2016-2017 NFL Gameday Thread

[Burgundy Yoda]

1 hour ago, DM72 said:

We have some weak fans. They're actually some fans that were mad at the Giants for playing to win the last game of this season.

 

I actually respected the Giants for that decision. If the Skins are ever in that situation I would hope we would do the same. 

[Brixtion_skin]

I have to be honest.  I hate the Pats more than Cowboys/Giants. Main reason is them running up the score against us in 2007.  In addition, with the exception of their SB win against the Eagles all their SB wins have left a bad taste in mouth.  The cheating does not help.

[abdcskins]

The Patriots have won their last two Super Bowls because the other team choked plain and simple. I feel like Seattle throwing from the 1 was the bigger choke, this one included the amazing tenacity of Brady coming back combined with the numbskull Atlanta decisions.

[NickyJ]

[88Comrade2000]

Man, it's a game from 10 years ago; get over it.  Want to get mad, get mad at the Bears for that 73-0 game back in the 40's.

 

 

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, Brixtion_skin said:

I have to be honest.  I hate the Pats more than Cowboys/Giants. Main reason is them running up the score against us in 2007.  In addition, with the exception of their SB win against the Eagles all their SB wins have left a bad taste in mouth.  The cheating does not help.

You hate them more than the team who cheated us out of 36 million dollars in cap space because they kicked our ass in a game ten years ago?

 

No.
 

The reason people (including Skins fans) hate the Patriots is because they're envious of their success.

[Brixtion_skin]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

You hate them more than the team who cheated us out of 36 million dollars in cap space because they kicked our ass in a game ten years ago?

 

No.
 

The reason people (including Skins fans) hate the Patriots is because they're envious of their success.

Yes.   I do. Never said it was logical.  As for the success, thing, I can't really speak for other people, but the success of other teams never really bothered me that much.  

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

6 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

.....

The reason people (including Skins fans) hate the Patriots is because they're envious of their success.

 

Behave steve. 

 

I'm 100% with you on the Giants but the Patriots are severely disliked all down to their own doing. Starting with their completely classless, confirmed cheat of a HC. 

 

Hail. 

[PokerPacker]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

The reason people (including Skins fans) hate the Patriots is because they're envious of their success.

Don't tell people what they think.  I am not envious of their success, but their success does make the hate worse.  I hate them because they are cheaters.  I hate them more because they are successful cheaters.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup 3 times in a six year span.  My Washington Capitals have never won.  I do not hate the Blackhawks out of envy for their success.  I did not hate the Redwings for winning the Cup 3 times between 97-02 (even though they swept the Caps in their only Cup Finals appearance).  I do not hate teams simply for being successful.

[Rufus T Firefly]

20 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

The reason people (including Skins fans) hate the Patriots is because they're envious of their success.

Oh, I do love being told what I think. It just tickles me.

[Going Commando]

You guys are lying to yourselves.  Nobody cares that the Panthers kicked the **** out of everyone last year.  Nobody cares that Atlanta got in trouble for their fake crowd noise.  Nobody cares that the Saints put out bounties to injure opposing players.  Nobody cares that the Lions and 49ers got in trouble for tampering.  Nobody cares that the Steelers, Broncos, and 49ers all cheated to get around the salary cap and got in trouble for that.  The reason people do care about that kind of stuff with the Patriots is because they're the most dominant team in the history of the sport and they're envious.  They cling to that kind of petty crap when they know everyone else cheats and has run up the score before because there is nothing else you can say about them.

[CrypticVillain]

6 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

You guys are lying to yourselves.  Nobody cares that the Panthers kicked the **** out of everyone last year.  Nobody cares that Atlanta got in trouble for their fake crowd noise.  Nobody cares that the Saints put out bounties to injure opposing players.  Nobody cares that the Lions and 49ers got in trouble for tampering.  Nobody cares that the Steelers, Broncos, and 49ers all cheated to get around the salary cap and got in trouble for that.  The reason people do care about that kind of stuff with the Patriots is because they're the most dominant team in the history of the sport and they're envious.  They cling to that kind of petty crap when they know everyone else cheats and has run up the score before because there is nothing else you can say about them.

