PDA

View Full Version : New England Patriots


Jonas Grumby
01-27-2002, 09:30 PM
Wooooooooooooo!
Wooooooooooooo!
Wooooooooooooo!

[with apologies to Nature Boy]

General Kenobi (ret.)
01-27-2002, 10:32 PM
He spells it with an "h".

Troy McClure
01-27-2002, 10:35 PM
On 2002-01-27 21:32, Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
He spells it with an "h".


You know it sounds the same...

Sheeeesh, everyone's a critic!

Troy McClure
01-27-2002, 10:35 PM
Oh, and go Pats!

Jonas Grumby
01-27-2002, 11:16 PM
He spells it with an "h".


Obviously there's no 'h' in 'it'.

Griffin 1
01-27-2002, 11:16 PM
On 2002-01-27 21:32, Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
He spells it with an "h".

Maybe that's what the apology was for.

Jonas Grumby
01-27-2002, 11:23 PM
:smile:

Drzy
01-27-2002, 11:39 PM
Congratulations to the Patriots, I suppose... I kind of wanted to see the Steelers win because at least they would give my Rams a challenge.

The Vegas odds opened up today with the Pats as 15 point underdogs. Ouch.

jets fan
01-28-2002, 08:26 AM
I'll congratulate the Pats as well. The spread doesn't matter - they've been underdogs all year. This is business as usual for them.

Ducky
01-28-2002, 10:00 AM
Anybody remember the Pats-Rams Monday night game this year? Was a close one as I recall at Foxboro. Maybe this won't be such a blowout after all?

Kid Rock
01-28-2002, 10:19 AM
It was not on Monday, but it was 24-17. Kurt Warner was 3-42, 401 yards, 3 TDs, 2 picks. One of NE TD's came from defense.

On the fast track, the game may be different.

Drew Bledsoe looked like an aging QB, a far less imposing QB than he used to be. His arm strength did not look good and he looked slower (if that is possible). If I was a team previously in the Bledsoe sweepstakes, I'd re-think my position. He won't be leading anybody else to the promised land. He was lucky they scored on the blocked kick.

Anonymous
01-28-2002, 10:58 AM

Anonymous
01-28-2002, 11:08 AM
Patriots win the SuperBowl; it's destiny ever since 9/11, just like WWII and the
discovery of the New World, the Louisana Purchase, the Civil War, etc. The U.S. didn't become the nation it is today without divine intervention so it will be the case with the Patriots. Everthing tangible and intangible that entail the patriots' season symbolized and encapsulated the experience of this country. It's just destiny that the Patriots should win.

Pseudolus
01-28-2002, 11:13 AM
Don King, is that you? "Only in America!"

Mr. Grim
01-28-2002, 11:13 AM
You have to give Bledsoe, a bit of a break, he has not played most of the season, you would not expect him to be up to his previous level.

Anonymous
01-28-2002, 11:27 AM
Patriots win the SuperBowl; it's destiny ever since 9/11, just like WWII and the
discovery of the New World, the Louisana Purchase, the Civil War, etc. The U.S. didn't become the nation it is today without divine intervention so it will be the case with the Patriots. Everthing tangible and intangible that entail the patriots' season symbolized and encapsulated the experience of this country. It's just destiny that the Patriots should win.

Paddy Murphy
01-28-2002, 11:30 AM

Paddy Murphy
01-28-2002, 11:38 AM
I'm a pats fan since they drafted Plunket in 1971 and, except for the 1976 team that got shafted (and redeemed by the no fumble by Brady), this is the best chance they've ever had at winning the whole thing.

Enjoy this NE sports fans. The drought we've had since 1986 Celtics is about to end!!!

Big D
01-28-2002, 11:58 AM
Paddy? I heard you were dead (http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=817154132/pagename=/RP/SHARE/soundclip.html/UPC=2791570002/disc=1/track=6/source=wmf) Warning, link has sound.

