alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots?hl=enalt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Ben is Dilfer, but with longer tenure. - 13 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/5292f853724bc0b5?hl=en
* It's Not "Black Guy Pees" It's The "Black Eyed Peas"!!! - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/0562d55959fe63da?hl=en
* Michael Moore - Greedy Capitalist!!! - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/cc66d131de82c7cb?hl=en
* Pats Favored to won SB 46. - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/8e45d78e388c8cb0?hl=en
* First annual Ben Roethlisberger rape pool. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/77d45177d4303076?hl=en
* OT The future - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/9418a915c0061112?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ben is Dilfer, but with longer tenure.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/5292f853724bc0b5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 8 2011 8:51 pm
From: mtfester@netscape.net
In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers Grinch <oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:29?pm, mtfes...@netscape.net wrote:
> > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With the loss to the Packers, Roethlisberger's 10-3 in the playoffs.
> > Dilfer (surprisingly) was 5-1. Dilfer went to a team coming off
> > 13 consecutive losing seasons; 3 of the next 5, they had winning records.
> > Ben went to a team coming off a single losing sesaon in the previous 3.
> > Roethlisberger's better; he simply isn't the big game QB he's been
> > (or was) made out to be.
> Few supposed big game QBs are. Before Joe Montana famously won the
> big game by throwing "the catch" he threw three picks to damn near
> lose it.
However, his playoff rating is about the same as his regular season
rating, and his SB QB rating is higher. Roethlisberger's playoff
QB rating is much lower than his regular season rating, and his
SB rating is decidedly poor.
As for "the catch" game, yeah, Montana got lucky on two accounts. The
team was able to overcome his INTs in that game, and White had enough
time to mount a comeback, but threw a game-ending pick himself. But
again, on balance, Montana was as good in the playoffs (actually, a
tiny bit better) than in the regular season.
> Here are Big Ben's playoff performances compared to his
> contemporaries' in some detail:
> http://footballoutsiders.com/quick-reads/2011/quick-reads-super-bowl-xlv
Yes, I saw that; they pretty much agree that "Big Game Ben" is more
feather than chicken.
"The truth is that it's not totally clear why Ben Roethlisberger deserves
such a reputation in the first place. A closer look at his play in big
games suggests that Roethlisberger's actual performance isn't all that
it's been purported to be."
Which is what I've said all along.
> And here's a heck of lot more detail:
> http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=8700
I pulled most of the info below from that site. Thanks for the blog.
However, his comparisons are a bit off. He states
"You can start to see why some teams have reached multiple Super Bowls
with their offense's production. Troy Aikman and Ben Roethlisberger may
not be known for leading regular season offensive juggernauts, but in the
playoffs, they are among the best ever at putting points on the board."
This is wrong. The Aikman-led offenses were in fact among the best in the
NFL, ranking 3, 2, and 2 in the SB years, and 2 and 7 other seasons. As for
Roethlisberger, I've already mentioned he's been directly responsible for
surrendering immediate scores in 6 different games. That's among the worst
ever. And they mention that Ben has been the benificiary of among the best
starting field position. Again, a credit to the PGH defense.
Ben's been able to keep the team in the playoff hunt, which is not to
be sneezed at, but I haven't yet seen him really elevate a team in
the playoffs.
Again, credit to the Steelers' defense (and coaches). That's a nice
position to be in.
Mike
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 1:28 am
From: "mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net"
6 wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:27 am, mtfes...@netscape.net wrote:
> > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > X-No-Archive: Yes
> > > > > Name the receivers Dilfer had to throw to?
> >
> > > > The name Shannon Sharpe comes to mind.
> > > He passed the ball?
> >
> > FWIW, Dilfer has a better QB rating in the Super Bowl than Ben.
>
> OK, that's one game. Go on.
He's also got a better playoff rating than Ben.