 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

16 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

You guys are lying to yourselves.  Nobody cares that the Panthers kicked the **** out of everyone last year.  Nobody cares that Atlanta got in trouble for their fake crowd noise.  Nobody cares that the Saints put out bounties to injure opposing players.  Nobody cares that the Lions and 49ers got in trouble for tampering.  Nobody cares that the Steelers, Broncos, and 49ers all cheated to get around the salary cap and got in trouble for that.  The reason people do care about that kind of stuff with the Patriots is because they're the most dominant team in the history of the sport and they're envious.  They cling to that kind of petty crap when they know everyone else cheats and has run up the score before because there is nothing else you can say about them.

 

I've been privileged enough, albeit from afar, to see my team in 4 SB's winning 3 of them. I follow one of the NFL's all time great franchises. 

 

Just WTF have I got to be jealous of the ****ing upstart Patriots over?

 

In fact come to that just WTF have I got to be envious of ANY other football team for? 

 

The Patriots are Universally disliked down to one thing. Their conduct. On and off the field. 

 

Graceless winners. Classless losers. Arrogant, confirmed cheats who think they can flaunt any rule in order to win. 

 

Hail. 

[NoCalMike]

Forget the cheating, I am just still in disbelief that for 2 straight Super Bowl appearances the Pat's opponent had the game in the bag and blew it big time.  This year I give the Pats a ton of credit for that comeback, but it still doesn't happen if Atlanta doesn't choke monumentally and then Seattle passing the ball on the 1 yard line.......wow.

[TSO]

Great points made here all around. 

 

I think I legitimately buy into a piece of everyone's arguments here, so it's an interesting topic to say the least. 

 

I think the Pats definitely go overboard in terms of their willingness to operate within the confines of the rules. 

 

And while, like @stevemcqueen1 put it, other teams cheat and it's swept under the rug for the most part, I think their form of cheating is more egregious than other teams because of their seeming consistency with skirting the rules. It's not just one thing they do. It's like a philosophy of theirs. 

 

At the time that it happened, I thought it was pretty ahole-ish of them to run up the score against us in 2007. But removed from the emotion of it now, it's "meh". I lean more towards the "if you don't like it, stop them" side of things. 

 

But I also think they're a model organization in terms of what it means to have stability at the highest levels and how that can be of immense benefit. 

 

Most of all, I think they have the greatest QB in the history of the game on the field. That guy runs that offense. He allows them to be cheap on that side of the ball and focus a ton of resources on the defense. 

 

I'm not sure where I stand with regards to Belichick. I lean towards believing that he got to ride Brady to his legacy more than anything else. He's a defensive coach whose side of the ball hasn't been consistently great, only good and, again, they receive a lot of help from their offense. 

 

I get the arguments about their records without Brady, but they don't come without asterisks. The one year they went 11-5 came with an historically easy schedule. Both the Bills and Dolphins finished better than them and made it to the playoffs over them. This year they started 3-0, which was impressive, but at the time I wondered if it was about lack of film (we've seen many backup QBs succeed for a game or two while teams don't know how to game plan for them) and that if more time went on they'd suffer for it. That last game without Brady they got embarrassingly shut out, so that lended some credence to my thinking. Granted, they were on their third string QB by that point. 

 

Still, I think the relative stability of having the same system in place for so long gives them that temporary boost without Brady, not some incredible coaching acumen. 

 

But it's something I'm definitely open to being wrong about. The greatness of that organization is hard to ignore overall, and Belichick is a big part of that. 

 

In the end, as much as one can point to their cheating or their relative "lack of class" (at times they seem super cold blooded, but other times it seems very family-like there among their staff and players, so I don't know)... they have been so good for so long it's impossible to not be impressed as a whole. It's really amazing what they've accomplished. 

 

Finally, @Spaceman Spiff hit the nail on the head about some of you regarding Kyle Shanahan. Weird, freaky stuff. In the Stadium, there's even a thread basically about how stupid he is. 

 

I mean, why am I not surprised to see a thread centering around Kyle Shanahan now after all this time?

 

So, let me get this straight. 

 

Dude coordinates the number one offense in the league with the worst defense to go along with it, his team tears through the playoffs, puts up the most points against the Pats than pretty much any other team this year in the Super Bowl, just an absolute **** ton of success in general... but only NOW, after a team wide failure in the second half of the Super Bowl and a bad mistake on his part (at least on its surface), a thread is made talking about the lesson he and our coaches should learn from some of us? 

 

I swear, I don't know what to think sometimes. I love you guys, but there is some major troll inside some of you when it comes to certain things. It's scary. I can't believe I'm sensing vindication or something from some of these posts. Really!?

 

Some of you just couldn't wait for him to screw up, huh?   

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

 

Some of you just couldn't wait for him to screw up, huh?   