Kid Rock
01-28-2002, 12:33 PM
I'll give Bledsoe a bit of a break since he did not play most of the year. This break would include overthrowing guys or trying to force passes. I won't give him a break on the physical aspects. His arm strength looks gone. The intentional grounding call where he threw the ball over his head was just dumb. As a 9-year veteran, he knows better than that. After getting pummeled for the last 2 years, Bledsoe still can't pull the trigger quickly.

Remember Bernie Kosar coming down the stretch of his career?

Anonymous
01-28-2002, 12:39 PM
On 2002-01-28 10:38, Paddy Murphy wrote:
I'm a pats fan since they drafted Plunket in 1971 and, except for the 1976 team that got shafted (and redeemed by the no fumble by Brady), this is the best chance they've ever had at winning the whole thing.

No, NE was only a 14 point underdog in 1998.

Patience
01-28-2002, 12:55 PM
If you throw the ball over your head, isn't your arm moving backwards, therefore it should actually be a fumble?

Mick Fan
01-28-2002, 01:08 PM
On 2002-01-28 11:55, Patience wrote:
If you throw the ball over your head, isn't your arm moving backwards, therefore it should actually be a fumble?



:lol:

Very nice, Patience. We'll have to check the rulebook on that one. Is the definition of "backward" relative to the QB's nose or the end zone?

Paddy Murphy
01-28-2002, 01:21 PM
Big D...

That was 1987 for me and I still don't tell my wife of 10 years what I did during that era!
GO PATS

Anonymous
01-29-2002, 02:09 PM
The spread might be 14, but it was what, 10?,last week. And look what happened in that game. As a Pats fan, I find it a bit annoying that the spread is so big, considering the Rams only beat the Pats by 7 points in their last match-up. But, that's okay. It will just make it that much sweeter when the Pats win on Sunday.

And I know a lot of people have been calling the Pats a team of destiny. I think that calling them that doesn't give them the credit they deserve. They have earned their place at the SuperBowl. It had nothing to do with destiny. As Lawyer Milloy said yesterday (and I was present to hear it!!), "I've never heard of a lucky SuperBowl champion."

GO PATS!

urysohn
01-29-2002, 02:33 PM
Bledsoe's arm really was moving forward when he got hit. Somehow, he managed to have to his back/side to the line of scrimmage, flip the ball forward over his head/shoulder and move his arm in a forward direction all at the same time. Dumb ass play any way you look at it, but definitely not fumble material even with a strict interpretation of "forward motion".

Abducens
01-29-2002, 04:46 PM
>>New England even had the aid of an interception runback for a touchdown, and still lost by seven. They didn't score an offensive touchdown until midway through the fourth quarter, at which point they were down by 14.

Yeah, but only because Antowain Smith fumbled at the 2 yard line or something. The Rams looked all but certain to trail 17-7 at halftime. Instead they marched 97 yards and took a 14-10 lead.

I don't know why people can't give NE any credit. They were the toughest team the Rams faced all year. They hung with them in a straight up game without any trick-play coaching or 6+ turnovers. Take the points. Yes, I'm a Rams fan - Take the points.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Abducens on 2002-01-29 15:55 ]</font>

toomuchtime
01-29-2002, 04:59 PM
On 2002-01-29 13:30, mister nacho wrote:
Another point on the previous matchup: New England even had the aid of an interception runback for a touchdown, and still lost by seven. They didn't score an offensive touchdown until midway through the fourth quarter, at which point they were down by 14.

This game will not be close.


Like Ab says, and even Mike Martz says, the Patriots are the toughest team that the Rams faced all year, and I think Mike Martz knows what he is talking about. He did not just say this recently either, this was a quote from a while back.

