Eric TORCHfield signs with the Patsies

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:00 am

Translation: why the fuck did we have to go over the cap and release our 2 starting corners?

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:11 pm

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:Too bad it wasn't REALLY a "dynasty".

Don't be hatin Paul.

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:18 pm

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:Too bad it wasn't REALLY a "dynasty".

And you aren't REALLY fat.

(allegedly)

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:22 pm

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:
mvscal wrote:Smoke some more crack, dumbshit.
FUCK OFF.

Footballt "dynasties" don't have playoff-less seasons mixed in, fucktard. We've been over this before.

They tied for their Division lead and lost on a tie breaker. Nice to see how many other intelligent football fans who realize that in this day and age it is a dynasty....

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:33 pm

Neely8 wrote:They tied for their Division lead and lost on a tie breaker.

So they didn't make the playoffs. Right?

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:37 pm

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2395614

Props, PatriotFan...he's YOUR problem now.

in other words...after watching him get torched during his early years, now that he's a vet and showing promise, we sadly see him opt for a better team. :cry:

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:39 pm

BSmack wrote:
Neely8 wrote:They tied for their Division lead and lost on a tie breaker.
So they didn't make the playoffs. Right?

No they did not. 3 out of 4 Superbowls is a dynasty. Especially in todays NFL......

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:39 pm

Neely8 wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Neely8 wrote:They tied for their Division lead and lost on a tie breaker.
So they didn't make the playoffs. Right?

No they did not. 3 out of 4 Superbowls is a dynasty. Especially in todays NFL......

I do like how you have to qualify the "dynasty" tag by tacking on "Especially in todays NFL..."

Is this the fucking Special Olympics? Are you annointing the Patriots a "self esteem dynasty"? Either it is a dynasty or it is not.

And I think we now all know the answer. ;)

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:46 pm

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:
Neely8 wrote:3 out of 4 Superbowls is a dynasty.
Not when they MISS THE PLAYOFFS in that time frame.

PERIOD.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Some of us don't need to end a discussion prematurely so we can eat our 5th lunch.

Hapday · Post by **Hapday** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:22 am

Nothing is funnier than Chiefs fan stating what contemplates a dynasty or not. How about your useless shithole of a franchise wins a Super Bowl in color first, then discuss the subject.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:11 am

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:
Neely8 wrote:3 out of 4 Superbowls is a dynasty.
Not when they MISS THE PLAYOFFS in that time frame.

PERIOD.

END OF DISCUSSION.

We need to re-open the vote for Cryin Ryan.

3 out of 4 Super Bowls????

NOT a dynasty?

Oh....its all-u-can-eat paul. Explains it all.

When YOU win THREE out of FOUR cryin Ryans we'll call it a dynasty.

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:25 am

I suppose if a team won 10 championships in 11 years and missed the playoffs in year 2, they would fail to qualify as a dynasty, according to noted geniuses RuPaul and Bitchsmacked.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:15 pm

It appears that others besides Patriot fan see 3 out of 4 for what it really is. A dynasty. As for my statement...."In todays NFL".....I think Steeler fan of anybody should understand the ramifications of the salary cap in trying to keep winning year after year. It is harder in todays NFL to win year in and year out due to the cap......

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:52 pm

Neely8 wrote:It appears that others besides Patriot fan see 3 out of 4 for what it really is. A dynasty. As for my statement...."In todays NFL".....I think Steeler fan of anybody should understand the ramifications of the salary cap in trying to keep winning year after year. It is harder in todays NFL to win year in and year out due to the cap......

If being consistient is part of being a dynasty and being consistient isn't possible with the salary cap, then I guess there are no dynasties.

But hey, keep on spinning your self esteem dynasties. It's good for a laugh.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:57 pm

BSmack wrote:
Neely8 wrote:It appears that others besides Patriot fan see 3 out of 4 for what it really is. A dynasty. As for my statement...."In todays NFL".....I think Steeler fan of anybody should understand the ramifications of the salary cap in trying to keep winning year after year. It is harder in todays NFL to win year in and year out due to the cap......
If being consistient is part of being a dynasty and being consistient isn't possible with the salary cap, then I guess there are no dynasties.

But hey, keep on spinning your self esteem dynasties. It's good for a laugh.

Not sure what you mean, but winning 3 out of 4 Super Bowls is dynastic. Period. Anything contrary is hating.

And if you claim the Steelers of the 70's IS a dynasty that would only be 4 out of 6 years. Not much difference.

So which is it?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:11 pm

T REX wrote:Not sure what you mean, but winning 3 out of 4 Super Bowls is dynastic. Period. Anything contrary is hating.

No it is not. 3 out of 4 is a good start to a dynasty. But it is not a dynasty in any real sense.

And if you claim the Steelers of the 70's IS a dynasty that would only be 4 out of 6 years. Not much difference.

The Steelers won their division 8 straight years, never losing more than 5 games in any of those years. Here's the records from 72 to 79...

1979- 12-4-0 (Won Super Bowl)
1978- 14-2-0 (Won Super Bowl)
1977- 9-5-0
1976- 10-4-0 (Made Conference Championship Game)
1975- 12-2-0 (Won Super Bowl)
1974- 10-3-1 (Won Super Bowl)
1973- 10-4-0
1972- 11-3-0 (Made Conference Championship Game)

They also made it to 6 conference championship games and won 4 Super Bowls. When the Pats can come even remotely close to that level of achievement, then they can talk about a dynasty. Until then, they are just buttering themselves up.

Th · Post by Th » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:17 pm

I think the word 'dynasty' in terms of modern day NFL teams, IE since the AFL-NFL merger, would have to be reserved for those who have won the most championships. Only three teams come to mind in that category. 49ers, Cowboys and now the Steelers with 5 wins each. Any other discussion of a dynasty regarding a team not one of those three is merely a comparison to them.

