Official Pats/Texans post-game thread

[Joker]

Hey Bro!! What Down?

if Pats win next week, you'll be an MIA

if they lose,top three in the "deliriously posting as much negativity as possible" category

looks like the earliest we can expect your hatred filled anti-Patriots posts will be post Indy game...not a bad respite

 

[Deus Irae]

It is a FACT that there is no contradiction.

It's been explained.

You can play your guys to stay sharp, and then pull them.

This means that you played your guys in a meaningless game because you didn't care about winning or losing, but you saw the value there.

There is no contradiction. That's a fact.

They didn't play all their guys. How is it that you keep ignoring that? You need work on understanding "fact".

 

[upstater1]

Again, if the game has value, it's not meaningless, and Bodden and company need to be playing.

Notice who's missing that "beyond step 1"? It's you, yet again.

WINNING or LOSING it is meaningless.

I explained that in the post you're quoting from.

You ignored it.

No surprise since you ignore anything that blows your lame argument out of the water.

You just come up with one ridiculous strawman argument after the other.

Who do you think you're fooling? My post is there for all to see, and everyone with a brain understands what I wrote.

 

[jcrack]

Meaningless??? If this game was meaningless then i guess most games this season were meaningless cuz they've been playing like garbage in almost every second half this season.

 

[Deus Irae]

You ignored the idea that Brady was out there to call plays to Edelman.

You ignored the idea that you can disregard the importance of winning and losing, and still see value in playing your starters for a quarter.

You ignored these two things.

Because you can't admit you're wrong.

I didn't ignore that Brady was out there to call plays to Edelman. I believe that I was the first one to state that in the game thread, as a matter of fact, and I've noted in this thread that I had no problem with it.

I didn't ignore the "importance of winning". I noted that absence of Bodden & company.

Because, unlike you, I take in the entire picture.

 

[upstater1]

They didn't play all their guys. How is it that you keep ignoring that? You need work on understanding "fact".

They played the entire starting O for a quarter.

FACT.

They didn't play the injured or tired (Bodden).

Pretty simple to see that.

 

[upstater1]

I didn't ignore that Brady was out there to call plays to Edelman. I was the first one to state that in the game thread.

I didn't ignore the "importance of winning". I noted that absence of Bodden & company.

Because, unlike you, I take in the entire picture.

You ignored those thing multiple times, and if you hadn't you would understand why there is no contradiction in not caring about the ultimate result AND playing your starters part of the time.

 

[Deus Irae]

WINNING or LOSING it is meaningless.

I explained that in the post you're quoting from.

You ignored it.

No surprise since you ignore anything that blows your lame argument out of the water.

You just come up with one ridiculous strawman argument after the other.

Who do you think you're fooling? My post is there for all to see, and everyone with a brain understands what I wrote.

You keep repeating the same gibberish. It's not going to go from gibberish to wisdom.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Honestly the PS forum here is so underutilized Ian should scrap it and just set up a seperate forum for all the frontrunners and psychic armchair football geniuses with issues relating to Belichick's decision making... After all he's only been assessing what teams need or have available or why for 35 years now so it's not like his critics don't have a leg to stand on beyond chicken**** hindsight. Some of them have been watching football on TV for at least that long or actually played the game in highschool or...just know that they are better critical thinkers than some guy with 5 rings.

I don't think Bill cared whether they won this game or not. What he did care about was how they played because at 10-5 they had yet to string together two games where they play up to their potential including in games when Welker played...

 

[Deus Irae]

You ignored those thing multiple times, and if you hadn't you would understand why there is no contradiction in not caring about the ultimate result AND playing your starters part of the time.

I was the first one to point it out, yet I ignored it?


Wow, you're not scraping the bottom of the barrel for your argument. You're lifting the barrel up and hoping for crumbs underneath it.

 

[upstater1]

Meaningless??? If this game was meaningless then i guess most games this season were meaningless cuz they've been playing like garbage in almost every second half this season.

You're a mensa member like Deus, at the same table too!

 

[upstater1]

You clearly aren't getting it.

Hey bro, your act is totally lame.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Hey bro, your act is totally lame.

What is my act? Can you enlighten me?

 

[ewg_gestalt]

Making the playoffs with a Brady/BB team is exceeding your expectations? The fact of the matter is that a Bradyless team won MORE games last season than this team did with Brady. THIS team blew 4 more 2nd half leads than a Bradyless team did last season.

Last I checked, Brady's performance doesn't carry over to the defense and special teams, or to the playcalling.

 

[upstater1]

You keep repeating the same gibberish. It's not going to go from gibberish to wisdom.

Well, here it is. You resort to these posts when you know you're beaten, and you have no logic left. I can count on you ALWAYS to resort to that when you've got nothing of substance to say. Your MO.

 

[Deus Irae]

You ignored those thing multiple times, and if you hadn't you would understand why there is no contradiction in not caring about the ultimate result AND playing your starters part of the time.

Are any of the group of Wilfork, Warren, Bodden, Faulk and Maroney starters?

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, here it is. You resort to these posts when you know you're beaten, and you have no logic left. I can count on you ALWAYS to resort to that when you've got nothing of substance to say. Your MO.

This from the guy who made the Mensa comment....



:singing:

 

[upstater1]

Are any of the group of Wilfork, Warren, Bodden, Faulk and Maroney starters?

You mean Maroney? How do I know? Haven't seen him play since he fumbled.

Would not be surprised to see Taylor out there next week.

As for the others, NO, they are not starters on offense, but now I realize that this is endless because I need to explain the basics to you.

 

[resdubwhite]

desperate final quarter.

The team were in a position to lcose this one out. They didn't.

There are too many questions against this team presently. Slowing down/not trying, I really don't know.

Depressed presently.

 

[Jangles]

Are any of the group of Wilfork, Warren, Bodden, Faulk and Maroney starters?

I don't know

maybe

right?