If Pittsburgh was here, they would be getting some credit. Why can't we give credit to the team that physically beat them? And has now won 10 of 11 - only loss is to the Rams. Face it they are for real, and unless you are a Rams fan, the Pats, unlike your team, are at the Super Bowl.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: toomuchtime on 2002-01-29 16:03 ]</font>

quentin cassidy
01-29-2002, 06:11 PM
well of course mike martz is going to say now that the pats were their toughest game of the year, he doesn't want to piss them off. the rams did lose a couple games, so i'd imagine those were their toughest games.

and i'd argue that their toughest win was at home, vs. the giants. they didn't have the game sewed up until the final minute, when a tipped ball was intercepted while the giants were driving for the go-ahead score (in rams territory).

Abducens
01-30-2002, 08:50 AM
>>well of course mike martz is going to say now that the pats were their toughest game of the year, he doesn't want to piss them off. the rams did lose a couple games, so i'd imagine those were their toughest games.

That's some indepth analysis. They lost to them, so they must have been the best teams they played. Been conversing with CJL? Martz told his team right after the Pats game that the Pats were the toughest, best coached team they had faced yet.

>>and i'd argue that their toughest win was at home, vs. the giants. they didn't have the game sewed up until the final minute, when a tipped ball was intercepted while the giants were driving for the go-ahead score (in rams territory).

Michael Strahan had the benefit of going up against a one-armed man for most of the game, until stubborn Martz finally substituted the guy. Strahan did nothing after that. That's 4 additional sacks from this game that Strahan doesn't really deserve, by the way.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Abducens on 2002-01-30 07:51 ]</font>

toomuchtime
01-30-2002, 09:08 AM
On 2002-01-29 17:11, quentin cassidy wrote:
well of course mike martz is going to say now that the pats were their toughest game of the year, he doesn't want to piss them off. the rams did lose a couple games, so i'd imagine those were their toughest games.



Yes the Rams did lose 2 games this year. They also had 14 turnovers in those games and still did not get blown out in either. On the other hand, the Patriots had the big turnovers in their game with the Rams (see Antowain Smith on the Rams 3 and the Brady turnover on the first play after the Pats intercepted Warner in the 2nd half).

CJL
01-30-2002, 01:24 PM
I thought Brady looked pretty sharp, but I only watched his first couple of drives. He hit receivers, and with decent strength on the ball, and I didn't think he looked any slower than he ever has. Was he downhill after that?

quentin cassidy
01-30-2002, 01:24 PM
all i am saying is that, no matter who the rams were playing this weekend, mike martz would be saying something like "this is going to be the toughest team we've played all year". it seems rather obvious to me.

that statement about taking away strahan's sacks is probably one of the funniest things i've read on this forum in a long time. so, we should start adjusting all players' stats now, so that when they're going up against injured opponents, we just don't count those stats? keep in mind that almost every player in the league plays through some sort of nagging injury at some point during the year. gimme a break, strahan had a phenomenal (sp?) year, give the guy some credit.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: quentin cassidy on 2002-01-30 12:41 ]</font>

Abducens
01-30-2002, 01:53 PM
>>all i am saying is that, no matter who the rams were playing this weekend, mike martz would be saying something like "this is going to be the toughest team we've played all year". it seems rather obvious to me.

Probably, but it's safe to say he means it here. That seems rather obvious to me, as someone who's followed the team all year vs. someone who wishes their team didn't prove to the world they didn't belong there about 12 months ago.

>>that statement about taking away strahan's sacks is probably one of the funniest things i've read on this forum in a long time. so, we should start adjusting all players' stats now, so that when they're going up against injured opponents, we just don't count those stats?

Nah, but I'm glad people are saying Strahan doesn't deserve the record still, even if for a different reason. I wasn't thrilled that the Rams contributed so much to that record esp. since the sacks were barely earned.