Mike
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 1:33 am
From: "mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net"
John C TX wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 7, 2:46 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Feb 7, 2:02 pm, 6 <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 7, 1:31 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Really, he was blessed to be on a team with a stout Def.
> > > > > > __________________
> >
> > > > > You're out of your mind.
> >
> > > > > Dilfer put up less yards than Ben while playing in more games, his
> > > > > career comp % is 55.5 as compared to Ben's 63.1, Ben smokes him in avg
> > > > > yds per attempt 8.0 to 6.5 ... and the list goes on.
> >
> > > > > Ben is to Bradshaw as Dilfer is to Neil O'Donnell.
> >
> > > > Name the receivers Dilfer had to throw to? Dilfer didn't have a 34
> > > > QB, in his SB rating like Ben did in the Seattle SB.
> > > > Plus, Dilfer was throwing prior to the Rule changes that the Cry Baby
> > > > Polian demanded.
> >
> > > > Again, both were blessed to be on a teams with a stout Defs.
> >
> > > I can see if your point is Rothliesberger is over-rated, but comparing
> > > him with Dilfer is laughable. Dilfer was released the next year by the
> > > Ravens if i remember correctly.
> >
> > JMHO, but the point was that a great D allows a less than spectacular
> > QB a chance at a championship. e.g., it's the team around you that
> > determines success. Pitt has had a history of acquiring an incredible
> > amount of talent.
> >
> > Dilfer was 7-1 as a starter for the Ravens and won 4 playoff games on
> > the road. The next season he played with Seattle, going 4-0 and
> > setting a personal career QB rating mark.
> > Even if Ben is better than Dilfer, Dilfer accomplished what Ben Did,
> > in better fashion, with a good Def team.
>
> JMHO but that is just an idiotic opinion. How many regular season
> games & playoff games has Ben won?
Your question should be how many games did Ben win after the PGH
defense bailed him out?
> How many people said Dilfer is the man you want with the ball with 2 minutes to go?
The problem is that Dilfer didn't play as many games with a good team
as Ben has.
> I hope you are trolling on this one.
The stats back up what we are saying.
Mike
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 4:47 am
From: Husky
On Feb 8, 9:23 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Feb 7, 2:46 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 2:02 pm, 6 <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 7, 1:31 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Really, he was blessed to be on a team with a stout Def.
> > > > > > __________________
>
> > > > > You're out of your mind.
>
> > > > > Dilfer put up less yards than Ben while playing in more games, his
> > > > > career comp % is 55.5 as compared to Ben's 63.1, Ben smokes him in avg
> > > > > yds per attempt 8.0 to 6.5 ... and the list goes on.
>
> > > > > Ben is to Bradshaw as Dilfer is to Neil O'Donnell.
>
> > > > Name the receivers Dilfer had to throw to? Dilfer didn't have a 34
> > > > QB, in his SB rating like Ben did in the Seattle SB.
> > > > Plus, Dilfer was throwing prior to the Rule changes that the Cry Baby
> > > > Polian demanded.
>
> > > > Again, both were blessed to be on a teams with a stout Defs.
>
> > > I can see if your point is Rothliesberger is over-rated, but comparing
> > > him with Dilfer is laughable. Dilfer was released the next year by the
> > > Ravens if i remember correctly.
>
> > JMHO, but the point was that a great D allows a less than spectacular
> > QB a chance at a championship. e.g., it's the team around you that
> > determines success. Pitt has had a history of acquiring an incredible
> > amount of talent.
>
> > Dilfer was 7-1 as a starter for the Ravens and won 4 playoff games on
> > the road. The next season he played with Seattle, going 4-0 and
> > setting a personal career QB rating mark.
> > Even if Ben is better than Dilfer, Dilfer accomplished what Ben Did,
> > in better fashion, with a good Def team.
>
> JMHO but that is just an idiotic opinion. How many regular season
> games & playoff games has Ben won? How many people said Dilfer is the
> man you want with the ball with 2 minutes to go? I hope you are
> trolling on this one.
