The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
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.
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22547
yeah i recall seeing something that about most sports that white unis are easier to see
makes sense
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
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?
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22547
Foles is more naturally drawn to whites
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
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.
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22547
so much of the NFL comes down to coaching, which is not pari passu by any stretch of the infotainmentination
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:44 pm Posts: 9188 Location: Franklin, MA
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.
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.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:44 pm Posts: 9188 Location: Franklin, MA
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.
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.
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.
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum