| Red Mosquito http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/ |
|
| New England Patriots http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=473 |
Page 63 of 87 |
| Author: | epilogue [ Sat February 03, 2018 12:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
|
|
|
| Author: | Coach [ Sat February 03, 2018 11:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
First edge to the Pats. They were the home team and elected against wearing the traditional blue uniforms because they'd make it too hard for Brady to pick up receivers - the eight-foot wall around the stadium is dark blue w/ purple. Pats elect to wear white road uniform to make it easier to see their guys on offense. |
|
| Author: | epilogue [ Sat February 03, 2018 11:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
First edge, every edge. |
|
| Author: | 96583UP [ Sun February 04, 2018 3:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
yeah i recall seeing something that about most sports that white unis are easier to see makes sense |
|
| Author: | verb_to_trust [ Sun February 04, 2018 4:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
Foles can see Pat's defenders more easily then, right? |
|
| Author: | spike [ Sun February 04, 2018 4:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
numbers wrote: And the entirety of their success has occurred in the parity era of the NFL, where the league is designed to discourage runs like this. Except it hasn't worked in the AFC. Hasn't it been the Pats, Steelers, or Broncos representing the AFC in an inordinately weird amount of SBs over the last 15-20 years? |
|
| Author: | 96583UP [ Sun February 04, 2018 4:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
Foles is more naturally drawn to whites |
|
| Author: | spike [ Sun February 04, 2018 4:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
spike wrote: numbers wrote: And the entirety of their success has occurred in the parity era of the NFL, where the league is designed to discourage runs like this. Except it hasn't worked in the AFC. Hasn't it been the Pats, Steelers, or Broncos representing the AFC in an inordinately weird amount of SBs over the last 15-20 years? 12 out of the last 16. Parity is a myth in the AFC, and certainly the AFC East. |
|
| Author: | 96583UP [ Sun February 04, 2018 4:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
so much of the NFL comes down to coaching, which is not pari passu by any stretch of the infotainmentination |
|
| Author: | E.H. Ruddock [ Sun February 04, 2018 5:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
96583UP wrote: Foles is more naturally drawn to whites 
|
|
| Author: | verb_to_trust [ Sun February 04, 2018 5:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
I want the Pats to win every super bowl from here on out. |
|
| Author: | numbers [ Sun February 04, 2018 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
verb_to_trust wrote: I want the Pats to win every super bowl from here on out. Same. |
|
| Author: | numbers [ Sun February 04, 2018 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
spike wrote: numbers wrote: And the entirety of their success has occurred in the parity era of the NFL, where the league is designed to discourage runs like this. Except it hasn't worked in the AFC. Hasn't it been the Pats, Steelers, or Broncos representing the AFC in an inordinately weird amount of SBs over the last 15-20 years? I didn’t say it was working, but it’s been the goal of the NFL. In the Pats case, there have been multiple instances of the league changing rules specifically to make things harder for them. |
|
| Author: | Coach [ Sun February 04, 2018 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
numbers wrote: spike wrote: numbers wrote: And the entirety of their success has occurred in the parity era of the NFL, where the league is designed to discourage runs like this. Except it hasn't worked in the AFC. Hasn't it been the Pats, Steelers, or Broncos representing the AFC in an inordinately weird amount of SBs over the last 15-20 years? I didn’t say it was working, but it’s been the goal of the NFL. In the Pats case, there have been multiple instances of the league changing rules specifically to make things harder for them. My favorite being when Polian cried about Colts receivers' lack of success vs. Pats DBs they changed the coverage rules to make it easier for Manning's receivers to get open. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/sport ... colts.html |
|
| Author: | Simple Torture [ Sun February 04, 2018 1:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
96583UP wrote: Foles is more naturally drawn to whites You're thinking of Chip Kelly. |
|
| Author: | numbers [ Sun February 04, 2018 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
Coach wrote: numbers wrote: spike wrote: numbers wrote: And the entirety of their success has occurred in the parity era of the NFL, where the league is designed to discourage runs like this. Except it hasn't worked in the AFC. Hasn't it been the Pats, Steelers, or Broncos representing the AFC in an inordinately weird amount of SBs over the last 15-20 years? I didn’t say it was working, but it’s been the goal of the NFL. In the Pats case, there have been multiple instances of the league changing rules specifically to make things harder for them. My favorite being when Polian cried about Colts receivers' lack of success vs. Pats DBs they changed the coverage rules to make it easier for Manning's receivers to get open. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/sport ... colts.html Or when they banned jumping over the lines on FG block because the Patriots had a player that could actually do it. |
|
| Author: | Coach [ Sun February 04, 2018 2:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
numbers wrote: Coach wrote: numbers wrote: spike wrote: numbers wrote: And the entirety of their success has occurred in the parity era of the NFL, where the league is designed to discourage runs like this. Except it hasn't worked in the AFC. Hasn't it been the Pats, Steelers, or Broncos representing the AFC in an inordinately weird amount of SBs over the last 15-20 years? I didn’t say it was working, but it’s been the goal of the NFL. In the Pats case, there have been multiple instances of the league changing rules specifically to make things harder for them. My favorite being when Polian cried about Colts receivers' lack of success vs. Pats DBs they changed the coverage rules to make it easier for Manning's receivers to get open. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/sport ... colts.html Or when they banned jumping over the lines on FG block because the Patriots had a player that could actually do it. Or when the NFL changed the ineligible/eligible receiver rule after the Pats tricked the Ravens and embarrassed Coach Harbaugh on three plays in a playoff game. https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015 ... story.html |
|
| Author: | 96583UP [ Mon February 05, 2018 3:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
|
|
| Author: | verb_to_trust [ Mon February 05, 2018 3:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
It's all downhill from here Pats fans |
|
| Author: | lennytheweedwhacker [ Mon February 05, 2018 4:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New England Patriots |
verb_to_trust wrote: It's all downhill from here Pats fans don't say that |
|
| Page 63 of 87 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|