Brady would have 4 Rings, going on 5.

Discussion in ' - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Keegs, Jan 26, 2007.

  1. Keegs

    Keegs In the Starting Line-Up

    Brady would have 5 Rings if the refs didn't completely screw the pats over last year and this year.

    pass interference calls, no touchback, "face guarding", non calls, bull**** offensive pass interference calls, bull**** roughing the passer calls.

    I realize it sounds ridiculous, but if we Beat Denver last year and the Colts this year, the superbowl would have been ours both years. And most people on this site would agree i think

    The Refs are ******* bull****. I don't even remember the last time we got a call in the playoffs that was questionable and went on OUR side.

    The should not be allowed to **** up like that and then say "oh well my fault" 6 days later like it's no big deal.

    this is two godamn years in a row they do that for the Colts and it finally worked this year.

    If i didn't love this team so much and put so much godamn energy in them id stop watching this bull**** league.
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    Well he doesn't. I agree with you but you have to mve on. Otherwise never get over it and it just gets worse.
  3. Keegs

    Keegs In the Starting Line-Up

    but how many years in a row will this happen?

    what happens if they **** us over next year?
  4. NEPat

    NEPat Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    I think Brady would be the first to tell you that you need some breaks to go your way when you win the Superbowl. Sometimes those breaks don't go your way, and you realize how hard it is to win the SB, and how amazing this championship run has been by this team.
  5. Keegs

    Keegs In the Starting Line-Up

    i cannot think of any breaks besides the tuck rule.

    i honestly can't think of any questionable calls or non-calls in our favor
  6. NEPat

    NEPat Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    I think if you asked the teams the Pats beat, they could come up with some calls that they think decided the game. Or, they say something like "if only our team had done x and y instead of z, we would have won the game!" like I keep thinking about the fact that the Pats had the ball and could have killed the clock to end the game but couldn't do it.

    My point is there are always things that could've turned a game, and sometimes it works for your team and sometimes it doesn't. My take on officiating is that there are always going to be bad calls. In my opinion, did it decide the game over other factors? No. I still think the Pats had the chance to win the game, and they couldn't do it. Congratulate the Colts, and move on and root for the Bears :) The Pats will be fine, and back hungry next year.
  7. skri65

    skri65 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    The refs weren't the exact reason we lost the game. The game was in our hands, we blew it. Sometimes, you just got to accept that your team got beat. Move on.
  8. sieglo

    sieglo In the Starting Line-Up

    The questionable calls always seem to favor the opposition by about 80% to 20%. It should be about 50% - 50%.

    Unfortunately we just need to suck it up and deal. It's like being Asian and trying to get into a good college -- the deck is stacked against you and it takes and even greater performance to overcome the bias.
  9. The Dog

    The Dog Banned

    If you look at it objectively it is completely different. The Pats benefitted many times in their super bowl runs. They could easily have no rings. You can't have it both ways. The Pats' db's got away with muggings against the Rams, colts (twice), and the Titans. This doesn't even bring in other questionable calls, i.e. Tuck rule. Get over it. The Pats gave up 32 points in a half. They got beat plain and simple.
  10. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

    Get over it. It's only a game.

    Fuel for the fire.

    // Didn't see you, Dog. Woof.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2007
  11. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks Supporter Supporter

    How would you know - you don't have an objective bone in your troll body.

    The Pats benefitted from the tuck rule being applied correctly, big difference. That same call had been used against us earlier in the season, which is why many Pat's fans knew what it was when they saw it.

    As for DB muggings, that was the way the PI rule was implemented until Polian launched his whining campaign and got the added emplasis which has nearly ruined the ability of secondaries to defense passes. The emphasis was not in place when we won against the Rams and Colts (twice).
  12. jbb9s

    jbb9s In the Starting Line-Up

    Well the Denver game stings because we would have had PITT at home ad SEA was a weak NFC team.

    Champ Bailey fumble out of endzone - Samuel pass interference call in endzone. Both complete BS.

    this year: troy brown offensive pass inerference; hobbs faceguarding; 15 yd personal foul against TBC at the end.

    All BS too.

    BUT BUT BUT - Brady doesn't throw that pick to Bailey in the first place and this year, completes a first down in to Brown OR throws to Caldwell with a quicksnap when he was WIDE WIDE open (like loft it out in the endzone instead of a quick snap throw) and pats are 8 days away from surpassing MJ's dynasty standard.
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa Supporter Supporter

    Oddly enough, by looking at fan bulletin boards after a team loses a close game, the fans of the losing team are almost always interested in penalties, and almost always have a litany of "bad calls" that went against them. There's always a heated agreement about this or that call, that nobody seems to conclusively call a bad call, except the fans of that team.

    Sometimes, you lose. Pure and simple. "Bad calls" even out over time, unless there is a conspiracy. I'm here to tell you, there's not one; the refs in the Indy game had a golden opportunity to screw the Pats on the Caldwell TD. They didn't.

