Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]BUT IF YOU TOOK OUT JOE MONTANA AND STEVE YOUNG THEN THE NINERS WOULD HAVE WON 0 SUPER BOWLS. THEN TIME WUD EXPLODE DAJSJAD:JAJLK Case in point: Lets remove every player from every other team except _____.
    Posted by nepatsfan523[/QUOTE]
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    But the Niners 4 wins were by a total of 76 points (19 per game vs pats 3 pts per game) - way different - Pats won in the waning minutes each time because they had a remarkable kicker, not remarkable teams.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    Yea Yea and if Norwood isnt wide right then the Bills have a Super Bowl and maybe Parcells not so great a coach.

    If there is no imaculate reception by Harris the Stealers dont have a SB victory that year.

    The margin between winning a SB and not is razor thin every year.  It may not happen in the SB but at some point in the season.

    Hell if manning completes the pass to Harrison they win the SB last year.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from schwank. Show schwank's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    Then be more clear about your point
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    There are a whole group of fans who wished their team had won at least ONE SB by at least ONE point and you are crying about the Pats winning their three by only an average of 3 points?  How about making this case to the Buffalo Bills' fans and see how much sympathy they'll give you!!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    The logic is this:  The Pats were never a dynasty, as so many have claimed.  They won 3 Super Bowl over 4 years, but edged out each win by a total of exactly 3 points each.

    3 wins over 4 seasons is not a dynasty.  The Celtics were a dynasty in the 60's.  The won 11 titles in 13 years, and continued to win 6 of the next 20 years, maintaining their status as one of the premier teams in the NBA.  The PAts on the other hand have won 3 titles in 50 years.  During that time there were an average of about 25 teams.  So the odds of any team winning are 1 out of 25 or 4%.  The Pats won 3 times in 51 years or 5.8% of the time.  They are a good franchise....but have never have been a dynasty or even close.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brad34. Show Brad34's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    Rubbish. Their D was great in those years and had just as much to do with it. Players like Bruschi,Harrison,Mcginiest,Law,Ted Johnson,Vrabel were all great and could be relied on to stop powerhouse offenses when needed. Then you had Brady who put them in position to win.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]Pats have great regular seasonrecords but are not a great playoff team and never have been.  Without Vinatieri they would be 0 wins and 6 losses in the super bowl.
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]


    As a fellow JESTS! troll told me "SCOREBOARD". Doesn't mater what happened, as long as your team wins. Right? Now, I'm sure that even with your grossly inferior intellect, you'd know that Adam V did nothing other than kick a ball. He did not run the ball, catch the ball, throw the ball, or keep the guys on the other team from doing the same.  Didn't Mommy or the milkman tell you that this is how the game works? Your team scors more points than the other team doesn and you'll win.

    Somehow I believe that your overworked solitary bain cell could somehow manage to figure that one out.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]The logic is this:  The Pats were never a dynasty, as so many have claimed.  They won 3 Super Bowl over 4 years, but edged out each win by a total of exactly 3 points each. 3 wins over 4 seasons is not a dynasty.  The Celtics were a dynasty in the 60's.  The won 11 titles in 13 years, and continued to win 6 of the next 20 years, maintaining their status as one of the premier teams in the NBA.  The PAts on the other hand have won 3 titles in 50 years.  During that time there were an average of about 25 teams.  So the odds of any team winning are 1 out of 25 or 4%.  The Pats won 3 times in 51 years or 5.8% of the time.  They are a good franchise....but have never have been a dynasty or even close.
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]

    Let's see...... and the JESTS! never were (Was 1969 a real year?), and the Giants were a three time "one and done" bunch. So much for maintaining success, right?

    Again, so what's your point? Winning the final NFL game in 3 of 4 years is "dynasty" stuff. Too bad nothing in NY can come close to that.