Trolling, NO. So what happened on that last drive, Sunday? That was
the exact scenario where you implied he shines. No Santonio, no
miracle. Remember teams put up over 50 pts on that Cardinal team, yet
Ben struggled needing divine intervention (Harrisons pic for a TD when
The Cards were driving for a score) and Holmes circus catch There's
no time machine, but again JMHO, if Dilfer was in the exact situation
Ben was in, the Steelers would have accomplished the same results.
How'd the back up QBs perform during Bens suspension and in other
games he didn't start? HOF'ers like Batch and Dixon.
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 5:50 am
From: John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
> > > FWIW, Dilfer has a better QB rating in the Super Bowl than Ben.
> > Mike, you are right but it isn't close if you compare that same number
> > to total play off games and there is a bigger spread if you compare
> > regular season. Do you honestly think they are even close in skill?
>
> With the loss to the Packers, Roethlisberger's 10-3 in the playoffs.
> Dilfer (surprisingly) was 5-1. Dilfer went to a team coming off
> 13 consecutive losing seasons; 3 of the next 5, they had winning records.
> Ben went to a team coming off a single losing sesaon in the previous 3.
Dilfer won 4 of those games in the Super Bowl run . Dilfer was also a
veteran although he was certainly viewed as a bust with Tampa butI
will give him his due. He performed for the Ravens & did what they
needed.
>
> Roethlisberger's better; he simply isn't the big game QB he's been
> (or was) made out to be. He was put immediately into a better situation,
> though. He's a "right place, right time" QB (like Bob Griese, for instance)
> and that's not bad, but I wouldn't put him in the elite category; Polomalu's
> more important.
The right place and right time could be said of most QB's. Rogers was
put in the right situation as there was no pressure to grow up. Brady
got thrown into a situation where every playoff game where he was
playing on house money.
How do you define elite? If it is top 5 I would be hard pressed not
to choose him. He does some stupid things but he often delivers
>
> Look at it this way; O'Donnell was terrible in the '95 SB. He threw
> 3 INTs, had one TD pass, completed 57% of his passes that game. Ben's
> 1st SB? 0 TDs, 2 INTs, 43% completion. Yet Roethlisberger is a "winner"
> because his defense overcame his mistakes. He's directly
> accounted for 4 pick-6s, a fumble for a TD, and a safety in the playoffs.
Stop using logic in here.
:)
Ben R also had a great running game. I think it is unfair to players
to focus soley on Super Bowl. BR has had some very good play off
games and he has the ability to move his team & score when they need
it. He has had two bad Super Bowls but hehas played some great play
off football.
>
> That's not good. In fact, in 6 of his 13 playoff games he's thrown as
> many (or more) INTs as TDs. The Steelers are 4-2 in those games, but
> that's a credit to the defense, not a testimony to Roethlisberger's
> "clutch" performance.
Go look at those play off games you referenced. You have to give him
credit for getting the Steelers past the Jets. At the end of the game
he got then 2 critical 1st downs. How about the Super Bowl vs.
Arizona? Where wash is defense in that one?
>
> > If all we looked at was ratings to rank QB's in the Super Bowl then
> > Doug Williams would be ranked higher than Brady.
>
> Williams is probably the wrong example. He was the ONLY reason the
> Bucs had winning seasons in their first 22. They won a total of
> 2 games before he got there. They had 3 winning seasons in the next
> 5, then none for another 14 years. THAT guy was a winner, and very
> underrated.
>
> If the Packer had had Williams in the 80s, they wouldn't have been a lost
> decade for us.
My point was you wouldn't say that Williams was a better Super Bowl QB
than Brady because of one game. I liked Williams & thought he got a
raw deal in Tampa. Part of it was his skin color-- which still is a
fallback for some idiots-- and part of it was the QB gets too much
credit, maybe Ben R & maybe even Rodgers, & gets too much blame.
