Why the hell did we not try harder to keep TB12?

[Wozzy]

You can give it to whoever you want. But the GOAT QB is the reason.

Tom Brady threw 18 TD's and 12 INT's in 2001... he averaged 190 yards passing a game.

Adam Vinatieri is the GOAT kicker, they don't win without him either... but hey, keep the revisionist history alive.

 

[XLIX]

he also went to one of the most stacked offenses in football. I mean it's arguable who has more offensive weapons, Brady or Mahommes. If that was a BB coached team, you're looking at another potential perfect season there with those guys.

As soon as you play make believe to support your point, you only prove how weak your point really is.

BB said it, they mortgaged the future for 4 SB appearances, and 3 wins.

Someone had a brilliant post earlier regarding how this point is completely full of crap. I wish I could find it.... but the bottom line is that they didn't "mortgage" anything or act any differently over the past 5 years than they did the 15 prior to it. The number 1 reason they are in such trouble is 5 years of atrocious drafting.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Tom Brady threw 18 TD's and 12 INT's in 2001... ng ishe averaged 190 yards passing a game
Adam Vinatieri is the GOAT kicker, they don't win without him either... but hey, keep the revisionist the clutch history alive.

The thing is Brady usually wasn't the best stat guy especially early in his career. The thing that separates him for me is the clutch plays he would make when they had to be made. Other guys had more yards, TDs, quarterback ratings
etc. They also didnt come through in the biggest games when they needed to. Brady did it more than any of them.

 

[luuked]

My mistake on the flag. The point being, its easy to criticize it 9 years later. Plenty of blame to go around on that play, ultimately Brady threw it though. To say "he should have done x" after the result of the play is the benefit of hindsight. It wasn't some egregious no-audible even the casual fan could call. The result sucked, Brady missed and we took a safety.

Have you read the post I was replying to ?

The poster was implying that it was a coaching mistake because "why was Brady taking a five step drop if it led him into his own endzone". So I used exactly the his own words tongue-in-cheek asking why didn't Brady audible to a run if a five step drop was such a bad idea to point out that the QB has agency in those moments.

My entire point here is that the QB has agency on the field and can switch away from a play if it truly is a bad call against a specific look and that not every negative outcome needs to be thrown at the playcaller.

 

[luuked]

Tom Brady threw 18 TD's and 12 INT's in 2001... he averaged 190 yards passing a game.

Adam Vinatieri is the GOAT kicker, they don't win without him either... but hey, keep the revisionist history alive.

It is quite amazing how people try to repaint the early Brady years -- where he was nowhere even close to an elite player -- to do more myth building. His biggest plus in those first couple years was that he executed a gameplan pretty well and didn't turn the ball over like Bledsoe.

It took a couple years of development for him to become "Tom Brady". All of which is pretty obvious from the way the teams were built, the offense was called and his ANY/A stats. 2004 was the year he made his real first jump into the "good-to-great QB" category. 2007 is when he proved he was elite.

But, nope, apparently he was football Jesus from the moment he stepped on the field in 2001.

 

[crawhammer]

Seymour is all on the NFL's All Decade Team for the 2000's, they were desperate for DL help in 2000 and he was All Pro. That 2001 team specifically was completely devoid of talent at DL.

Seymour wasn't an all-pro in 2001. Their DL in fact was very good in 2001... Bobby Hamilton and Anthony Pleasant both had better seasons than Seymour in 2001.

Seymour was very good... but the list of most relevant players to the Patriots Dynasty doesn't start and end with Seymour. Which is what you said. He's not even the most relevant defensive player.

They definitely don't win in 2001 without Adam Vinatieri

For the two FG's in the Snow Bowl game alone I agree with you. However, they would have won in 2001 without Seymour.

You jokers who say they only win because of Brady can't explain to us why they don't have 20 rings... I mean all they needed was Brady right?

All you do is reply with straw man arguments. You rarely ever address what someone has actually said. Straw man and asinine memes.

Did anyone say Brady finished every season with a 158.3 passer rating? Come on, don't be so obtuse.

Looking back at the dynasty... who was most responsible for it? MVP of the dynasty, if you will. You can say one person, like Brady, or Seymour in your case, and provide some reasoning for why you think that. Myself and others feel strongly that it's Brady. And it's not because he was perfect, or he never made a mistake, or he could overcome his head coach completely wrecking the defense by benching a starting CB in the f*cking Super Bowl (because he couldn't despite a historic effort). It's because he contributed the most on and off the field (intangibles... leadership, etc.) by far in our estimation. And we can present amble data and examples of clutch game-winning moments (including 6 game-winning SB drives).