    Yes, jealousy still hurts you, huh? 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : Let's see...... and the JESTS! never were (Was 1969 a real year?), and the Giants were a three time "one and done" bunch. So much for maintaining success, right? Again, so what's your point? Winning the final NFL game in 3 of 4 years is "dynasty" stuff. Too bad nothing in NY can come close to that. Yes, jealousy still hurts you, huh? 
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]
    I am not a Jets fan at all.  Pretty indifferent to the Jets, actually I sort of dislike them.  Hard to like that team.  But seriously, go back and check each SB game the PAts played, in the first 2, AV hits from over 40 yards to provide the winning margin.  In the 3rd game, V has the last Pats score, though that actually put them up by 10 before the Eagglets scored a late TD.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : I am not a Jets fan at all.  Pretty indifferent to the Jets, actually I sort of dislike them.  Hard to like that team.  But seriously, go back and check each SB game the PAts played, in the first 2, AV hits from over 40 yards to provide the winning margin.  In the 3rd game, V has the last Pats score, though that actually put them up by 10 before the Eagglets scored a late TD.
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]
    By the way, the Giants have played in more NFL Title Games then any other team....I think 17 or 18 and won like 5, 6 or 7.  So you needs to check your facts my friend.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]The logic is this:  The Pats were never a dynasty, as so many have claimed.  They won 3 Super Bowl over 4 years, but edged out each win by a total of exactly 3 points each. 3 wins over 4 seasons is not a dynasty.  The Celtics were a dynasty in the 60's.  The won 11 titles in 13 years, and continued to win 6 of the next 20 years, maintaining their status as one of the premier teams in the NBA.  The PAts on the other hand have won 3 titles in 50 years.  During that time there were an average of about 25 teams.  So the odds of any team winning are 1 out of 25 or 4%.  The Pats won 3 times in 51 years or 5.8% of the time.  They are a good franchise....but have never have been a dynasty or even close.
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]

    Stupid AND a moron too! I'll bet your buddies on that little yellow bus must REALLY look up to you!

    Every team has a 4% chance to win teh Super Bowl? How long did it take you to come up with that using your Sesame St calculator? Seems to me that the oddsmakers in Vegas have a different take on that when they set the odds before the pre-season begins. Some teams have better odds at repeating than others. You see, Spanky, every team has a "chance" to win it, but when facing stronger/better teams, that chanced, albeit slim, go steadily downhill. Call me crazy, wild, and impetuous, but I'll believe teh oddsmakers before I will your "logic".

    You're lame computation assumes that every NFL team is "equal" to the others. You go tell that to the Panthers, Cardinals, Bills, and Bengals. Even THEY would laugh you out of town. Let's look at the JESTS!... 1 (you can count it on your right big toe... NO! you're "other" right big toe). Using your computation, that's @ 2% of teh time. Then there's the Giants, with 3 spead out titles, givingthem the same percentage as the Pats.

    BTW, the best if using your "25" teams, you should have done something called "research". 1970, POST merger, is the year to start determining your innane percentage. prior to that, the Pats played in the AFL only.  Now, the difference between 1970 and 2010 is... 40 years! (With being a victim of a public education in NY, and the child of union workers, I can see how easily this "40" becomes "50", until such time in teh futire it'll undoubtedly become "30" to fit your "logic".) 

    The only way your cockeyed numbers work is if you're trying to make a comparrison to the Yankmees. If that's the case, go to another board.  

    Proof that children should not be left unattended when a computer keyboard is nearby.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : I am not a Jets fan at all.  Pretty indifferent to the Jets, actually I sort of dislike them.  Hard to like that team.  But seriously, go back and check each SB game the PAts played, in the first 2, AV hits from over 40 yards to provide the winning margin.  In the 3rd game, V has the last Pats score, though that actually put them up by 10 before the Eagglets scored a late TD.
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]

    Poindexter, your "point" is mute. You fail to acknowledge how the ball got put into position for Adam V to even consider kicking it. Or, did a miracle happen? You know The Big Guy had money on the game, pre-determined what the score would be, and put the ball in THAT spot for Adam to kick it? Or, was there a "magical" ball in play? Again, I seem to recall in all 3 games a Patriot offense moving the ball into position for these kicks to be made. Maybe you missed that, eh?

    Oh, BTW, "kicking from the 42" has the line of scrimmage at the 30 yard line. Another fact Mommy didn't tell you? Gee, SOMEONE had to move teh ball to get a placement on the 30 yard line!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : By the way, the Giants have played in more NFL Title Games then any other team....I think 17 or 18 and won like 5, 6 or 7.  So you needs to check your facts my friend.
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]
    Moronman,

    You brought up "Super Bowls", which is the only comparrison that can be made. If you think otherwise, please tell us all the Patriots record vs the NFL in, say the 50's? How many AFL teams did the Giants beat to win their last championship BEFORE beating the Bills in 80's?

