Xorv
Drug the Priest
Im not against the pats. I think they won their perfect season fairly. I would like to see them become another 1972 Miami dolphins.
The Sports Thread
- Thread starter Hell Awaits Us All
- Start date
AchrisK
Weakling
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
AchrisK
Weakling
Later in that same paragraph:
You denied my claim in ignorance, without qualifying your statement.
You denied my claim in ignorance, without qualifying your statement.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Matt
Active Member
Ack you're obviously trying to be annoying by talking about shit that no one cares about in order to prove Nec wrong
AchrisK
Weakling
Mathiäs;6893936 said:
No, I was just posting an interesting fact in light of what the NFL is looking at with the New England Patriots. I heard it on a radio show (Mike and Mike) in regards to how this Pats team will be viewed if they go undefeated (as they have) but lose the Superbowl. It's an interesting question, and they looked it up to see if it had happened before, and it had. Yes, it was pre-Superbowl, but it is still interesting. It's common knowledge that the 72 Dolphins went undefeated, including the Superbowl. But it is not commonly known that those Bears teams went undefeated in all but the Championship game. So how will the Pats be viewed if they lose the Superbowl? How will they be viewed now, and how will they be remembered in the future. It's an interesting question, so shut it!
I had no idea anyone would contradict my statement. And it's not my fault Nec posted before thinking. I was just pointing that out.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
I didn't post before thinking you fucking stupid, I just assumed that you realized that we weren't talking about the NFL/AFL days, since the game was immensely different back then and it was far easier for a team to be dominant. I also don't think that the Bears were the only team to go undefeated in that era, but it's still not relevant to the Super Bowl era.
AchrisK
Weakling
My post was just a post. It wasn't a response to anything and wasn't necessarily directly related to existing discussion. It was, in no obvious way, bound by a context. It was just bringing up an idea. A potential discussion. But apparently you prefer argument to discussion.
There you go again, just shooting off your mouth, assuming, not thinking. Hoping to support your flawed cover-up of an erroneous, off-the-cuff remark. Based on what I heard on the radio (these guys have stats/research guys feeding/verifying/denying facts the whole time) those two Bears teams are the only other two teams which have gone the regular season undefeated, thus disproving your theory that, "back then and it was far easier for a team to be dominant". That doesn't even make sense! The playing field, so to speak, has been level the whole time. The game and the athletes have developed together, thus keeping it competitive the whole time. The only thing that I can think of that may have unbalanced that at some point was richer teams, pre-salary cap.
There you go again, just shooting off your mouth, assuming, not thinking. Hoping to support your flawed cover-up of an erroneous, off-the-cuff remark. Based on what I heard on the radio (these guys have stats/research guys feeding/verifying/denying facts the whole time) those two Bears teams are the only other two teams which have gone the regular season undefeated, thus disproving your theory that, "back then and it was far easier for a team to be dominant". That doesn't even make sense! The playing field, so to speak, has been level the whole time. The game and the athletes have developed together, thus keeping it competitive the whole time. The only thing that I can think of that may have unbalanced that at some point was richer teams, pre-salary cap.
Originally posted by Achrisk
It was just bringing up an idea. A potential discussion. But apparently you prefer argument to discussion.
I here ya Ack. This has been my world since I started posting. Arguments are o.k., just some have a hard time separating argument from discussion.
It was just bringing up an idea. A potential discussion. But apparently you prefer argument to discussion.
I here ya Ack. This has been my world since I started posting. Arguments are o.k., just some have a hard time separating argument from discussion.
AchrisK
Weakling
AchrisK
Weakling
You can manipulate what is quoted, but you have probably been deleting the closing tag. All quotes need it to begin and end with the tags. they start with something like QUOTE=muzmaze;6896843, but inside of square brackets, and end with /QUOTE, also in square brackets. It can also just start with QUOTE in square brackets, but that is a generic quote, and is not attributed to anyone,
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
How am I just shooting my mouth off when you didn't specify that your post didn't have a fucking thing to do with anything anybody else was saying? Given that you didn't say that you were simply naming a random fact, I was well within reason to assume that you were entering the current discussion, and accordingly your post wouldn't have made sense in that pre-merger records are irrelevant to what we were talking about.
And back then it WAS fucking easier to be dominant you retard. Why do you think, for example, that the Packers won 9 championships before the merger? The Bears 8? The Giants 4? There were fewer teams, the game was more regional, and the teams early on agreed to prohibit player stealing, which resulted in dominant football units centered in certain areas that remained together for long periods of time which, if you couldn't figure it out, meant that yes, it was easier to be a dominant team then. It was easier even in the 60s and 70s than it is today, to be honest, especially with the increasing amount of impact that free agency has on teams annually. You are aware that simply saying "that doesn't make sense" doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense, right?
As for your retarded "argument over discussion" comment, it was you who initiated hostilities saying that I didn't post before thinking. And don't mistake insults and annoyance for argument. I don't have any problem with having discussion unless the other person is being hostile, which I took your statements as.
llamaking
A Souless Elegy
- Sep 10, 2007
- 721
- 0
- 16
Similar threads