Some can argue Belichick if they believe that, I don't. By the last count, Brady or Belichick, Brady was up 70%-30% in the corresponding thread. So a lot of people don't either. People who do, generally don't offer much in the way of evidence... the closest you get is well he drafted Brady (so therefore I guess he gets credit for everything Brady accomplishes), or he purposely held back on a timeout in a Super Bowl when 99.9% of people (including Brady) would have actually called a timeout, or he devised defenses to shutdown otherwise explosive offenses in SB 36 and SB 53 (I agree with the former however the latter also had a lot to do with the opponent just not executing).

Belichick's doubters, myself included, obviously can recognize some of his assets and contributions to the dynasty but we also recognize that he f*cked up royally in some obvious instances (e.g. last quarter of 2015 season and SB 52 being among the most obvious). He also hastened the demise of the dynasty through his liabilities as a GM and his worst offense of all... greasing the skids for Brady's exit when he clearly has a lot of football left in him. That's fresh, in everyone's face, and will be on display again this weekend. If Brady wins the Super Bowl in his first season with a new team... holy sh*t get your memes ready!

 

[203Pat]

But we have no problem degrading every other Patriot player who contributed to championships by saying it was all Tom... I think that’s the point you’re missing.

Who is degrading them? These straw men you create are everywhere.

 

[Wozzy]

Seymour wasn't an all-pro in 2001. Their DL in fact was very good in 2001... Bobby Hamilton and Anthony Pleasant both had better seasons than Seymour in 2001.

Seymour was very good... but the list of most relevant players to the Patriots Dynasty doesn't start and end with Seymour. Which is what you said. He's not even the most relevant defensive player.


For the two FG's in the Snow Bowl game alone I agree with you. However, they would have won in 2001 without Seymour.


All you do is reply with straw man arguments. You rarely ever address what someone has actually said. Straw man and asinine memes.

Did anyone say Brady finished every season with a 158.3 passer rating? Come on, don't be so obtuse.

Looking back at the dynasty... who was most responsible for it? MVP of the dynasty, if you will. You can say one person, like Brady, or Seymour in your case, and provide some reasoning for why you think that. Myself and others feel strongly that it's Brady. And it's not because he was perfect, or he never made a mistake, or he could overcome his head coach completely wrecking the defense by benching a starting CB in the f*cking Super Bowl (because he couldn't despite a historic effort). It's because he contributed the most on and off the field (intangibles... leadership, etc.) by far in our estimation. And we can present amble data and examples of clutch game-winning moments (including 6 game-winning SB drives).

Some can argue Belichick if they believe that, I don't. By the last count, Brady or Belichick, Brady was up 70%-30% in the corresponding thread. So a lot of people don't either. People who do, generally don't offer much in the way of evidence... the closest you get is well he drafted Brady (so therefore I guess he gets credit for everything Brady accomplishes), or he purposely held back on a timeout in a Super Bowl when 99.9% of people (including Brady) would have actually called a timeout, or he devised defenses to shutdown otherwise explosive offenses in SB 36 and SB 53 (I agree with the former however the latter also had a lot to do with the opponent just not executing).

Belichick's doubters, myself included, obviously can recognize some of his assets and contributions to the dynasty but we also recognize that he f*cked up royally in some obvious instances (e.g. last quarter of 2015 season and SB 52 being among the most obvious). He also hastened the demise of the dynasty through his liabilities as a GM and his worst offense of all... greasing the skids for Brady's exit when he clearly has a lot of football left in him. That's fresh, in everyone's face, and will be on display again this weekend. If Brady wins the Super Bowl in his first season with a new team... holy sh*t get your memes ready!

In an age of run heavy schemes Bobby Hamilton was 285 pounds, Anthony Pleasant was 280 pounds... both DE's, Seymour at 320 pounds was exactly what that defense needed... totally clueless. You think run stops happen with good intentions. In fact until Seymour was moved into the starting lineup in the Atlanta game in week eight of 2001 the team was 3-4... they only lost one more game the entire rest of the season after that. But Brady becoming a starter is what turned it all around, despite losing the Jets game, then the one after the Colts against the Dolphins, and again in week 7 against the Broncos...

"the Patriots Dynasty doesn't start and end with Seymour. Which is what you said." <That is a quote from you above, go find where I said that? I never said anything resembling that, in fact the only thing I've done is refute that any one player is entirely responsible for anything and that includes Brady. I've always said TEAM is why teams win rings and have never been wrong. Fanboys give QB's all the credit... you've earned that label.

