Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by xmarkd400x, Jan 2, 2008.
I shi!t you not
I read the article but couldn't find the part about Brady going down for the playoffs in the first quarter of the playoffs......
It's a stupid title for an article. Bottom line: the AFC is a lot stronger than the NFC, that's really the only cogent point one can gather from such a statement.
The Redskins are terrible. That's just
Yeah. And that's why the Patriots lost to those teams...
Belichick v. unproven QB. Which side would you rather be on?
Hide behind the word "could". Then when somebody brings it up after Washington gets bounced you can say "I never said that". Since when has a top tier running attack ever derailed the Patriots?!? I remember it being a crucial Tom Brady mistake against Denver and a superhuman passing effort by Peyton Manning.
The Patriots are 10 times the team that Washington is. Yes, the Patriots could do worse than Washington in the playoffs. Yes, I could be struck by lightning before I finish this post.
"Could" is a troublesome word, but it is very useful for columnists, because it allows them to say all kinds of idiotic nonsense, and then justify it by saying, "Well, anything can happen."
I'm getting really tired of people trying desperately to come up with ways to discredit the Patriots 16-0 season. They keep coming up with excuses such as "The Colts almost beat them", "The Eagles almost beat them", and "If Rex Ryan didn't call a time out, the Ravens would have beat them". Well guess what? Those teams didn't win. They cracked. A sign of a great team finds ways to win just like the Patriots showed us this year. No team is perfect, but the record indicates that the Patriots are. So far, no team has shown that they can beat the Patriots for 60 minutes. If the Pats win the superbowl, they are without a doubt the greatest team in NFL history.
I agree because AFC teams had won SB games in the past few years.
about this article, the author is a sport columnist for 'washington post' and Redskins is in Washington. You can see he is biased when writing his article. The fact is every sport columnist thinks his team will defeat Pats. Go figure.!
56-7 was the score which Redskins lost. It's historically fact and i'm suprised he did not mention it in his article.
Don't the Jaguars have to beat the Steelers IN Pittsburgh first?? Or do they not bother to play the game? They just give them the win?? I don't understand this article?
True enough about Wilbon being an author for the Washington Post, but he is much more than that. He was (is?) on PTI and is a talking head on ESPN.
It's become fashionable among sports journalists and analysts to pick someone other than the Patriots to win it all. After two weeks of this type of writing and speculation, I think the Pats will be out to show that they are the team to beat.
so what if he is a talking on head on ESPN. The key word here is 'could'
and my question here is what Redskins have in the team that makes them go farther than Patriots offensively and defensively.? Not much.
Cocaine's a helluva drug...
ok, first of all, name once this year when any of these morons have been right concerning the Pats. Their going to blowout the Eagles, oh no, here comes the Steelers and the Giants are going to rest their starters.
Second, writing about the Pats losing gets more attention then saying their going to win out, why, because that's what most are saying. Ask Mercury Morris, he'll agree ;-) I love watching that guy, he's a gas !!
i read the article. it's a typical Wilbon Wiggle. in the end he says that the pats "could" lose to the jags and the skins "could" go further than the pats. so if you walked up to him in six weeks and accused him of saying that the skins were going to win the sb, he would say something like "I NEVER said it WOULD happen, I just said it COULD happen." he's just looking for the very attention that we are giving him.
i marvel at how low the bar is set for becoming a "major" sports writer or commentator. Wilbon is simply an opinionated blowhard who knows a lot about a lot of sports, who knows how to compose an English sentence, who is well-spoken on the air and who has parlayed that combination into a soapbox from a national newspaper and espn. in a sense, more power to him. he is little different from the national news readers or reporters who know little about what they are covering, but who get to come into our homes every night.
The skins are pretty strong for #6 seed in a pretty weak conference.
I think they are better than Seattle and I expect them to win the WC game.
I think they can pull an upset against Dallas especially if TO is less than 75%. Green Bay at Lambeau, I don't know about that.
Of course I expect the Pats to roll either Pitt or Jax, handle the Colts at home and manhandle whoever represents the NFC so, BS on the article title.
I don't understand this feeling at all. The Redskins, on paper, aren't bad. Aren't good either. Better than <i>some</i> 8-8/9-7 playoff teams of years past, worse than many teams that didn't make the playoffs and ultimately not very good at all.
Seattle's clearly the superior team and that's not because of anything good with Seattle. A healthy Dallas team trounces the Redskins.
Actually the Redskins will be going a lot further than the Patriots in January.
First stop across the country to Seattle. It is impossible for the Redskins to have a home game this season.
On the other hand the Patriots won't be leaving Foxboro until the SB.
And you could wake up in China tomorrow (a prof in statistics and probability class I had in college actually used that as an anything could happen example). By the way, re waking up in China, I think Patjew does that every day nowadays, unless he's moved back, so I mean someone else on the board here.
Sure, the 'skins could go a long way in the playoffs and the Patriots could get knocked out early. Anything is possible.
Separate names with a comma.