    Given enough rope, or their own idiotic "logic" trolls WILL hang themselves.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : Stupid AND a moron too! I'll bet your buddies on that little yellow bus must REALLY look up to you! Every team has a 4% chance to win teh Super Bowl? How long did it take you to come up with that using your Sesame St calculator? Seems to me that the oddsmakers in Vegas have a different take on that when they set the odds before the pre-season begins. Some teams have better odds at repeating than others. You see, Spanky, every team has a "chance" to win it, but when facing stronger/better teams, that chanced, albeit slim, go steadily downhill. Call me crazy, wild, and impetuous, but I'll believe teh oddsmakers before I will your "logic". You're lame computation assumes that every NFL team is "equal" to the others. You go tell that to the Panthers, Cardinals, Bills, and Bengals. Even THEY would laugh you out of town. Let's look at the JESTS!... 1 (you can count it on your right big toe... NO! you're "other" right big toe). Using your computation, that's @ 2% of teh time. Then there's the Giants, with 3 spead out titles, givingthem the same percentage as the Pats. BTW, the best if using your "25" teams, you should have done something called "research". 1970, POST merger, is the year to start determining your innane percentage. prior to that, the Pats played in the AFL only.  Now, the difference between 1970 and 2010 is... 40 years! (With being a victim of a public education in NY, and the child of union workers, I can see how easily this "40" becomes "50", until such time in teh futire it'll undoubtedly become "30" to fit your "logic".)  The only way your cockeyed numbers work is if you're trying to make a comparrison to the Yankmees. If that's the case, go to another board.   Proof that children should not be left unattended when a computer keyboard is nearby.
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]

    I will not insult your intelligence, as you have done mine...but you should not be so assured of your math my friend.  Between 1960 and 1969 is 10 seasons and there were about 10 teams in the AFL.  10 times 10 is 100.  Starting in 1970 there were 26 in the combined league.  Now there are 32.  The average over the last 41 years since 1970 is roughly 26 plus 32 divided by 2 equals 29.  And then 29 times 41=1189.  1189 plus 100 is 1289.  51 into 1289 is 25.27.

    PostScript- I assumed the odds were equal for each team to win, since the NFL does more than any other league to insure parity.  Besides reversing the draft order, as most other sports do, the NFL has merchandise and local media profit sharing and salary caps.  As if that is not enough, the league also adjusts the schedule by the reverse order of finish the previous year.  Imagine if that happened in baseball and the owners of the Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, etc -all deep in debt, were forced to play the best teams in the league allot more!  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : Moronman, You brought up "Super Bowls", which is the only comparrison that can be made. If you think otherwise, please tell us all the Patriots record vs the NFL in, say the 50's? How many AFL teams did the Giants beat to win their last championship BEFORE beating the Bills in 80's? Given enough rope, or their own idiotic "logic" trolls WILL hang themselves.
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]

    I agree with your point that it takes a full team to get them to the 30 yard line.  Well said.  But I do not agree you can ignore a franchises record before a merger.  Come on thats crazy!  If so, the Celtics have won only 4 or 5 championships, not 17????  Hey give the C's some respect my friend.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : Stupid AND a moron too! I'll bet your buddies on that little yellow bus must REALLY look up to you! Every team has a 4% chance to win teh Super Bowl? How long did it take you to come up with that using your Sesame St calculator? Seems to me that the oddsmakers in Vegas have a different take on that when they set the odds before the pre-season begins. Some teams have better odds at repeating than others. You see, Spanky, every team has a "chance" to win it, but when facing stronger/better teams, that chanced, albeit slim, go steadily downhill. Call me crazy, wild, and impetuous, but I'll believe teh oddsmakers before I will your "logic". You're lame computation assumes that every NFL team is "equal" to the others. You go tell that to the Panthers, Cardinals, Bills, and Bengals. Even THEY would laugh you out of town. Let's look at the JESTS!... 1 (you can count it on your right big toe... NO! you're "other" right big toe). Using your computation, that's @ 2% of teh time. Then there's the Giants, with 3 spead out titles, givingthem the same percentage as the Pats. BTW, the best if using your "25" teams, you should have done something called "research". 1970, POST merger, is the year to start determining your innane percentage. prior to that, the Pats played in the AFL only.  Now, the difference between 1970 and 2010 is... 40 years! (With being a victim of a public education in NY, and the child of union workers, I can see how easily this "40" becomes "50", until such time in teh futire it'll undoubtedly become "30" to fit your "logic".)  The only way your cockeyed numbers work is if you're trying to make a comparrison to the Yankmees. If that's the case, go to another board.   Proof that children should not be left unattended when a computer keyboard is nearby.
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]