>
> Mike
Thanks for the posts. I think Ben R for all his failings is a
winner. MZ, may be right & Dilfer was the right guy & that was his
year. I guess all his bad years clouds my memory and lowers my
opinion. I was shocked at how he did have some good years in Tampa.
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 5:52 am
From: John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 2:46 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 7, 2:02 pm, 6 <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 7, 1:31 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Really, he was blessed to be on a team with a stout Def.
> > > > > > > __________________
>
> > > > > > You're out of your mind.
>
> > > > > > Dilfer put up less yards than Ben while playing in more games, his
> > > > > > career comp % is 55.5 as compared to Ben's 63.1, Ben smokes him in avg
> > > > > > yds per attempt 8.0 to 6.5 ... and the list goes on.
>
> > > > > > Ben is to Bradshaw as Dilfer is to Neil O'Donnell.
>
> > > > > Name the receivers Dilfer had to throw to? Dilfer didn't have a 34
> > > > > QB, in his SB rating like Ben did in the Seattle SB.
> > > > > Plus, Dilfer was throwing prior to the Rule changes that the Cry Baby
> > > > > Polian demanded.
>
> > > > > Again, both were blessed to be on a teams with a stout Defs.
>
> > > > I can see if your point is Rothliesberger is over-rated, but comparing
> > > > him with Dilfer is laughable. Dilfer was released the next year by the
> > > > Ravens if i remember correctly.
>
> > > JMHO, but the point was that a great D allows a less than spectacular
> > > QB a chance at a championship. e.g., it's the team around you that
> > > determines success. Pitt has had a history of acquiring an incredible
> > > amount of talent.
>
> > > Dilfer was 7-1 as a starter for the Ravens and won 4 playoff games on
> > > the road. The next season he played with Seattle, going 4-0 and
> > > setting a personal career QB rating mark.
> > > Even if Ben is better than Dilfer, Dilfer accomplished what Ben Did,
> > > in better fashion, with a good Def team.
>
> > JMHO but that is just an idiotic opinion. How many regular season
> > games & playoff games has Ben won?
>
> Your question should be how many games did Ben win after the PGH
> defense bailed him out?
>
> > How many people said Dilfer is the man you want with the ball with 2 minutes to go?
>
> The problem is that Dilfer didn't play as many games with a good team
> as Ben has.
>
> > I hope you are trolling on this one.
>
> The stats back up what we are saying.
>
> Mike
Only if you are limiting your analysis to the Super Bowl and ignoring
regular season & playoffs.
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 5:59 am
From: John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
> Trolling, NO. So what happened on that last drive, Sunday? That was
> the exact scenario where you implied he shines. No Santonio, no
> miracle. Remember teams put up over 50 pts on that Cardinal team, yet
> Ben struggled needing divine intervention (Harrisons pic for a TD when
> The Cards were driving for a score) and Holmes circus catch There's
> no time machine, but again JMHO, if Dilfer was in the exact situation
> Ben was in, the Steelers would have accomplished the same results.
I don't think so. The fact the Ravens let him go and he never started
regularly again tells me that the league though t the same. You are
stretching on this one.
>
> How'd the back up QBs perform during Bens suspension and in other
> games he didn't start? HOF'ers like Batch and Dixon.
Using that logic Tom Brady could be replaced with Dilfer. The Pats
made the play offs with Cassel
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 6:09 am
From: Husky
On Feb 9, 8:59 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > Trolling, NO. So what happened on that last drive, Sunday? That was
> > the exact scenario where you implied he shines. No Santonio, no
> > miracle. Remember teams put up over 50 pts on that Cardinal team, yet
> > Ben struggled needing divine intervention (Harrisons pic for a TD when
> > The Cards were driving for a score) and Holmes circus catch There's
> > no time machine, but again JMHO, if Dilfer was in the exact situation
> > Ben was in, the Steelers would have accomplished the same results.
>
> I don't think so. The fact the Ravens let him go and he never started
> regularly again tells me that the league though t the same. You are
> stretching on this one.