 

Kyle's like an old high school girlfriend who was pretty cool but got hotter after you two broke up.  And then you resent her so you look for things to pick on her about...like oh, she didn't get into her #1 choice college or something... you know she's too good for you and she's gone on to better guys but you use any fault of hers as a defense mechanism to make yourself feel better.

[hail2skins]

6 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

I think the Pats definitely go overboard in terms of their willingness to operate within the confines of the rules. 

 

And while, like @stevemcqueen1 put it, other teams cheat and it's swept under the rug for the most part, I think their form of cheating is more egregious than other teams because of their seeming consistency with skirting the rules. It's not just one thing they do. It's like a philosophy of theirs. 

 

At the time that it happened, I thought it was pretty ahole-ish of them to run up the score against us in 2007. But removed from the emotion of it now, it's "meh". I lean more towards the "if you don't like it, stop them" side of things. 

 

 

 

Kind of want to be educated about this, but after Spygate, how else have the Pats been caught cheating?  I know there is Deflategate, but seems that many think that it was a Nothing-burger and, for better or for worse, the court of public opinion seems to have been on Brady's side versus Goodell on this.

 

Same with running up the score. Yes, the Pats seemed to use 2007 after Spygate as an eff-you season to the rest of the league. But since then, does anyone accuse the Pats of regularly running it up.

 

Funny how people would always make the case that "have the Pats won any SBs since Spygate?" Well, they've been to three and won two in that nine-year stretch. All while pretty much consistently winning 12+ games per season. And yes, you can say that they got fortunate by their opponents screwing up in the past two SBs, but as Ken Beatrice always said, more games are lost than won in this league.

[TSO]

1 hour ago, hail2skins said:

Kind of want to be educated about this, but after Spygate, how else have the Pats been caught cheating?  I know there is Deflategate, but seems that many think that it was a Nothing-burger and, for better or for worse, the court of public opinion seems to have been on Brady's side versus Goodell on this.

 

You just answered your own question. Doesn't matter if people think it was a "Nothing-burger" or if Goodell is an ahole. There's no doubt, when looking at the evidence, that they tampered with the footballs. 

 

But my point was just their seemingly general aptitude for skirting the rules. Lot of players and coaches have accused them over numerous things, including but not limited to: Tampering with Headsets during games, spying on communication devices during games, hotel fire alarm being set off night before game, falsely reporting injuries (it's a running joke how they put Brady on the list every year, and recently Aqib Talib and Brandon Spikes said the team gave them inaccurate designations), etc... 

 

Never mind the on the field stuff. For years they've ran pick plays before it became popular around the league and refs started having to call it. They were the reason Peyton Manning lobbied for officials to call defensive holding past five yards like they should, due to losing against them in the playoffs after they mugged his receivers all game. Formationgate when Harbaugh went nuts about them managing to avoid the eligible receiver rules. 

 

It's just a bunch of things that add up. Other teams cheat or skirt the rules, but it seems like they do it more consistently and that they have a general philosophy of trying to find as many ways to bend the rules as they can. 

 

Anyway, I'm not downplaying their greatness overall though. My post that you quoted was never meant to be taken as some thrashing of their organization. I think they have the greatest QB to ever play the game on their roster and their organization is a model for what stability in the FO can do for you. 

 

That means more than any of their cheating and you ignored that part of my post. I don't need to be told about why they're still great or anything, I acknowledge that. 

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

12 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

Some of you just couldn't wait for him to screw up, huh?   

 

 

I think some of us got sick and tired of constantly how he was apparently wronged by this organization, and how dumb the organization was

 

Sick and tired of people on OUR radio station (and posters on this site), making him and his dad out to look like victims, making a concerted (and ignorant) effort to only tell one side of the story of that era, excusing everything he and his father did, and just turning it all into a Griffin and Snyder bashfest. 

 

I can't speak for all the trolling, but for me, that's the long-standing issue I've had since the moment they left... That they've been given either an outright pass by some, or that their own roles they played in their firings were barely acknowledged by those on that side of the fence.

 

I find it incredibly insulting (as a once staunch supporter of the Shanahans, right up until it was clear that they were full of crap) that things have turned out the way they have in the aftermath, where that fool (Mike) can come on our local station and opine without pushback, the state of our affairs, so yeah, I certainly got a chuckle out of Junior's brainfart in the Super Bowl

 

[TSO]

@Mr. Sinister I can see that, I guess, but to be honest I don't think there were many doing that here. 