Anonymous
01-30-2002, 02:44 PM
"as someone who's followed the team all year"

Jumping on the bandwagon, eh Abby?

quentin cassidy
01-30-2002, 02:46 PM
the giants deserved to be in the super bowl last year. what was the score of the NFC championship game? with a cozy 3rd place schedule next year, i expect the g-men to return to the playoffs.

the ravens would've kicked the crap out of who ever they played in the super bowl last year. they were THAT good. in the AFC playoffs, they completely shut down the 3 best offenses in the conference.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: quentin cassidy on 2002-01-30 13:47 ]</font>

Abducens
01-30-2002, 03:34 PM
Ha - whatever. Just thank your lucky stars that the Saints made the wild card game their Super Bowl.

Anonymous
01-30-2002, 06:31 PM
On 2002-01-30 13:46, quentin cassidy wrote:
with a cozy 3rd place schedule next year, i expect the g-men to return to the playoffs.


Only 2 of the 16 games will be determined by the team's record from the previous year.

So the g-men play Minny and Atlanta, while Eagles play Tampa and Chicago (hey, aren't those the 2 teams they beat in the playoffs?)

Drzy
01-30-2002, 07:31 PM
On 2002-01-29 17:11, quentin cassidy wrote:
well of course mike martz is going to say now that the pats were their toughest game of the year, he doesn't want to piss them off.


Martz said that when the playoffs began, long before anyone knew they'd face each other in the Super Bowl.

Anonymous
01-31-2002, 10:42 AM
Actually, Martz said it after they played New England over two months ago.

From the Boston Globe:

"Rams coach Mike Martz had a simple message for his team after its tough 24-17 victory over the Patriots Nov. 18 at Foxboro Stadium.

"You just beat a Super Bowl-caliber team," he told his players after their victory over New England, then 5-5."

quentin cassidy
01-31-2002, 02:10 PM
i'm actually glad to see a rule like that take affect (it is a change, along with the new division alignments, correct?) no one should have to suffer through an out-of-division schedule like the giants had this year (@St.L, @Den, @Minn, GB, Oak, NO). it'll also be nice to see that up-and-coming teams that have made big improvements over last year will actually have to earn any possible trips to the playoffs.

i'm sure there are at least a dozen teams that were referred to as being 'super-bowl caliber' at some point during the season. it doesn't change the fact that the rams are going to roll on sunday.

Abducens
01-31-2002, 02:15 PM
>>i'm sure there are at least a dozen teams that were referred to as being 'super-bowl caliber' at some point during the season.

Oh, give it up, quentin!

Anonymous
01-31-2002, 06:10 PM
"everyone knows the Pats celebrated their triumph and another trip to New Orleans by dumping one bucket of Gatorade over coach Belichick. But shouldn't they have dumped another over the instant replay machine? "
from the sporting news Fly

Jonas Grumby
02-03-2002, 11:56 PM
Wooooooooooooo!
Wooooooooooooo!
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[with apologies yet again to Nature Boy...]

Drzy
02-04-2002, 02:59 PM
I'd like to challenge the notion that the Pats were the better team. The Rams led in every statistical category except turnovers, and being -2 can definitely be attributed to luck (a receiver slipping and an unavoidable fumble). Even though the Rams played maybe their worst game of the year, I still think they played better than the Patriots.

jets fan
02-04-2002, 03:11 PM
The turnovers, epecially Law's INT return, were forced by the Pats. As far as Law's INT, the Pats got good pressure on Warner and forced him into a bad throw which Law capitalized on.

The Rams had the Pats on turf in a dome (which is their element) and they still lost. Before the game, they oozed overconfidence and arrogance and it was their undoing. The Pats out-hit the Rams all game long and the Rams were lucky to make it close at all. I think it's amazing that people like 'Drz' still won't give the Pats any respect. The better team is the team that wins.

3rookie
02-04-2002, 03:18 PM
The better team is NOT always the team that wins. The team that wins is the team that wins.

If Vinatieri's FG is blocked and returned for a TD, do you now consider the Rams to be the better team? I believe the Patriots, win or lose, played better yesterday than the Rams. People can think the Rams were the better team yesterday, that's fine by me.

When Buffalo beat the jets, does that mean Buffalo is the better team?