>
>
>
> > How'd the back up QBs perform during Bens suspension and in other
> > games he didn't start? HOF'ers like Batch and Dixon.
>
> Using that logic Tom Brady could be replaced with Dilfer. The Pats
> made the play offs with Cassel
No, the Pats didn't make the Playoffs with Cassel.
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 6:55 am
From: John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > Trolling, NO. So what happened on that last drive, Sunday? That was
> > > the exact scenario where you implied he shines. No Santonio, no
> > > miracle. Remember teams put up over 50 pts on that Cardinal team, yet
> > > Ben struggled needing divine intervention (Harrisons pic for a TD when
> > > The Cards were driving for a score) and Holmes circus catch There's
> > > no time machine, but again JMHO, if Dilfer was in the exact situation
> > > Ben was in, the Steelers would have accomplished the same results.
>
> > I don't think so. The fact the Ravens let him go and he never started
> > regularly again tells me that the league though t the same. You are
> > stretching on this one.
>
> > > How'd the back up QBs perform during Bens suspension and in other
> > > games he didn't start? HOF'ers like Batch and Dixon.
>
> > Using that logic Tom Brady could be replaced with Dilfer. The Pats
> > made the play offs with Cassel
>
> No, the Pats didn't make the Playoffs with Cassel.
I stand corrected the Pats went 11-5 with a guy who wasn't good enough
to play in college as opposed to the fact the Steelers went 3-1.
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 7:36 am
From: Husky
On Feb 9, 9:55 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Trolling, NO. So what happened on that last drive, Sunday? That was
> > > > the exact scenario where you implied he shines. No Santonio, no
> > > > miracle. Remember teams put up over 50 pts on that Cardinal team, yet
> > > > Ben struggled needing divine intervention (Harrisons pic for a TD when
> > > > The Cards were driving for a score) and Holmes circus catch There's
> > > > no time machine, but again JMHO, if Dilfer was in the exact situation
> > > > Ben was in, the Steelers would have accomplished the same results.
>
> > > I don't think so. The fact the Ravens let him go and he never started
> > > regularly again tells me that the league though t the same. You are
> > > stretching on this one.
>
> > > > How'd the back up QBs perform during Bens suspension and in other
> > > > games he didn't start? HOF'ers like Batch and Dixon.
>
> > > Using that logic Tom Brady could be replaced with Dilfer. The Pats
> > > made the play offs with Cassel
>
> > No, the Pats didn't make the Playoffs with Cassel.
>
> I stand corrected the Pats went 11-5 with a guy who wasn't good enough
> to play in college as opposed to the fact the Steelers went 3-1.
Yes, you stand corrected, twice. (There were no steroids either)
Maybe Cassel didn't get a chance in college instead of not being good
enough to play. In any event, KC thought he was good enough to burden
him with a ton of cash. The Pats have a knack for finding obscure
QB's and turning them into stars.
So, 3-1 converts to 12-4 for the regular season. What was the
Steeler's record for the season, again?
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 9:44 am
From: John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
> > I stand corrected the Pats went 11-5 with a guy who wasn't good enough
> > to play in college as opposed to the fact the Steelers went 3-1.
>
> Yes, you stand corrected, twice. (There were no steroids either)
Read my post again and tell me where I said he tested positive for
steroids. He tested positive for a banned substance which is
correct. He didn't challenge the suspension so that means at best he
was using a Schedule II controlled substance w/o a script and at worst
he was using it as a masking agent. I wonder how he would come back
next year like I would for any player using a performance enhancing
drug . It isn't a big leap to wonder if he was using steroids.
> Maybe Cassel didn't get a chance in college instead of not being good
> enough to play. In any event, KC thought he was good enough to burden
> him with a ton of cash. The Pats have a knack for finding obscure
> QB's and turning them into stars.
So Cassel is a star now?
> So, 3-1 converts to 12-4 for the regular season. What was the
> Steeler's record for the season, again?
