T1B

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:I don't think it fosters anything. In fact I'll call you out for using the word underwhelming. Winning 1 Super Bowl in a 10 year span is far from underwhelming. I'd take 1 Super Bowl victory for the Eagles over a 10 year span as opposed to their frequent post-season appearances with no hardware to show at the end of it.

You're going to call me out on a word? Me? Do you plan on doing so using the word in its proper context or are we going to be subjected to your usual "McNabb sucks and Reid is a fat drunken slob"? Care to link that one up?

Stop your whining. When exactly were the Eagles the "odds on favorite" to win the Super Bowl heading into the post-season? When exactly did Phillie have a 1st Rd Bye and get fucked in the ass in their first playoff game? Has Phillie actually lost their 1st playoff game this decade or have they always moved on to the next round? Hmmmmm? Who has a better post season record this decade, Phillie or Indy?

Good bye, jim. Nice chat as per usualm.

jiminphilly wrote:...arguing with fans like yourself who have had the privilege of watching their team win a SB is pointless because you do not know what it's like to see your team fail, year after year especially when those losses are the result of the same mistakes made by players and coaches alike.

jiminphilly wrote:arguing with fans like yourself who have had the privilege of watching their team win a SB is pointless .

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:arguing with fans like yourself who have had the privilege of watching their team win a SB is pointless .

Way to tell me right off the bat you're about to fail with an apples to oranges analogy, you fat drunken slob.

My take was clearly limited to this decade. You were clearly unable to separate your response from your team's entire history. That's your fucking problem.

The Eagles have the MOST postseason appearances of ANY team over the past 10 years. They have 1 pathetic Super Bowl appearance to show for it. Take your stupid take and shove it up your ass.


Furthermore... and this is very important because of how you’ve completely failed with the juxtaposition of your reply = the Eagles have never been the team to beat heading into the post-season this decade. They are who we thought they are. Right? However. The Colts have been... numerous times. And failed. And yet you then say

The one time they did win it all was a year they didn't have a first round bye, which only further reinforces my greater point about lax play down the stretch in "meaningless games" and its likely consequences. That was the initial talking point you were responding to, was it not? Not even close. I called you for your use of the word underwhelming when describing the Colts. The crux of your arguement being the use of the words "odds on favorite" which unto itself is meaningless when it comes to the NFL playoffs where (recent) history has shown that the word "favorite" has absolutely NO meaning when it comes to who will win the Super Bowl. But I digress. Team A has played in more postseason games than any other team in the NFL over the past 10 years and has 0 SB victories to show for it and Team B has had similiar results but in their lone SB appearance came away with a victory... and yet you think the Colts are more deserving of the word underwhelming just because they were more heavily favored? Are you that fucking stupid? Though never the "odds on favorite to win the SB, the Eagles have been picked, more than any other NFC team to at least represent their Conf in the SB and yet despite all of those post season appearances they've been in 1 SB. 1. That is the very definition of underwhelming.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Learn how to effectively craft a fucking reply, you fat drunken slob.

According to your shitty fucking response, I added to my own post and you posted nothing. Or was nothing what you were shooting for?

jiminphilly wrote:There's a reason I didn't put much effort into this thread.

mvscal wrote:That's not really Belichick's style, though, and he doesn't give much of a fuck about what anybody else thinks. He plays to win every week. If you want to rest your starters, blow out the opposition or be on the receiving end of one.

mvscal wrote:Eh, maybe. It's arguable. I think he might have underestimated the Bills there. Flutie was a dangerous player to have running around with nothing to lose.

boston.com wrote:I thought we had made it very plain that 16-0 was not a goal for us," Polian said. "What we’ve said, it seems, repeatedly, since Halloween almost, was that 16-0, we did not feel was a historic achievement. What was important to us, and what we tried very hard to do, coming off a short week against Jacksonville, after we had wrapped up the home-field advantage, was to set two records. One was for the most consecutive regular-season games won.

"We were tied with New England for that, and now we have it for ourselves, and secondly, for the most games won this decade, and I don’t believe anyone can catch us now no matter what happens this week. We felt those were both extremely historical milestones that were worth going out there and risking everything for."

And if Polian didn't side-swipe the Patriots enough there, there was this: "New England did not win the Super Bowl, and they are not considered an undefeated team, and so it would not have been complete had we not gone all the way. And to us, since it had been done before (by the 1972 Dolphins), it was not as historic a milestone," as the aforementioned ones.

Ouch!!!! I can see where some of you may want to stop reading here. Feel free to follow the jump for more of Polian's reasoning, and just who made the decision on Sunday.


"We went over it during the week with Mr. (Jim) Irsay, among many other people," Polian explained. "And we were quite public about it, as well. Both coach (Jim Caldwell) and I were asked about it quite frequently, and we responded that this was our plan. The timing was entirely up to coach, it was his decision to make as to when we took the players out.

"And by the way, it was Peyton (Manning), Reggie Wayne, who was battling a sore toe and sore groin, Dallas Clark, who had a thigh contusion, and I think that was. Joseph Addai went out earlier in the game with an injury."

Polian explained that he's proud that those players are upset about losing the game. But he said that there was evidence for his decision's validity that came up almost immediately after Manning and Co. were yanked.

"When Jim Sorgi had to be placed on injured reserve with shoulder problems, it was evident to coach and myself that we had to be very careful with Peyton, because there’s no one out there we could bring in that could handle the load of being the backup quarterback," Polian said. "Curtis Painter is a rookie and we’re in a situation where we had to be very careful with him.

"As a matter of fact, Gijon Robinson, our starting tight end, went out with a knee injury which will keep him out a couple of weeks at the same time those fellas came out of the game. On the very next series, I believe, the Jets blitzed as they do frequently, and Gijon’s substitute missed the blitz pickup and the quarterback got hit and fumbled and resulted in a touchdown. And while we wish no ill to Curtis, had that been Peyton, I and many, many others would’ve felt a heck of a lot worse."

Diogenes wrote:Nobody from that candyassed division is getting a WC slot. And whoever wins it will be bounced in the first round.