Patience
02-04-2002, 03:22 PM
On 2002-02-04 14:18, 3rookie wrote:
When Buffalo beat the jets, does that mean Buffalo is the better team?


On that day, yes they were.

Now the 1st Steeler/Raven game would be a good one to argue the point.

Patience
02-04-2002, 03:42 PM
The Pats hit harder, tackled much better, forced the Rams out of their comfort zone, forced three turnovers and capitalized on those turnovers for 17 points. The Pats were better prepared and better coached.

The Rams gained more yards, but in no other way were they the better team. and if the Rams did win most people would say they were lucky to escape and the Pats blew it.

Comments you don't usually make about the worse team.

Anonymous
02-04-2002, 03:42 PM
Belichick said it best. 'If there was a game next week we would be underdogs in that game too.' The pats brought less talent to the field yesterday but played smarter and won by exploiting weaknesses in the ram's offense.

Hagbard Celine
02-04-2002, 04:24 PM
I don't understand why people get so caught up in this discussion about which team was actually the "better" team.

The Patriots won the game, and that's why the game is actually played and not awarded to the team that's favored going in.

Just like Duke was not better than UConn in '99. 77-74

sb_jim
02-04-2002, 04:30 PM
Rutgers is better than UCONN January 2002? I guess that's why they played the game.

Hagbard Celine
02-04-2002, 05:05 PM
Exactly!!!

IF that game was never played, Rutgers never would have gotten the chance to show the country they have some real talent.

All I'm saying is who cares who the "better" team is. ON that day Rutgers was the better team than UConn. Why? Because they won. I don't sit around and say if we play ten games, UConn wins more of them than Rutgers. I say, ON THAT DAY, Rutgers won. Period.

Again, that's why they PLAY the game!

Whether Rutgers would be better than UConn the day after they beat them or next week is a whole 'nother question. Just like whether or not Duke would have beaten UConn on the next day. No one knows, and know one should care. UConn won when it counted.

Just like the Patriots won when it counted...on Feb 3. Whether the Rams would win if they played next week is immaterial.

Anonymous
02-04-2002, 05:08 PM
Quote Hagbard Celine
I don't understand why people get so caught up in this discussion about which team was actually the "better" team.
_________________________________________

Because it helps pass the time between super bowl Sunday and March madness.

Is that two big east losses (miami&rutgers) in a row for the Huskies?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: FSA2000 on 2002-02-04 16:11 ]</font>

Drzy
02-04-2002, 07:56 PM
Ah, I love stirring up controversy. :smile: What I meant was, I certainly have respect for the Patriots, but I definitely don't feel they're the best team. That's the problem with having it decided by one game; even the Lions could beat the Rams.

But I do think the Rams played better, although barely. I can easily see both sides. The Patriots played with a lot of heart and energy, especially on defense, and were well above their usual ability. People who've seen the Rams before saw a team that looked way flat compared to their usual performance, and that can mislead people into thinking they just weren't very good.

Put it this way. If you hadn't been told all season that the Rams were some unstoppable force, but instead thought these teams were of equal ability, you (and me and everyone else) would be looking at this way differently.

Drzy
02-04-2002, 07:57 PM
Oh, by the way, I live in St. Louis, so that negates everything I said. :smile:

Jonas Grumby
02-04-2002, 10:02 PM
By the way, that's really four turnovers if Willie McGinnest doesn't get called for the same hold he's been applying all game. There's no question in my mind that the Pats caused those turnovers by administering frequent and painful whackings to the Rams (cf. my note in another thread about Faulk whining that some of the hitting was 'unnecessary').

jets fan
02-05-2002, 08:13 AM
I agree with what I heard Dan Marino say a few years back: "This isn't like college where a lot of times you KNOW you're better than another team. If you don't bring your best game to the field on Sunday, you'll lose to ANYBODY."

toomuchtime
02-05-2002, 09:09 AM
It doesn't really matter who the better team is. All that matters is that the Patriots brought it to the Rams, and the Rams couldn't handle it.