It was 12-4 obviously a dramatic difference from11-5.
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 12:21 pm
From: Husky
On Feb 9, 12:44 pm, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > I stand corrected the Pats went 11-5 with a guy who wasn't good enough
> > > to play in college as opposed to the fact the Steelers went 3-1.
>
> > Yes, you stand corrected, twice. (There were no steroids either)
>
> Read my post again and tell me where I said he tested positive for
> steroids.
What you said, was "You are forgetting Spikes who could be a player
but the failed drug
test is always scary. Is it him or is it steroids. " You brought
Steroids into the conversation, not I.
> He tested positive for a banned substance which is
> correct. He didn't challenge the suspension so that means at best he
> was using a Schedule II controlled substance w/o a script and at worst
> he was using it as a masking agent. I wonder how he would come back
> next year like I would for any player using a performance enhancing
> drug . It isn't a big leap to wonder if he was using steroids.
Wow that's one hell of a strawman arguement you pulled out of your
butt. As they didn't find steroids in his system, it is a huge leap
to wonder that.
>
> > Maybe Cassel didn't get a chance in college instead of not being good
> > enough to play. In any event, KC thought he was good enough to burden
> > him with a ton of cash. The Pats have a knack for finding obscure
> > QB's and turning them into stars.
>
> So Cassel is a star now?
Well he made the Pro Bowl. In any event KC thought so judging by how
much they paid him.
>
> > So, 3-1 converts to 12-4 for the regular season. What was the
> > Steeler's record for the season, again?
>
> It was 12-4 obviously a dramatic difference from11-5.
Just saying the Pitt Back ups did as well as Ben, percentage wise.
As we were comparing QBs on the same teams;
11-5 and is a dramatic difference from 16-0.
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 2:42 pm
From: John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > I stand corrected the Pats went 11-5 with a guy who wasn't good enough
> > > > to play in college as opposed to the fact the Steelers went 3-1.
>
> > > Yes, you stand corrected, twice. (There were no steroids either)
>
> > Read my post again and tell me where I said he tested positive for
> > steroids.
>
> What you said, was "You are forgetting Spikes who could be a player
> but the failed drug
> test is always scary. Is it him or is it steroids. " You brought
> Steroids into the conversation, not I.
Yes, when someone uses a masking agent I would wonder. If he tested
low on an IQ test I would wonder if he was rrelated to you.
> > He tested positive for a banned substance which is
> > correct. He didn't challenge the suspension so that means at best he
> > was using a Schedule II controlled substance w/o a script and at worst
> > he was using it as a masking agent. I wonder how he would come back
> > next year like I would for any player using a performance enhancing
> > drug . It isn't a big leap to wonder if he was using steroids.
>
> Wow that's one hell of a strawman arguement you pulled out of your
> butt. As they didn't find steroids in his system, it is a huge leap
> to wonder that.
What straw man argument are you talking about? All I did was explain
why I would wonder if he was any good. You haven't been around for
awhile but you use that term too often and regularly incorrectly.
Please explain to me why he had a masking agent -- btw he could have
been using it to mask pot, why he had an illegal drug in his system
and why he didn't appeal. Then you can tell me that my conclusion
requires a big leap.
>
> > > Maybe Cassel didn't get a chance in college instead of not being good
> > > enough to play. In any event, KC thought he was good enough to burden
> > > him with a ton of cash. The Pats have a knack for finding obscure
> > > QB's and turning them into stars.
>
> > So Cassel is a star now?
>
> Well he made the Pro Bowl. In any event KC thought so judging by how
> much they paid him.
I think MZ covered that.
>
> > > So, 3-1 converts to 12-4 for the regular season. What was the
> > > Steeler's record for the season, again?
>
> > It was 12-4 obviously a dramatic difference from11-5.
>
> Just saying the Pitt Back ups did as well as Ben, percentage wise.
