Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[RobertWeathers]

Well the point was thr discussion was from a QBs persepective and from that perspective Brady is the sole, singular, only QB making this the best franchise ever.

I don't understand why there is even a debate. You can make the case that Drew contributed in the AFCCG in 01 but thats about it

 

[Patjew]

Probably only because you don't live down there, PJ.
You don't, right?

I don't! I'm stuck here in frigid RI.

 

[Triumph]

Foxboro and Gillette could be no more.

Gillette thinking about pulling out.

 

[Joker]

I don't! I'm stuck here in frigid RI.

well...you got company, PJ...it's frigid in Charlestown

 

[Ring 6]

It's a lot more sinister than that. The very wealthy tend to donate to causes that support their own interests, motivations, or even businesses. They also donate to try and manage their public imagination as in the case of the Sackler family who knowingly manufactured the very addictive opoid that eventually came to be known as oxycotin. They became very wealthy as a result, and donated to museums, universities, and whatever else may make then seem like concerned citizens.

Or they're just brazen and don't care, like the Koch brothers. All donations from the Koch Brothers come with massive strings. You have to be behind their "less goverment is more" tea party philosophy (i.e., less regulation on their oil and coal fortune) to receive any money from them.

Good book to read if you have time:

Dark Money by Jane Mayer | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

Sinister? People donating money is sinister because their choice of who to donate to isnt the same as yours? Remarkable.

 

[Joker]

Gilette's pulling out? great news...they've been screwing us for decades with their overpriced razors anyway

 

[Triumph]

New Attorney added to defend RK.....

 

[Triumph]

Gilette's pulling out? great news...they've been screwing us for decades with their overpriced razors anyway

They got Kraft by the short hairs.

 

[maust]

Tony Eason 28-21; 3-2 post season
Drew Bledsoe 63-60; 4-3 post season

Hope is in the eye of the beholder

This is where it gets easy to sort the folks that lived and breathed it back then from the kids or Johnny Come Lately pink hats who don't know d!ck about the dark times that were the death throes of the pre Kraft era. If you had sat in that traffic for the 'pleasure' of wading through the manure/mud pit parking, lived for days with the outline of those aluminum benches flash frozen to your ass only to realize your cash was going through Kiam's slimy hands before it got to the likes of Zeke Mowatt, accepted Marc Wilson and Hugh Millen as your starters, known not one but three separate owners had the teams bags packed while you were being mocked for being a fan and enduring a 14-50 stretch that included 1-15 and 2-14 seasons in the 4 years before Bledsoe you might have an idea why he represented hope. We were so low the bottom looked like up and 8-8 seemed like a pipe dream. What we were hoping for, in addition to our team staying put, was respectability. As for Champagne Tony, the numbers can't begin to tell the story of watching him curl up into a fetal ball or tossing it away at even the slightest scent of a pass rush. Where Bledsoe went down swinging trying to make something happen Eason just went down, early and often, when there were plays there to be made.

Comparing Eason to Bledsoe is like comparing Bridget Jones's Diary to Saving Private Ryan.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I was going to make a Zolak joke, but man... I actually love Zolak.

In a thread of many disappointments, that wasn't the biggest. But still ... the oldest frat boy still at large?

 

[maust]

In a thread of many disappointments, that wasn't the biggest. But still ... the oldest frat boy still at large?

Growing older is mandatory, growing up is optional. Think Gronk's act but without the accomplishments and it's not an act. There's some Peter Pan in most of us but it's all Zo is made of.

 

[Zuma]

I don't understand why there is even a debate. You can make the case that Drew contributed in the AFCCG in 01 but thats about it

I think their is a slight distinction between franchise and dynasty. I said franchise when referring to previous years and players. Bill and Tom are the reason the Dynasty exists. The franchise as a whole is the greatest of all time. I'm certainly not going to pick the Jete.

 

[Ring 6]

This is where it gets easy to sort the folks that lived and breathed it back then from the kids or Johnny Come Lately pink hats who don't know d!ck about the dark times that were the death throes of the pre Kraft era. If you had sat in that traffic for the 'pleasure' of wading through the manure/mud pit parking, lived for days with the outline of those aluminum benches flash frozen to your ass only to realize your cash was going through Kiam's slimy hands before it got to the likes of Zeke Mowatt, accepted Marc Wilson and Hugh Millen as your starters, known not one but three separate owners had the teams bags packed while you were being mocked for being a fan and enduring a 14-50 stretch that included 1-15 and 2-14 seasons in the 4 years before Bledsoe you might have an idea why he represented hope. We were so low the bottom looked like up and 8-8 seemed like a pipe dream. What we were hoping for, in addition to our team staying put, was respectability. As for Champagne Tony, the numbers can't begin to tell the story of watching him curl up into a fetal ball or tossing it away at even the slightest scent of a pass rush. Where Bledsoe went down swinging trying to make something happen Eason just went down, early and often, when there were plays there to be made.

Comparing Eason to Bledsoe is like comparing Bridget Jones's Diary to Saving Private Ryan.

The comment was made that with Bledsoe there was hope and with Eason there was not.
This is just not true.
Bledsoe lasted longer but the team didn’t win more.
Contrary to your pontification it isn’t about comparing the QBs it’s pointing out that during Easins tenure the team was pretty much just as successful as during Bledsoe’s, contrary to what that comment says.
And I have “been there” since 1974.

