the Colts to make your point as well? What makes you think up to this point that Aaron Rodgers is anywhere near Peyton Manning's neighborhood? He's a good quarterback, don't get me wrong. But Manning is one of the all-time great quarterbacks in the game. He's also had more than enough big game experience to pull his team together all by himself. Rodgers is simply not the leader Manning is.
And smug? Nope. I'm just battle weary. If Bill Belichick even so much as farts the wrong way, it's the main storyline on ESPN. Then when you click the link, it's just thousands of people spewing vitriol at this team for any reason other than the fact are that people are just sick and tired of seeing us being successful. If that's why you're tired of us, fine. Just admit it and don't cry about every little thing that we do. That's just annoying to me.
Kinda hard to "run up the score" by choosing to try for 2 versus 1. Just like the Colts did in '05, it made sense for N.O. to try to take it to a 3 TD+(3) 2 point conversion lead.
21 point lead is better than 20
24 point lead is better than 23
You are ignorant to suggest that either of these coaches were trying to rub anything in.
OK, up by 29, less than 3 minutes to play, and BB throws the red flag.
Please defend..........