> As we were comparing QBs on the same teams;
> 11-5 and is a dramatic difference from 16-0.
And I am just saying comparing BR to Dilfer is still idiotic. Five
years into the league few people wanted Dilfer. Six years into the
league and one Super Bowl ring he was signed as a back up. After a few
possible rapes how many teams wouldn't take Rothlessberger?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's Not "Black Guy Pees" It's The "Black Eyed Peas"!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/0562d55959fe63da?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 1:28 am
From: N
On Feb 9, 8:08 am, "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu"
<foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:28 pm, "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu"
>
> <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why the hell did not anyone let me know this??? Don't you think this
> > is some information I would have liked to have had??
>
> > I mean seriously!!!
>
> > mr dude (pissed!)
>
> I really feel that this newsgroup has dropped the ball on this one.
>
> I thought Massachusetts was up to date on current news. I guess I was
> wrong.
>
> mr dude
You should have Googled in your moment of confusion. Ignorance of the
internet will not win you any sympathy.
In all fairness, there is good reason for your confusion, though:
http://www.google.com/search?name=f&hl=en&q=black+guy+pees
Despite that, I still feel you could have, at the very least,
addressed a fellow passerby on the street "Good Sir, will you be kind
enough to let me know why a certain perverse act is being allowed to
be performed during the Superb Owl half time festivities?" and that
gentleman would have surely clarified matters for you. I know I would
have.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Michael Moore - Greedy Capitalist!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/cc66d131de82c7cb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 4:02 am
From: Polarhound
Why should Moore care about making money? He told all of us that
Capitalism is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil and a failure!
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-24/entertainment/lkl.michael.moore_1_michael-moore-capitalism-films?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ
King: Are you saying capitalism is a failure?
Moore: Yes. Capitalism. Yes. Well, I don't have to say it. Capitalism,
in the last year, has proven that it's failed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/06/us-venice-capitalism-idUSTRE5850F320090906
(Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. documentary
maker Michael Moore comes to in his latest movie "Capitalism: A Love
Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival Sunday.
Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive
footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an all out attack
on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns
millions to poverty.
"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour
movie concludes.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 11:54 am
From: ZZ@gmail.com
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 18:54:51 -0800 (PST), CalC
<calcarpenter1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Of course in the contract when buying from Disney the Weinsteins
>agreed to pay 60% of net profits they receive to charity... whereas
>Moore has agreed to spend 50% at all you can eat buffets.
What is your source? Your *ss?
.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 11:57 am
From: ZZH770@yahoo.com
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 19:13:16 -0800 (PST), "mr
dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote:
>And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out
>that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood.
Of course the conservatives will donate blood to the Red Cross.
The Red Cross will then turn around and sell that blood for $89
a pint.
Think about that the next time you donate blood.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pats Favored to won SB 46.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/8e45d78e388c8cb0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 4:59 am
From: iarwain
Maybe the Packers should just not bother to carry a running back.
What did they have, like 11 rushing plays in the Super Bowl?
One of the announcers noted the lack of balance and said something
like "That doesn't sound like Mike McCarthy?".
I thought has this guy watched any Packer games before the playoffs
started?
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 5:49 am
From: Husky
On Feb 8, 9:49 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> You are forgetting Spikes who could be a player but the failed drug
> test is always scary. Is it him or is it steroids.
Spikes wasn't caught taking steroids. He was taking A.D.H.D. meds w/o
clearance.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 6:07 am
From: John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
> > You are forgetting Spikes who could be a player but the failed drug
> > test is always scary. Is it him or is it steroids.
>
> Spikes wasn't caught taking steroids. He was taking A.D.H.D. meds w/o
> clearance.
I believe there are two reasons those drugs are banned. One is for the
advantage an amphetamine offers and the other reason is because it is
a masking agent.
Also the NCAA allows a player who fails a drug test with a
prescription drug to show proof after the fact but only if it was
prescribed. I imagine the NFL allows the same recourse. Why didn't
he appeal?