Seymour, Law, Antwoin Smith, McGinest, Troy Brown, Matt Light, Andruzzi, Damien Woody, Vrabel, Bruschi, Roman Phifer, Lawyer Milloy... saying 21 year old just learning how to be a pro Brady was responsible for these guys success is hilariously misguided fanboy nonsense. But keep up the cheerleading... people whip out "straw man" when they're failing and have nothing else.

We've had Brady for two decades... by all rights we should have 20 rings... laughable.

 

[crawhammer]

In an age of run heavy schemes Bobby Hamilton was 285 pounds, Anthony Pleasant was 280 pounds... both DE's, Seymour at 320 pounds was exactly what that defense needed... totally clueless. You think run stops happen with good intentions. In fact until Seymour was moved into the starting lineup in the Atlanta game in week eight of 2001 the team was 3-4... they only lost one more game the entire rest of the season after that. But Brady becoming a starter is what turned it all around, despite losing the Jets game, then the one after the Colts against the Dolphins, and again in week 7 against the Broncos...

"the Patriots Dynasty doesn't start and end with Seymour. Which is what you said." <That is a quote from you above, go find where I said that? I never said anything resembling that, in fact the only thing I've done is refute that any one player is entirely responsible for anything and that includes Brady. I've always said TEAM is why teams win rings and have never been wrong. Fanboys give QB's all the credit... you've earned that label.

Seymour, Law, Antwoin Smith, McGinest, Troy Brown, Matt Light, Andruzzi, Damien Woody, Vrabel, Bruschi, Roman Phifer, Lawyer Milloy... saying 21 year old just learning how to be a pro Brady was responsible for these guys success is hilariously misguided fanboy nonsense. But keep up the cheerleading... people whip out "straw man" when they're failing and have nothing else.

We've had Brady for two decades... by all rights we should have 20 rings... laughable.

You are f*cking impossible.

Research straw man argument... for Christ Sake you're doing exactly what you're accusing others of... you're distorting our comments to a point of absurdity then calling them absurd... well, duh.

No one has claimed Brady did not play on a god damn TEAM. We F*CKING KNOW THAT! The TEAM won the games. These are given truths, we don't have to talked about it. WE KNOW.

The POINT! is who was most important to the dynasty. One person - player or coach - who contributed the most. If you want to cop-out with saying the TEAM then fine but that doesn't exclude others from offering an opinion and defending it.

Recap, now read carefully... Brady does NOT get ALL of the credit, he gets the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of the credit.

Can you grasp that? And anyway, why are you SO sensitive about people claiming Brady contributed the most to the dynasty?

Regarding Seymour, you said the 2001 defense line was "completely devoid of talent." Not true. Hamilton and Pleasant both had very good seasons. I'm not saying Seymour sucked. I'm saying he played well on an overall productive DL. You also said Seymour was an all-pro in 2001 when in fact he was not.

Finally...

You said:

They’re not getting any of those early rings without Seymour. Start there, end there.

I said:

Seymour was very good... but the list of most relevant players to the Patriots Dynasty doesn't start and end with Seymour. Which is what you said.

You said:

"the Patriots Dynasty doesn't start and end with Seymour. Which is what you said." <That is a quote from you above, go find where I said that? I never said anything resembling that

I found it, you said it.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

michel? He may be out of the nfl in another year. Guy stinks!

He was playing well in his opportunities the 2nd half of this season... He was averaging like 6-7 yards a carry at one point, he has plenty of talent but has had a problem with injuries. He's not someone you want to be your bell cow back, but he will be a great compliment with Harris next year

 

[Wozzy]

You are f*cking impossible.

Research straw man argument... for Christ Sake you're doing exactly what you're accusing others of... you're distorting our comments to a point of absurdity then calling them absurd... well, duh.

No one has claimed Brady did not play on a god damn TEAM. We F*CKING KNOW THAT! The TEAM won the games. These are given truths, we don't have to talked about it. WE KNOW.

The POINT! is who was most important to the dynasty. One person - player or coach - who contributed the most. If you want to cop-out with saying the TEAM then fine but that doesn't exclude others from offering an opinion and defending it.

Recap, now read carefully... Brady does NOT get ALL of the credit, he gets the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of the credit.

Can you grasp that? And anyway, why are you SO sensitive about people claiming Brady contributed the most to the dynasty?