    The NFL does not "want" the Pats to lose games. The Refs do not "want" the Pats to lose games. No more than the League "wanted" the Pats in Super Bowl XXXVI because of a "9/11" tie-in. No ****, I heard this theory once during that run.

    Parity works because a huge number of fans have a reason to cheer until the last or almost the last game of the year. Fan interest has never been higher, because so many teams have a shot at the Big Show. Want more evidence Parity works? The Pats weren't odds-on favorites to get to the super bowl in any year except 2004. We're used to seeing them counted out, despite the dynasy factor. How can fans be cowed into disinterest by a team you count out?

    There's no conspiracy, the bad calls even out, and fans call close calls against their teams, "bad calls."

    The better team last week was Indianapolis. They won the game.

  14. The Dog

    The Dog Banned

    Just because a rule wasn't a point of emphasis doesn't mean it isn't a rule. The Pats' db's were mugging and getting away with it. It even happened in the SD game this year on next to last drive. Pats should not have won that game with good officiating. The tuck rule was reported to have been misapplied in that situation by retired NFL officials. I am being objective you are not.
  15. brdmaverick

    brdmaverick In the Starting Line-Up

    #32 Jersey

    a huge Pats fan here, but I can think of a few calls/non-calls/breaks that have gone in our favor during the Super Bowl playoff runs

    1.)Tuck Rule - the game was over, and the refs did a good job of interpretting the rule and overturning it but the big break was that it came with like 1:52 left in the game. Had it been just over two minutes that Pats could not have challenged the play (no time outs) and the season most likely would have been over.

    2.)2003 vs INDY AFC CHampionship - even after getting five turnovers and a safety, Peyton Manning found himself with the ball only down by one score with two minutes left. There was clear 'holding' and/or illegal contact non-calls that should have given the Colts a first down. Watch it again and you will see that we were very fortunate to get a non-call.

    3.)2001 vs. Rams - while I think it would have been against the intent of the rule, Mike Vrabel did hit Kurt Warner in the head on that rush when TY Law picked it off and returned it for a TD

    4.)2001 vs. Rams (final drive) - I know that this rule is only half enforced anyway, but Brady should have been called for intentional grounding.

    those are just to name a few of the big ones

    so you see, the breaks go both ways
  16. PATRIOT64

    PATRIOT64 In the Starting Line-Up

    Saying he would have 4-5 rings seems a bit ridiculous to me,Does that mean we get to the Super Bowl if all works right with the refs and the NFC does not show up giving us the win?

    Being in the SB for the Patriots guarantees crap - The other team actually has the desire to win too you know and is purely capable of it,Thats how they got there in the first place,no matter what has happened in the past Brady and BB are great but NO guarantee we win the SB ANYTIME we get there.

    Take off the red,blue and silver glasses and get real.
  17. JoePats

    JoePats In the Starting Line-Up

    I have no idea of the intentional grounding youre talking about. Not the spike after the Wiggins pass, because everyone does that.

    However, I didn't think JR Redmond got out of bounds on the 3rd or so play of the drive.
  18. Keegs

    Keegs In the Starting Line-Up

    the whole issue with the bad calls it is still a bunch of garbage though.
    The Refs clearly called the game in Indy's favor.
    It should not have to be this way

    We should not have to outplay the Colts and the Refs.
    We should not have to perform well enough to win-and then some b/c the refs have a habit of screwing us the last 2 januarys.

    It's a bunch of crap.
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa Supporter Supporter

    Look, I disagree, and basically think this is a homer instinct that's clear as day from where any given fan sits, and complete BS to every other team's fans. That makes me think probably the same applies to us, the Pats fans.

    But IF that's the case, I say screw it. Then the game we're playing is "beat the colts and the refs." Again, I don't believe that is the case, but if you do, it's a matter of establishing superiority and leaving zero doubt, for the Pats. Yeah sounds daunting to do year in and year out, but if that's what it takes, that is the standard we'll need to measure by. The thing is there is no such thing as the "wouldashouldacoulda bowl," and nobody's trying to win the Bud Grant Trophy or the Marv Levy Trophy.

    I get your point of view, I can put myself in your shoes and think, "Christ, I might just give up on football if I see it that way." But again, since this phenomenon (belief in bad calls) recurs among fans of teams that lost an important game, I tend to see it as an epiphenomenon of losing said games, rather than the source phenomenon causing the loss.

  20. Michael

    Michael Moderator Staff Member Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    I don't bother too much with the non-calls. They do indeed go both ways. As the cliche goes you could call holding on every single play. My problem is on the calls that ARE made that never happened in big games. Most notably the PI on Samuel last year and the PI on Hobbs this year. Both desperation throws to the corner of the endzone that handed their team the ball at the 1 for TD.

Share This Page