 

[Ring 6]

I think their is a slight distinction between franchise and dynasty. I said franchise when referring to previous years and players. Bill and Tom are the reason the Dynasty exists. The franchise as a whole is the greatest of all time. I'm certainly not going to pick the Jete.

But prior to brady there is no way anyone would have it in the top 25.
Whatever good feelings Bledsoe contributed they weren’t part of this being the best franchise.
They were average, which was an improvement but not nearly the best.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think their is a slight distinction between franchise and dynasty. I said franchise when referring to previous years and players. Bill and Tom are the reason the Dynasty exists. The franchise as a whole is the greatest of all time. I'm certainly not going to pick the Jete.

Look. I love the history of this team. Grogs. Bledsoe. Gino. Tuna. Nance, etc but the fact is before BB/TB12 the team was 275-312, 7-10 in the playoffs and 0-2 in Super Bowls.

I understand your point but for some fans to think the NEP achieved some kind of marquee status as an NFL franchise is a bit homerish IMO.

 

[Joey007]

After the 2000 season, what franchises were worse than the Pats through their histories?

The Cardinals - 1 legit championship and 1 illegitimate championship in 81 seasons and no Super Bowl appearances

The Bucs - mentioned already in this thread, they defined losers and laughingstocks until Dungy came along

The Saints - they were just plain bad

Everyone else is debatable. What isn’t really debatable is that the Patriots looked a lot like the Cincinnati Bengals at that point. 2 Super Bowl appearances, a few other playoff seasons, a stretch of some horrid teams, and a few in between. Anyone who thinks the Pats were continual respected contenders prior to BB/Brady should also feel the same way about the Bengals.

I think they were also better historically than the Falcons and Seahawks at that point. Probably the Lions too if you’re going by since the 1950’s.

They could have been considered better by default than the recent expansion teams at the time like Panthers, Jaguars.

Teams like Oilers/Titans, Jets, Chargers and Bengals were ones that could be considered debatable at the time.

I don’t feel like our franchise was quite the bottom of the barrel historically at that point (2000), but definitely was one of the more mediocre ones out there.

 

[maust]

The comment was made that with Bledsoe there was hope and with Eason there was not.
This is just not true.
Bledsoe lasted longer but the team didn’t win more.

Whatever good feelings Bledsoe contributed...

One of those posts is not like the other. You go from "This is just not true" when talking about hope to acknowledging "Whatever good feelings..." Those feelings for many of us could best be summed up by the word hope. You are actually telling people that felt that hope that they didn't, then acknowledging they did, lol. If you want to say the hope was unjustified, that would at least be a valid position. It most assuredly is true that for many of us the coming of the 'Bledsoe era' represented a hope that was not there before it. Winning and hope are not always synonymous, if you were in fact there you'd know they certainly weren't back then. The torch, such as it was, wasn't passed from Eason to Bledsoe. The eras, for want of a better word, are defined that way but in reality the worst of it was in the horrific span between them. Can't say I look forward to the next however many posts of your 'logic' justifying the opposing positions in your never ending need to engender argument then declare victory, if you were any good at it that would be a different story. Maybe we should cut to the chase and you should just go with a name calling personal attack again and get it over with now.

 

[maust]

Look. I love the history of this team. Grogs. Bledsoe. Gino. Tuna. Nance, etc but the fact is before BB/TB12 the team was 275-312, 7-10 in the playoffs and 0-2 in Super Bowls.

I understand your point but for some fans to think the NEP achieved some kind of marquee status as an NFL franchise is a bit homerish IMO.

Couldn't agree more, there's a reason we used to refer to them as 'our little team that couldn't'

 

[RobertWeathers]

Couldn't agree more, there's a reason we used to refer to them as 'our little team that couldn't'

Exactly. If they had won one or two of the SBs in 76, 85 and 96 its a completely different narrative pre BB/TB12

 

[Drewski]

Look. I love the history of this team. Grogs. Bledsoe. Gino. Tuna. Nance, etc but the fact is before BB/TB12 the team was 275-312, 7-10 in the playoffs and 0-2 in Super Bowls.

I understand your point but for some fans to think the NEP achieved some kind of marquee status as an NFL franchise is a bit homerish IMO.

PREFACE: I moved to MA in '91 (as an 8 year old) , left in '94, returned for college in '01 and left (probably for good) in '17.

Sharing a name with Bledsoe lit the spark of my fandom as a kid and my first Pats game was the week 16 OT winner in the 93-94 season over the Dolphins.

I mention all of that as an elaborate means of stating that I didn't really live through the dark ages of Pats fandom that many here have.

However, where I agree (I think with your point) is the following.

Posters cannot exclaim things like "pink hats who weren't here for the thin years" and then also have posters talking about how the Pats were a marquee franchise prior to BB/TB12.

The simple fact remains, the pre BB/TB12 Pats are basically the same franchise as the Cincinnati Bengals (in terms of overall winning %, playoff winning % and SB success) and I don't think there are many people who would say "Ya man, the Bengals are a marquee NFL franchise".

EDIT TO ADD - I didn't go back in the thread before posting this, and saw someone else had mentioned the Bengals proxy a few pages back. That comp is almost dead on.