Regarding Seymour, you said the 2001 defense line was "completely devoid of talent." Not true. Hamilton and Pleasant both had very good seasons. I'm not saying Seymour sucked. I'm saying he played well on an overall productive DL. You also said Seymour was an all-pro in 2001 when in fact he was not.

Finally...

You said:


I said:


You said:


I found it, you said it.

Your first sentence was “The premise is not complicated... they're not getting to any of those Super Bowls without Brady.”

My response was they’re not getting to any of those first three without Seymour either... I could have chosen numerous players like I did later when I pointed out Adam hitting two near 50 yard kicks in the snow to even get them there.

You want your cake and to eat it to. Your entire premise is fan club nonsense... Aaron Rogers and Brees don’t have one Super Bowl victory and Tom six because Tom was that much better... it’s because Tom was on the better team 6 times.

You think it’s because of some unquantifiable horsesht like “clutch gene.” The reality is it’s because BB (the guy you despise so much) assembled a great team around Tom (something you say he’s sucks at) for two decades and they just happened to be the best six times. But Tom (the guy Bill drafted and coached) gets more credit than the team builder.

Fangirling...

 

[The Brandon Five]

Beats me why a QB who is allegedly the greatest of all time didn't switch to the run play instead.

Why is it that when bad things happen Brady rarely seems to have any agency in it but when good things happen its because he carried everyone ?

I just think it was bad situational FB. It was Vollmer’s first game back from injury. The Giants had a great pass rush. What was the thinking there?

 

[crawhammer]

Your first sentence was “The premise is not complicated... they're not getting to any of those Super Bowls without Brady.”

My response was they’re not getting to any of those first three without Seymour either... I could have chosen numerous players like I did later when I pointed out Adam hitting two near 50 yard kicks in the snow to even get them there.

You didn't include "either." You clearly said "...Seymour. Start there, end there." If you're starting and ending with one player, Seymour, then you're not also including numerous other players.

But whatever, if you want to change your position, that's your prerogative.

Also, the dynasty didn't end in 2008. It continued for decade a beyond Seymour's time with the team. He was important to the defenses of the first half of the dynasty but he didn't have anywhere near the cumulative impact of Brady's 18 full seasons. Which is merely stating the obvious.

You want your cake and to eat it to. Your entire premise is fan club nonsense... Aaron Rogers and Brees don’t have one Super Bowl victory and Tom six because Tom was that much better... it’s because Tom was on the better team 6 times.

Brady is that much better than Brees. No way NE makes it to 9 Super Bowls and winning 6 with Brees. Take a look at his career splits. The Saints also got knocked out of the postseason three years in a row with losses at home. That's not good. And Brees wasn't good either in any of those losses.

Whereas I don't really consider Brees an underachiever, Rodgers is 37 with 1 Super Bowl appearance, considering his talent, it's an underachievement. By the time Mahomes is 37 he'll probably have appeared in a half dozen Super Bowls.

Say what you want about his supporting cast, Rodgers himself has a 1-3 record in conference championship games with 6 TD's, 7 INT's and a 78.0 QBR. The 7 picks is alarming considering his otherwise puny career INT%. He basically has to beat Brady this weekend because a 1-4 NFCCG record is going to stick out like a sore thumb. He also has been *****ing forever about not getting a championship game at Lambeau. So no excuses this time.

You think it’s because of some unquantifiable horsesht like “clutch gene.” The reality is it’s because BB (the guy you despise so much) assembled a great team around Tom (something you say he’s sucks at) for two decades and they just happened to be the best six times. But Tom (the guy Bill drafted and coached) gets more credit than the team builder.

I don't agree with all of those characterizations, but yes, Brady gets more credit. You at least finally got the main point.

They were the best team, probably more than 6 times, mainly because they had the best quarterback, which generally is significantly important.

However, I don't think they were the best team every season they won the Super Bowl. 2001 was a bit fluky due to the various circumstances of the snow bowl and the CCG with the two ST touchdowns and Kordell Stewart's nervous breakdown. I like the 2014 team a lot but I'm not sure they were better than Seattle. They stole 2018 away from Kansas City... those three consecutive 3rd-10 conversions (which covered 50 yards) were outrageously clutch. Executing in crucial situations to propel your team to victory is clutch. It's an actual thing.

 

[NG Pats Fan]

He was playing well in his opportunities the 2nd half of this season... He was averaging like 6-7 yards a carry at one point, he has plenty of talent but has had a problem with injuries. He's not someone you want to be your bell cow back, but he will be a great compliment with Harris next year

so we used a first round pick on a “complimentary “ player over offensive players who have 10 year all pro potential, some of them hall of fame potential?