 

I know as far as myself is concerned, I always tried to maintain a balance regarding what happened with them, but I never excused everything Mike did. And I was in an extreme minority. 

 

I mean, Mike is the devil here. Kyle has been ****ted on a ton, way more than he personally deserved. If anything, one should be tired of how little blame Griffin and/or Snyder got around here for how everything went. 

 

I can't speak for the radio, so that's different. But as far as here is concerned? I can tell you those type of posts were in the minority, by far. 

 

Still, all that aside, it's the truth in the end that matters. Even if you're right, the anger should all be directed at Mike, not Kyle necessarily. Seems he's just guilty by association. The offense he put together in 2012 for a rookie RG3 was absolutely brilliant and affected the entire NFL. 

 

I'm more talking about how much success Kyle has had as an offensive coach in general, including here, yet he only gets brought up when he does something perceived to be wrong. @Spaceman Spiff put it perfectly, imo, it's just like an ex who went on to better things or proved the other party wrong. 

 

So this isn't about getting "a chuckle"... that's certainly understandable. I'm talking about some of the weird, obsessive behavior that arises with regards to him and how it comes across. I'm sorry, any poster here talking about a lesson he needs to learn from them regarding offensive play calling or whatever, after being quiet about his success for so long? Please.

 

Even if "right" about that one thing, it's still obnoxious and wrong overall. 

 

What kind of arrogance is needed for that? Dude has achieved more success there than any of us are likely to in our wildest dreams.  

[hail2skins]

7 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Anyway, I'm not downplaying their greatness overall though. My post that you quoted was never meant to be taken as some thrashing of their organization. I think they have the greatest QB to ever play the game on their roster and their organization is a model for what stability in the FO can do for you. 

 

 

 

TSO, sorry if it seemed like I ignored the other portion of your post where you gave general props to the Pats organization.  I was just curious about the other examples of where they had cheated.

 

I just think some folks seem to use the rule skirting is a prevalent reason why they CONTINUE to regularly win 12+ games per year and appear in AFCCGs/SBs. Saying "yeah, the Skins won 3 and appeared in 4 back in the 80s/early 90s" is nice, but that was a generation ago (and yes, I know the Pats pretty much struggled for a long time until Parcells came to town). And as far as the 11-5 season, sure they played a weak schedule in 2008, but have the Skins won 11 games in a season since '91?

[TSO]

44 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

And as far as the 11-5 season, sure they played a weak schedule in 2008, but have the Skins won 11 games in a season since '91?

 

Well, that argument was meant as a refutation of the "Pats are still good without Brady" argument. It's not an indictment on them as a whole. 

 

Simply put, you do have to take into account just how ridiculously easy their schedule was that year. It's not just "sure, they played a weak schedule". The fact that two teams in their consistently weak division (who largely faced the same schedule as they did) finished better than them that year says a lot, don't you think? 

 

We've been a total **** hole of an organization plus our division is consistently better than theirs, so I don't think that comparison is fair. 

 

Brady has also benefited from playing in a weak division, but he's still amazing in the playoffs and now has won five Super Bowls. He has the best record against winning teams than any other active QB (even though it's still a losing record, which is why I find that argument when used against Kirk as weak, but I digress). I think it's 20-23 or something. We simply don't know how they'd fare without him against premier teams, for an extended period, or even with just a normal schedule in terms of difficulty. 

 

My bet is it would not be good. But it's one heck of an intriguing debate. The only way any of us would really know one way or another is if Brady retires and Belichick continues to coach.

 

I don't put a ton of stock in their 3-1 start this year without Brady. Like I said, that could all be about a lack of film as we've seen time and again with these type of things. That last game before Brady came back, where they arguably had their worst performance as a team in forever, certainly leaves that possibility open to say the least. 

 

I hope the nuance in my arguments are coming through though. I'm not trying to argue that Belichick sucks or anything. It's just about how good is he really? Is he truly great? That's what I question.

 

What's so impressive about Gibbs is he was able to win his championships with 3 different QBs and even RBs as well. That might be a wash though when considering the FA/salary cap era versus his era. 

 

But what I wonder is, taking Brady away, how much of the success Belichick has had is more of a result of the stability of his FO and staff, and what that means in terms of being able to transition smoothly since they've got so much around them being the same. Same system, same personnel, same staff, etc... That's significant. How much did he get to benefit from being in an organization that almost never fires its coaches, and then striking gold with Brady so that he gets to forget about that position and focus on everything else? 