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:17 pm

For starters, you have to draw a line between teams before and after the merger. While the game HAS changed even since the first Super Bowl, the biggest and most obvious change is before and after the merger.

So assuming we're only dealing with teams after the merger...

There are 3 tiers of great teams:

Tier 1:
San Francisco, Pittsburgh (4 titles with roughly the same core of players)

Tier 2:
Dallas and New England (3 titles with roughly the same core of players)

Tier 3 would include all the teams that have won only 2 with the same core of players (you could argue MIA, OAK, DEN, WAS, NYG, etc.).

And if you check the books, you could make a good case that nearly 25% of all NFL teams currently in the league have won AT LEAST 2 titles with roughly the same core group of players.

So here's how I see it. If you argue Tier 1 is the cut-off point for a dynasty, that's understandable.

If you argue Tier 2 is the cut-off point, that is also understandable, because that would still put them in the top 10-15% of all franchises.

But Tier 3 is entirely NOT unique and NOT special, considering that 1 in every 4 teams COULD qualify in Tier 3.

Shit, that was entirely too much time wasted posting on this endless debate...

The Assassin · Post by **The Assassin** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:11 am

WhatsMyName wrote:For starters, you have to draw a line between teams before and after the merger. While the game HAS changed even since the first Super Bowl, the biggest and most obvious change is before and after the merger.

So assuming we're only dealing with teams after the merger...

There are 3 tiers of great teams:

Tier 1:
San Francisco, Pittsburgh (4 titles with roughly the same core of players)

Tier 2:
Dallas and New England (3 titles with roughly the same core of players)

Tier 3 would include all the teams that have won only 2 with the same core of players (you could argue MIA, OAK, DEN, WAS, NYG, etc.).

And if you check the books, you could make a good case that nearly 25% of all NFL teams currently in the league have won AT LEAST 2 titles with roughly the same core group of players.

So here's how I see it. If you argue Tier 1 is the cut-off point for a dynasty, that's understandable.

If you argue Tier 2 is the cut-off point, that is also understandable, because that would still put them in the top 10-15% of all franchises.

But Tier 3 is entirely NOT unique and NOT special, considering that 1 in every 4 teams COULD qualify in Tier 3.

Shit, that was entirely too much time wasted posting on this endless debate...

Not to take up for Mule fan but where are the Chiefs in ANY of those tiers?

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:08 am

They belong in the dime-a-dozen Tier.

WhatsMyName · Post by **WhatsMyName** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:06 pm

More like 3a or 3b, depending on how much you penalize them for never winning, despite having 4 chances to do so.

UCant#2 · Post by **UCant#2** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:48 pm

Back to the thread topic:

Warfield is NOT a "Belichick guy", is he? Dude has 3 fucking DUIs. Anyone care to weigh in on this? Do I have Warfield confused with someone else?

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:01 pm

UCant#2 wrote:Back to the thread topic:

Warfield is NOT a "Belichick guy", is he? Dude has 3 fucking DUIs. Anyone care to weigh in on this? Do I have Warfield confused with someone else?

Was Corey Dillon? Was Rodney Harrison or Brian Cox? Either they become BElichick guys or they are let go. Thats the beauty of the NFL........If you play you get paid......if not you get cut....

UCant#2 · Post by **UCant#2** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:30 pm

Neely8 wrote:Was Corey Dillon? Was Rodney Harrison or Brian Cox? Either they become BElichick guys or they are let go. Thats the beauty of the NFL........If you play you get paid......if not you get cut....

Dillon always complained because the ownership never put good players around him. However, he always played hard and showed up on every down. This doesn't constitute 'not being Belichickian'. Harrison is the epitomy of your typical Belichick player. Tough, hard-nosed, will do anything to help the team... ever spear an opposing player. What's your point here? Cox... see Harrison. Sure, they had reputations.. for being tough guys. And sometimes, that got them in trouble. Sure, they may have gotten reprimanded by the league. Maybe even drew a flag or two. I'm not aware of any past drug or alcohol problems for any of the dudes you mentioned. An alcoholic is viewed as being weak and diseased. Warfield has a history of past problems that may preclude him from playing at his best. The 3 guys you mentioned??? Always showed up on Sundays.... every play. Try again.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:31 pm

UCant#2 wrote:
Neely8 wrote:Was Corey Dillon? Was Rodney Harrison or Brian Cox? Either they become BElichick guys or they are let go. Thats the beauty of the NFL........If you play you get paid......if not you get cut....
Dillon always complained because the ownership never put good players around him. However, he always played hard and showed up on every down. This doesn't constitute 'not being Belichickian'. Harrison is the epitomy of your typical Belichick player. Tough, hard-nosed, will do anything to help the team... ever spear an opposing player. What's your point here? Cox... see Harrison. Sure, they had reputations.. for being tough guys. And sometimes, that got them in trouble. Sure, they may have gotten reprimanded by the league. Maybe even drew a flag or two. I'm not aware of any past drug or alcohol problems for any of the dudes you mentioned. An alcoholic is viewed as being weak and diseased. Warfield has a history of past problems that may preclude him from playing at his best. The 3 guys you mentioned??? Always showed up on Sundays.... every play. Try again.

My point is that if you are not a Belichick guy before coming here then you better change and fast. Those three guys did. If they had shown up and caused any trouble he would have cut them. Im sure that anybody they sign is well aware of who the coach is and how he doesn't take crap.....

T1B

Eric TORCHfield signs with the Patsies

Re: Eric TORCHfield signs with the Patsies