 

[Wozzy]

You didn't include "either." You clearly said "...Seymour. Start there, end there." If you're starting and ending with one player, Seymour, then you're not also including numerous other players.

But whatever, if you want to change your position, that's your prerogative.

Also, the dynasty didn't end in 2008. It continued for decade a beyond Seymour's time with the team. He was important to the defenses of the first half of the dynasty but he didn't have anywhere near the cumulative impact of Brady's 18 full seasons. Which is merely stating the obvious.


Brady is that much better than Brees. No way NE makes it to 9 Super Bowls and winning 6 with Brees. Take a look at his career splits. The Saints also got knocked out of the postseason three years in a row with losses at home. That's not good. And Brees wasn't good either in any of those losses.

Whereas I don't really consider Brees an underachiever, Rodgers is 37 with 1 Super Bowl appearance, considering his talent, it's an underachievement. By the time Mahomes is 37 he'll probably have appeared in a half dozen Super Bowls.

Say what you want about his supporting cast, Rodgers himself has a 1-3 record in conference championship games with 6 TD's, 7 INT's and a 78.0 QBR. The 7 picks is alarming considering his otherwise puny career INT%. He basically has to beat Brady this weekend because a 1-4 NFCCG record is going to stick out like a sore thumb. He also has been *****ing forever about not getting a championship game at Lambeau. So no excuses this time.


I don't agree with all of those characterizations, but yes, Brady gets more credit. You at least finally got the main point.

They were the best team, probably more than 6 times, mainly because they had the best quarterback, which generally is significantly important.

However, I don't think they were the best team every season they won the Super Bowl. 2001 was a bit fluky due to the various circumstances of the snow bowl and the CCG with the two ST touchdowns and Kordell Stewart's nervous breakdown. I like the 2014 team a lot but I'm not sure they were better than Seattle. They stole 2018 away from Kansas City... those three consecutive 3rd-10 conversions (which covered 50 yards) were outrageously clutch. Executing in crucial situations to propel your team to victory is clutch. It's an actual thing.

Saying it was all about Brady and dismissing any player who was pivotal to winning those rings started and ended the conversation. You don't want to talk about the facts, the math involved in them kicking the salary cap can down the road, so you've taken us down this rabbit hole yet again of who gets more credit. I give a rat's ass. BB drafted and taught Brady. One can hardly credit the student for the teachers success... except you of course.

And you think Brees and Rogers are "less than" than Brady and their record is the reason why... of course it is. Wins and losses are a TEAM record, not a QB record. Brady, Brees, Rogers... when you get to the best of the best their stats are all pretty similar. BB would have won with Bree or Rogers all the same... give us a break. But again, you credit Brady with 6 rings... childish fan club nonsense. BB put a top O-Line, Defense and Special Teams around Brady. That's why he has so many rings. And yes Brady's excellence was part of it as much as any other key position group, there are other excellent QB's, some like Marino have never won, they were unlucky with the teams they were handed. Being good in three phases is why, not magical unicorn QB's. If Nick Foles and Joe Flacco can do it, if they have more than Marino and as many as Brees or Rogers, if Eli has more than any of them... it's not as important a position as you make it out to be. You need good QB play, O-Line is no less important if rings is the ultimate goal.

Speaking of conversations, this one reminds me of one we had on Boston.com, the original Patriots forum back in the preseason of 2014 when this clown ZBellino started a thread entitled "Has Belichick Doomed This Team" about how they had no talent, would never win another ring and sucked wasting Tom's final years, he was on there parroting the same things you are now. Then Belichick said "we're onto Cincinnati," and they went on to win three Super Bowls in four appearances in five years... they sucked then like they suck now, had no talent. Boy how we loved to dredge that thread up after 2014 and 2016 before they finally closed the site down. I bet if we went back and looked at some of your threads from 2014 we'd see the same exact doom and gloom as now... and no doubt you were calling for Bill's job back then as well.

 

[Wozzy]

It is quite amazing how people try to repaint the early Brady years -- where he was nowhere even close to an elite player -- to do more myth building. His biggest plus in those first couple years was that he executed a gameplan pretty well and didn't turn the ball over like Bledsoe.

It took a couple years of development for him to become "Tom Brady". All of which is pretty obvious from the way the teams were built, the offense was called and his ANY/A stats. 2004 was the year he made his real first jump into the "good-to-great QB" category. 2007 is when he proved he was elite.