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 6:10 am
From: John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers Packer fan <medva...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > "iarwain" <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:0b697423-d3a5-49da-8867-10bcb8dfe287@y35g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> > >I was watching ESPN this morning and saw something similar.
> > > Although I believe the odds I saw were 10-1 NE, 11-1 GB.
> > > They implied some of this was due to the Pats having two draft picks
> > > in each of the first three rounds.
> >Those draft picks aren't going to make much difference right away
> >(rookies)
>
> Tell that to Starks and Bulaga. And Burnett and Neal might have helped
> a bit. Plus Zombo and Shields played their part.
>
> But I like Thompson's chances of picking up another contributor. Polian
> helped Belichick quite a bit, and in their case, 2 heads were better than
> one.
>
> Mike
See, the Pats are at it again. They were using Bill Polian to help
with their draft. Do they have any shame & why are the Colts helping
the Patriots?
I assume you meant Pioli. btw I think Belichik had a great draft last
year w/o Pioli.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 6:19 am
From: mtfester@netscape.net
In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers iarwain <iarwain_8@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe the Packers should just not bother to carry a running back.
> What did they have, like 11 rushing plays in the Super Bowl?
> One of the announcers noted the lack of balance and said something
> like "That doesn't sound like Mike McCarthy?".
> I thought has this guy watched any Packer games before the playoffs
> started?
Yeah, that was funny.
The only thing I liked (other than the win, of course) was that even if
they didn't call a run, they at least had a back in there to pick up
the blitz or act as an outlet receiver. Not much empty backfield.
Mike
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 6:24 am
From: Husky
On Feb 9, 9:07 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > You are forgetting Spikes who could be a player but the failed drug
> > > test is always scary. Is it him or is it steroids.
>
> > Spikes wasn't caught taking steroids. He was taking A.D.H.D. meds w/o
> > clearance.
>
> I believe there are two reasons those drugs are banned. One is for the
> advantage an amphetamine offers and the other reason is because it is
> a masking agent.
>
> Also the NCAA allows a player who fails a drug test with a
> prescription drug to show proof after the fact but only if it was
> prescribed. I imagine the NFL allows the same recourse. Why didn't
> he appeal?
Again, it wasn't steroids. To answer your question, I'll link you to
his statement. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/10/patriots-brandon-spikes-suspended-four-games/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: First annual Ben Roethlisberger rape pool.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/77d45177d4303076?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 8:47 am
From: Howard Dean
Announcing the inaugural Ben Roethlisberger rape pool.
We all know Ben is a rapist. A rapist who has managed to slide under the
scales of justice without paying the scalemasters too many times.
Rapists never change. Their behavior cannot be cured by therapy or
imprisonment. The only thing that stops them is a hemp necktie or a lead
suppository.
Ben Roethlisberger will rape again. It's a just a question of who, when
and where.
Q1: When will Ben rape again? Please specify date.
A:
Q2: Where will Ben rape again? Please specify city and state.
A:
Q3: Who will Ben rape again? Suitable answers would be waitress,
cocktail girl, airline hostess, Hines Ward or any other general category.
A:
Winners of the pool will have eternal bragging rights for having pegged
Ben Roethlisberger and participated in the inaugural event.
Please free free to crosspost this pool to any group where you feel it may
be of interest, but always include the steelers group so results can be
compiled.
Thank you, and good luck!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT The future
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/9418a915c0061112?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 9 2011 12:35 pm
From: DW
Lets join Dr. Who as he travels to the future:.
Our first stop is 2013, Sarah Palin has been president for
one full year now.
The first thing we see is massive demonstrations. People are
angry and protesting her unpopular war. Seems that six months
earlier she declared war to protect our "ally", North Korea.
To make matters worse she has instituted a draft.
The demonstrations against the war are so violent,
that unemployment has skyrocketed to 75%,.
millions of people have been laid off, and millions
of businesses are going under.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