Maybe we don't have the best team here in Boston, but I think we will defintely have the best Super Bowl celebration!!!!!
And the Patriots are defintely the best Super Bowl XXXVI champions. And that is all that matters!!!!!

Patience
02-05-2002, 10:40 AM
Maybe, just maybe the Rams looked so flat, because of the Patriots and they couldn't figure them out. Not just that they didn't play well. They were forced to not play well.

There was excessive hitting, but there is no question it was necessary

Any city that has morons burning things & destroying property can't claim to have the best celebration of anything.

Pseudolus
02-05-2002, 10:42 AM
Remember, you can't spell "Patriot" without "r-i-o-t"!

Paddy Murphy
02-05-2002, 01:58 PM
Un-freaking believable!!!!!!

Aside from child birth, I can't even put into words what it felt like when the Pats pulled off the victory. I was just a kid when the Orr and the Bruins won their 2 Cups (with my Bobby Orr lunch box). All 5 times the Celtics won it, they had the best team that year and there was a certain sense of entitlement to those championships. Like a pat on the back for doing your job well, it was just expected that they would win those titles.

This was completely different and completely satisfying on every possible level. This team came from nowhere and just got better every week, overcame incredible obstacles, got 1 favorable call in the snowbowl, and outplayed the 2 best teams in consecutive weeks...I'm still speechless. What do we do for an encore as this is uncharted territory for us Pats fans. Unless the Sox pull out some sort of impossible dream World Series victory, it can't get any better than this!!!!

Go to espn.com and find their "page 2" section. There is a guy from Boston who writes the best articles you've ever read. His name is Bill Simmons a.k.a. "The Sports Guy" you'll laugh , you'll cry, you'll be glad you're a Boston sports fan.

Captain America
02-05-2002, 02:11 PM
Any city that has morons burning things & destroying property can't claim to have the best celebration of anything.


AND


Remember, you can't spell "Patriot" without "r-i-o-t"!


What did I miss?

You don't mean the Boston Tea Party, do you?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Captain America on 2002-02-05 13:12 ]</font>

Pseudolus
02-05-2002, 02:13 PM
I didn't hear anything, I just liked the line. (Although there have been some pretty loud roars outside my office window today.)

Anonymous
02-05-2002, 03:00 PM
Congrats to the superbowl champs. It's starting to sink in now. Here in CT, the NFL fanbase is split pretty evenly between Pats, Jets, and Giants. Just got back from jean shopping at Bob's during lunch. There's 400 square feet of Patriots stuff with the "AFC champ" stuff slightly marked down but superbowl stuff obviously not. Also noticed a single stray Giants cap in the bargin bin.

Oliver Klozov
02-05-2002, 03:29 PM
I thought it was a great game, period.

However, I do not understand all of the hooplah over Brady. The final drive was more a tribute to his receivers being able to gain yards AND get out of bounds. Brady was hitting receivers in the middle of the field and the Rams did not make the tackles.

The Pats will be sorry when they trade Bledsoe away. New England thinks they've got a young Montana on their hands, next year they will wake up to the second coming of Doug Williams.

Anonymous
02-05-2002, 04:20 PM
Must disagree, OK. Although I will sad to see Drew Bledsoe leave town, Brady's season stats are comparable to Peyton Manning, Mark Brunell, and Steve McNair's. What he doesn't do is more impressive than what he does--12 int on the season, with 4 being desperation passes in a loss against Denver. He threw one pass all of last season and has potential for more improvement. Brady deserves the starting job.

Jonas Grumby
02-05-2002, 07:34 PM
That was an unfair comment about Doug Williams, he was actually pretty good in Tampa Bay. If you want a comparison to be scared of (and I speak as a former Redskin fan), try Mark Rypien...

toomuchtime
02-06-2002, 09:12 AM
On 2002-02-05 09:40, Patience wrote:
Any city that has morons burning things & destroying property can't claim to have the best celebration of anything.