But, nope, apparently he was football Jesus from the moment he stepped on the field in 2001.

It’s comical...

 

[luuked]

I just think it was bad situational FB. It was Vollmer’s first game back from injury. The Giants had a great pass rush. What was the thinking there?

Again I dont understand why you are implying it was a bad coaching decision.

It is not like this was the first snap of football Vollmer played in a while. There are about two weeks (1.5 weeks really) of practice leading up to the SB.

And Brady could have switched to the run play or just thrown the ball away instead of waiting for his read to beat coverage. Especially given that he was standing in the endzone. But he seemed to like the look the defense gave him but then post snap just stood there and waited too long.

The dumpoff at the feet of Gronk was there btw. The entire sequence is very similar to the turnover against the Eagles in 2017.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Saying it was all about Brady and dismissing any player who was pivotal to winning those rings started and ended the conversation. You don't want to talk about the facts, the math involved in them kicking the salary cap can down the road, so you've taken us down this rabbit hole yet again of who gets more credit. I give a rat's ass. BB drafted and taught Brady. One can hardly credit the student for the teachers success... except you of course.

And you think Brees and Rogers are "less than" than Brady and their record is the reason why... of course it is. Wins and losses are a TEAM record, not a QB record. Brady, Brees, Rogers... when you get to the best of the best their stats are all pretty similar. BB would have won with Bree or Rogers all the same... give us a break. But again, you credit Brady with 6 rings... childish fan club nonsense. BB put a top O-Line, Defense and Special Teams around Brady. That's why he has so many rings. And yes Brady's excellence was part of it as much as any other key position group, there are other excellent QB's, some like Marino have never won, they were unlucky with the teams they were handed. Being good in three phases is why, not magical unicorn QB's. If Nick Foles and Joe Flacco can do it, if they have more than Marino and as many as Brees or Rogers, if Eli has more than any of them... it's not as important a position as you make it out to be. You need good QB play, O-Line is no less important if rings is the ultimate goal.

Speaking of conversations, this one reminds me of one we had on Boston.com, the original Patriots forum back in the preseason of 2014 when this clown ZBellino started a thread entitled "Has Belichick Doomed This Team" about how they had no talent, would never win another ring and sucked wasting Tom's final years, he was on there parroting the same things you are now. Then Belichick said "we're onto Cincinnati," and they went on to win three Super Bowls in four appearances in five years... they sucked then like they suck now, had no talent. Boy how we loved to dredge that thread up after 2014 and 2016 before they finally closed the site down. I bet if we went back and looked at some of your threads from 2014 we'd see the same exact doom and gloom as now... and no doubt you were calling for Bill's job back then as well.

ZBellino forgot more than you'll ever know lol. Pretty low to go after someone that's not here to defend themselves. That guy was smart, insightful and humble. I've literally never read anything like that in any of your post. Not even close. Nothing even close to breaking down scheme, players. Never seen you break down any plays. In fact it sounds like you think you know what you're talking about but in reality it's casual nonsense about how the game is "won in the trenches". Thanks for all that knowledge lol. You're a real football guy.
I'd challenge anyone or you to look through your post history and copy something, anything like that. I bet you can't find one post. I mean you're all about the trenches? There should plenty of insightful stuff about OL/DL play, different running plays etc...

Again pretty weak talking about someone who's not even a member here and saying they're a clown? I scroll past or just lol at your post. I actually learned a lot from Z.

 

[Wozzy]

ZBellino forgot more than you'll ever know lol. Pretty low to go after someone that's not here to defend themselves. That guy was smart, insightful and humble. I've literally never read anything like that in any of your post. Not even close. Nothing even close to breaking down scheme, players. Never seen you break down any plays. In fact it sounds like you think you know what you're talking about but in reality it's casual nonsense about how the game is "won in the trenches". Thanks for all that knowledge lol. You're a real football guy.
I'd challenge anyone or you to look through your post history and copy something, anything like that. I bet you can't find one post. I mean you're all about the trenches? There should plenty of insightful stuff about OL/DL play, different running plays etc...

Again pretty weak talking about someone who's not even a member here and saying they're a clown? I scroll past or just lol at your post. I actually learned a lot from Z.

Pretty sure he’s here... “smart” learns from the past and doesn’t repeat the same foolish mistakes. But negative nancy’s keep coming back for more.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Pretty sure he’s here... “smart” learns from the past and doesn’t repeat the same foolish mistakes. But negative nancy’s keep coming back for more.

Agreed there, hopefully we don't draft anymore RB's in the first round.