|
On January 21 2013 11:59 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 11:55 Doraemon wrote:
why do people dislike brady so much? Pretty boy reputation, won too much against their favorite teams, ditched his girlfriend while she was pregnant for a supermodel, their team cheated, etc..
Wow, I did not know that about him lol. For some reason I really just never liked him, but wow.....what the hell 
Go 49ers! This is going to be good 
|
On January 21 2013 12:09 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 12:05 ZapRoffo wrote:On January 21 2013 12:02 igotmyown wrote:
So how does Pollard never get penalties called on him when he injures (patriots) players?
Ridley lowers his helmet, but you'd think a helmet to helmet hit by Pollard would at least stop play. It's like that football movie where the guy pulls out a gun and shoots everyone in the way, would that touchdown still count?
Belichick should just tell his players to cheap shot Pollard on 3rd and longs early in the game, then they won't have to worry about this bull. Helmet to helmet is only a penalty on the QB when he's acting as a passer and on a defenseless receiver, any other time it's a legal hit. You sure? Helmet-to-helmet hits are banned in the NFL, with a penalty of 15 yards for violations. In 2010, the NFL placed its policies pertaining to these incidents under review, considering heavy fines and suspensions.[4] In addition to prohibiting these hits during actual play, the NFL does not allow the sale of these hits on its site in hopes of reducing them. So speaketh the gospel of wikipedia
Pollard had a helmet to helmet call on him earlier in the game but that hit was more of Riddley running into him then it was Pollard hitting him.
|
United States97276 Posts
What are you guys thinking the line will be for the super bowl? I think the 49ers will be favored but hopefully the Ravens win.
|
On January 21 2013 12:13 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 12:09 DannyJ wrote:
Spygate definitely didn't help the Pats and Brady's image. It's easy enough to hate people and teams that win all the time. When you give people an even more tangible reason to dislike them it makes it all the easier... TBH spygate was just a stupid little story inflated by the media, because that's what ESPN does: they build up something as a Godhood, and then tear it down at the first sign of trouble. It's ratings gold. (Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, The Pats, Roger Clemens, the list goes on).
You realise all of those examples were legit. Lance and Roger did use PEDs and Tiger did do the things they reported. Also the Pats did break the rules in a fairly severe way.
|
Shannon Sharpe trashing Belichick haha, I'm loving this!
|
I'm thinking Niners will be favored by 3, but only because it will incite the most gambling, not because I think they should be favored. If I said Ravens by 3, doesn't that sound not as enticing? 
|
On January 21 2013 12:13 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 12:09 DannyJ wrote:
Spygate definitely didn't help the Pats and Brady's image. It's easy enough to hate people and teams that win all the time. When you give people an even more tangible reason to dislike them it makes it all the easier... TBH spygate was just a stupid little story inflated by the media, because that's what ESPN does: they build up something as a Godhood, and then tear it down at the first sign of trouble. It's ratings gold. (Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, The Pats, Roger Clemens, the list goes on).
Sure it wasn't THAT insane, but it exists and they did cheat. that's all that matters in the court of public opinion. People then take it as far as they want, like depressed people here near philly who are 100% convinced the Eagles only lost the SB because the Pats cheated. Or people who think there isn't a coincidence that the pats never won a SB since.
|
I'm just saying the amount of CONSTANT attention the Pats have gotten, positive and negative, has been beyond extreme, and it's one of the main reasons some people root against them. Good or bad, the Pats are in your face.
|
On January 21 2013 12:09 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 12:05 ZapRoffo wrote:On January 21 2013 12:02 igotmyown wrote:
So how does Pollard never get penalties called on him when he injures (patriots) players?
Ridley lowers his helmet, but you'd think a helmet to helmet hit by Pollard would at least stop play. It's like that football movie where the guy pulls out a gun and shoots everyone in the way, would that touchdown still count?
Belichick should just tell his players to cheap shot Pollard on 3rd and longs early in the game, then they won't have to worry about this bull. Helmet to helmet is only a penalty on the QB when he's acting as a passer and on a defenseless receiver, any other time it's a legal hit. You sure? Helmet-to-helmet hits are banned in the NFL, with a penalty of 15 yards for violations. In 2010, the NFL placed its policies pertaining to these incidents under review, considering heavy fines and suspensions.[4] In addition to prohibiting these hits during actual play, the NFL does not allow the sale of these hits on its site in hopes of reducing them. So speaketh the gospel of wikipedia
Here's from the rulebook. This is a penalty any time:
(h) using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear,
or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily;
but I don't think I've ever seen it called and it's interpreted as being something flagrant I think.
Here's the defenseless player:
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder,
regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or
grasping him; or
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet
against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or
(3) Illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (1) leaves both feet prior to
contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (2) uses any part of his helmet (including the
top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. Note:
This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player,
as defined in Article 7 above.
Note: The provisions of (2) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle or
block on an opponent.
This gets called very often.
|
Brother against brother. A Greek Tragedy.
|
From Dan Wetzel (sportswriter) twitter:
Suggs: "Tell them to have fun at the Pro Bowl. Arrogant F---ers."
Terrell Suggs: "These are the most arrogant pricks in the world starting with Belichick on down."
Suggs: "That's funny, ever since SpyGate they haven't been able to win."
then
Suggs has calmed down: "All BS aside they are a hell of a ball club ... They have the right to be arrogant."
https://twitter.com/DanWetzel
|
United States22883 Posts
Granted the Spygate thing was bad, but the argument that they haven't won since then is stupid. They're one terrible Asante Samuels dropped interception away from another one, plus getting this far is so consistently is a pretty big achievement in itself.
Also, bringing up the Moynahan thing is pretty stupid as well. It's not like he's an estranged father. She got pregnant the same time they broke up, and he's still an active dad.
It's mostly like Suggs said, they kinda deserve to be arrogant and other fans are jealous. Every other fan in this thread would instantly trade their franchise for getting to the playoffs in 10 of 12 years (and being 9-7 and 11-5 the years they missed,) with 3 Super Bowls and a 17-7 playoff record in that stretch. And if their team had to cheat a little bit to do it, they wouldn't care either. 
EDIT: And I say this is a lowly Lions fan that would trade the Lions and Tigers for the Pats.
|
Good points Jibba, but I think it's because they hate America, and therefore hate Patriots. If the team were called the Commies, they would support them.
|
It really is incredible what Kaepernick has done to the Niners offense. They basically do whatever the hell they want on offense now. Scary shit, particularly considering how good the Niners defense is (rather, should be).
|
On January 21 2013 12:16 MountainDewJunkie wrote:I'm thinking Niners will be favored by 3, but only because it will incite the most gambling, not because I think they should be favored. If I said Ravens by 3, doesn't that sound not as enticing?
I think it will be Niners -6.
|
On January 21 2013 13:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 12:16 MountainDewJunkie wrote:I'm thinking Niners will be favored by 3, but only because it will incite the most gambling, not because I think they should be favored. If I said Ravens by 3, doesn't that sound not as enticing? I think it will be Niners -6.
Giving NIners 6 isnt money I would take considering you are betting against a team that just took out both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning on the road.
|
It's probably going to start 49ers -3 and fluctuate to like -4.5 and such. People will gobble that up. Kapernick is the new exciting shit.
|
On January 21 2013 13:03 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 13:02 xDaunt wrote:On January 21 2013 12:16 MountainDewJunkie wrote:I'm thinking Niners will be favored by 3, but only because it will incite the most gambling, not because I think they should be favored. If I said Ravens by 3, doesn't that sound not as enticing? I think it will be Niners -6. Giving NIners 6 isnt money I would take considering you are betting against a team that just took out both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning on the road.
Vegas is hyping the shit out of the Niners. Niners would have been 10.5 point favorites against the Falcons at home, and 7.5 favorites on a neutral field. I'm not sure I'd take the over, but the line is going to be very high again. Also, don't forget that the Ravens have been serially disrespected so far. Tonight's line was like Pats -8.5 (something like that).
|
On January 21 2013 13:03 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 13:02 xDaunt wrote:On January 21 2013 12:16 MountainDewJunkie wrote:I'm thinking Niners will be favored by 3, but only because it will incite the most gambling, not because I think they should be favored. If I said Ravens by 3, doesn't that sound not as enticing? I think it will be Niners -6. Giving NIners 6 isnt money I would take considering you are betting against a team that just took out both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning on the road.
I'll guess Niners - 4.5, but my argument on that is Brady and Manning are possibly dinosaurs, recently Kaepernick's been something else compared to them.
|
On January 21 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 13:03 Adreme wrote:On January 21 2013 13:02 xDaunt wrote:On January 21 2013 12:16 MountainDewJunkie wrote:I'm thinking Niners will be favored by 3, but only because it will incite the most gambling, not because I think they should be favored. If I said Ravens by 3, doesn't that sound not as enticing? I think it will be Niners -6. Giving NIners 6 isnt money I would take considering you are betting against a team that just took out both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning on the road. Vegas is hyping the shit out of the Niners. Niners would have been 10.5 point favorites against the Falcons at home, and 7.5 favorites on a neutral field. I'm not sure I'd take the over, but the line is going to be very high again. Also, don't forget that the Ravens have been serially disrespected so far. Tonight's line was like Pats -8.5 (something like that).
That line didnt surprise me as much for a very simple reason that you get about 3 for being at home especially when you are Patriots who rarely lose at home. Then you look at how badly the Patriots whipped the Broncos when it took OT for Baltimore to narrowly beat them and you have a recipe for a high line.
For this game you take out home field and you add in the fact that the 49ers did look vulnerable against ATL who oddsmakers had zero respect for and you are looking at a fairly even game and since most NFL games are decided by a TD or less (look it up) then you have a recipe for 2 evenly matched teams that play very similarly to play a very close game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