What exactly are you talking about? Seeing as that didn't happen in Boston, I am just curious what city you are talking about?

Anonymous
02-07-2002, 03:37 PM
Unfortunately, a car was flipped over on Landsdown Street (in Boston) and some trash cans were set on fire. But, don't judge a city by a few idiots. With the exception of these incidents, the evening was peaceful (well, as long as you don't count the shouts of joy!)

No problems at the rally on Tuesday.

Patience
02-07-2002, 04:05 PM
when I made the comment I had just heard (either radio or TV news) that there was a lot of damage and burning of furniture at the University of Mass in superbowl celebration.

I haven't been able to find a written confirmation though.

Drzy
02-07-2002, 04:43 PM
Such a shame....

When St. Louis won the Super Bowl two years ago, there was not *one* report of any damage whatsoever. At least I can take comfort in knowing I live in a classier area. :razz:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Drz on 2002-02-07 15:44 ]</font>

urysohn
02-07-2002, 05:04 PM
Not sure about UMass, but a bunch of students at the University of New Hampshire decided not to keep the celebrations indoors. The "festivities" included dragging a couple mattresses out to the street and setting them on fire. A bunch of people were involved and two people were arrested.
But, really, it's an odd year when a group of UNH students _don't_ end up having bonfires in the street for one reason or another. It's been happening at least once a year for the past 5 years or so.

Pseudolus
02-07-2002, 05:17 PM
On 2002-02-07 16:04, urysohn wrote:

But, really, it's an odd year when a group of UNH students _don't_ end up having bonfires in the street for one reason or another. It's been happening at least once a year for the past 5 years or so.


Really, what else are you going to do in NH?

"Dude, the cable's out."

"Umm... wanna go set a mattress on fire?"

"Umm... OK."

toomuchtime
02-08-2002, 10:55 AM
On 2002-02-07 15:43, Drz wrote:
Such a shame....

When St. Louis won the Super Bowl two years ago, there was not *one* report of any damage whatsoever. At least I can take comfort in knowing I live in a classier area. :razz:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Drz on 2002-02-07 15:44 ]</font>


Real classy, like how they showed so much support for the team after they lost the Super Bowl....

Yeah, maybe there were some drunken idiots after the game, but it would probably be better to judge the 1.25 million who came for the parade and didn't cause trouble, besides a little yelling...

Drzy
02-08-2002, 11:00 AM
:smile: I'm just giving the Patriot fans trouble... Boston is a little higher on the sports-violence scale than St. Louis, but then so is every other major city. At least you're not New York. :wink:

Patience
02-08-2002, 11:19 AM
On 2002-02-08 10:00, Drz wrote:
At least you're not New York.


Please name one incident of major NY violence after a sporting event.

Abducens
02-08-2002, 12:01 PM
Chargers @ Giants. Oh wait, that was during. Doesn't count.

quentin cassidy
02-08-2002, 01:37 PM
there's no reason to single out NYC (or NJ). what about those 2 NFL games this year where they had to delay the game b/c the fans were pelting the refs with beer bottles for bad calls. i think it may have been in cleveland and new orleans, but i'm not sure.

i think philly probably has the roughest fans. i've heard stories about throwing batteries at their own players.

Abducens
02-08-2002, 02:36 PM
Philly's idiotic fans keeps getting brought up by the NY Media so NY can feel better about their idiotic fans.

That's the only reason you hear such horror stories like Santa & batteries over and over but Chargers @ Giants barely even happened.

Kid Rock
02-08-2002, 03:53 PM
Denver had a couple got title related riots didn't they.

Montreal has torn apart St. Catherine more than once for Habs titles as well as the Guns 'n Roses fiasco after the explosion that burned Mr. Hatfield from Metallica.

toomuchtime
02-08-2002, 05:15 PM
On 2002-02-08 10:00, Drz wrote:
At least you're not New York. :wink:


Thank god