 

Heck, judging by what is said about Brady running that entire offense by those around him (our own players marveled at it when we had those joint practices in the 2014 training camp), he arguably doesn't have a lot on his plate regarding that entire side of the ball. 

 

Those are the things I wonder about regarding Belichick, especially considering his track record pre-Brady. I think those are legitimate questions. And then, moving forward, how "great" will he remain without Brady for an extended period of time while the league catches up to anything new they try to do? 

[DM72]

But can't you make that argument for just about all the great coaches? Would Walsh be as great without Montana? What about Noll without Bradshaw? JJ without Aikman? How many SB's did Landry win without Staubach? 

 

That's why I don't think Gibbs winning with 3 non HOF QBs don't get nearly the credit he deserves. 

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

And yes, Kyle should learn from us. And by "us" I mean basically anyone with more than a minor interest in football. Because everyone who knows anything about the sport knew what to do- hand the ball off twice, kick a FG and go get fitted for a Championship ring. It barely even qualifies as a decision. It was common sense. It didn't even need to be thought about. But KS' arrogance knew better. He was gonna dazzle us with his brilliance and so he did the only thing that could, and did, deny his team, organization and city a World Championship.

 

So yeah, he can design a great offense. He's bright, knowledgeable, creative. No doubt. He knows how to run an NFL offense. And, even less questionably, I don't. Nor do probably any of the posters here. Yet when his lack of judgement costs his team it's ultimate goal, indeed pulls it right out of their grasp, then he's clearly got something to learn. Something literally tens of thousands of less knowledgeable people don't need to learn. And his accolades don't change that. If Stephen Hawking tells me 2+2=5, he's wrong.. And I'm not saying I know more than him by saying that. Kyle apparently still needs to learn something, maybe humility, maybe just situational awareness.

 

And worse, he actually tried to suggest it would have been dumb to run the ball, eat some clock and set up the relatively easy clinching FG. And claimed it would have been a 50 yarder, which raises other questions about where his mind was at.

[TSO]

4 hours ago, DM72 said:

But can't you make that argument for just about all the great coaches? Would Walsh be as great without Montana? What about Noll without Bradshaw? JJ without Aikman? How many SB's did Landry win without Staubach? 

 

That's why I don't think Gibbs winning with 3 non HOF QBs don't get nearly the credit he deserves. 

 

 

 

Yeah. We're talking about Belichick, though. 

 

I'd argue the same for most of those "great" coaches as well. Those QBs contributed heavily to the "greatness" of those coaches, but each one should be given the time to research  what they did do without them. 

 

Off the top of my head, though, I'd say Noll was great because Bradshaw wasn't necessarily elite. Walsh because I think his system was so innovative and special at the time that other QBs may have done just as well as Montana, but who knows. Montana was awesome in it though. Tough call there. JJ had some stacked teams with Aikman, so stacked friggin Barry Switzer won a championship with them. 

 

My answer to that question is likely "nope" for the most part, I think their legacies likely get tarnished without those QBs for the most part, so are you trying to refute my points because I'm not seeing it? 

 

And I actually said that's what makes what Gibbs did so impressive. It's why I believe he was truly the greatest coach of all time.

 

 I'm confused by this response to be honest. Help me out here. 

 

3 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

So yeah, he can design a great offense. He's bright, knowledgeable, creative. No doubt. He knows how to run an NFL offense. And, even less questionably, I don't. Nor do probably any of the posters here. Yet when his lack of judgement costs his team it's ultimate goal, indeed pulls it right out of their grasp, then he's clearly got something to learn. Something literally tens of thousands of less knowledgeable people don't need to learn. And his accolades don't change that. If Stephen Hawking tells me 2+2=5, he's wrong.. And I'm not saying I know more than him by saying that. Kyle apparently still needs to learn something, maybe humility, maybe just situational awareness.

 

 

Okay, just going by this analogy that doesn't work really well anyway, but how trollish is it to only talk about Hawkings when he said 2+2 = 5 while remaining quiet during everything else he's done that's been brilliant? 

 

Let's just say you're right and there's absolutely zero justification for not running the ball there, he's an idiot, whatever. 

 

You don't see a problem with that? You don't think coming out of the woodwork only then and discussing it ad nauseum is some petty bull****?  

 

I do. Nothing you said here changes that for me, sorry. It's incredibly lame. You're too focused on the mistake he made... that's really not my point. My point is how quick people were to jump on it. Some weird **** when otherwise it was quiet on that front.