    BTW, you may like to say I am stupid, but I will say you are merely uninformed.  For your information, the Cardinals have won 2 NFL Championships...1925 and 1947.  Exactly the same amount of World Series the Red Cocks have won in the same time frame!!!!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hayley-1999. Show hayley-1999's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    What are you like 14 years old?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : I will not insult your intelligence, as you have done mine...but you should not be so assured of your math my friend.  Between 1960 and 1969 is 10 seasons and there were about 10 teams in the AFL.  10 times 10 is 100.  Starting in 1970 there were 26 in the combined league.  Now there are 32.  The average over the last 41 years since 1970 is roughly 26 plus 32 divided by 2 equals 29.  And then 29 times 41=1189.  1189 plus 100 is 1289.  51 into 1289 is 25.27. PostScript- I assumed the odds were equal for each team to win, since the NFL does more than any other league to insure parity.  Besides reversing the draft order, as most other sports do, the NFL has merchandise and local media profit sharing and salary caps.  As if that is not enough, the league also adjusts the schedule by the reverse order of finish the previous year.  Imagine if that happened in baseball and the owners of the Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, etc -all deep in debt, were forced to play the best teams in the league allot more!  
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]

    I am not assuming that every team has an equal chance at the beginning of the season...far from it.  I am assuming that over 51 years those chances even out, especially in the NFL that does so much to even out the chances for each team.   Look at the small market Green Bay Packers - they are the most successful franchise in the history of the NFL in a city of 100,000 people,with 11 championships (the next teams are 7 championships).
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    Bottom line is that people keep track of Super Bowl rings, not points. Pats have three Super Bowl rings in last decade and another Super Bowl appearance. Am I disappointed in this year's performance? Sure. But I'm good. However you have the rotten soul of a troll. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]Bottom line is that people keep track of Super Bowl rings, not points. Pats have three Super Bowl rings in last decade and another Super Bowl appearance. Am I disappointed in this year's performance? Sure. But I'm good. However you have the rotten soul of a troll. 
    Posted by BostonTrollSpanker[/QUOTE]

    I have a good soul, its just important to keep things in deep perspective.  Too often the Boston media tells us every team in town will win this yeart and every few years they say this or that old town team is the best ever....it sells papers...but makes for allot of disappointment.

    In the words of a great Bostonian - "Facts are stubborn things" J. Adams
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BIGAPPLEORCHARD. Show BIGAPPLEORCHARD's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]Bottom line is that people keep track of Super Bowl rings, not points. Pats have three Super Bowl rings in last decade and another Super Bowl appearance. Am I disappointed in this year's performance? Sure. But I'm good. However you have the rotten soul of a troll. 
    Posted by BostonTrollSpanker[/QUOTE]

    But your right about one thing, I am sort of a troll ever since '05 when I moved downeast.  I will say this, whatever the Hub teams do, Boston is a great sports town.  That is coming from a guy who lived in really pathetic sports towns like Washington, LA and pretty much anywhere in Florida.  Talking sports there is like talking to a chick...in other words like talking to that poster on here named AZPAT...who insults without having a clue what he is talking about.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : I will not insult your intelligence, as you have done mine...but you should not be so assured of your math my friend.  Between 1960 and 1969 is 10 seasons and there were about 10 teams in the AFL.  10 times 10 is 100.  Starting in 1970 there were 26 in the combined league.  Now there are 32.  The average over the last 41 years since 1970 is roughly 26 plus 32 divided by 2 equals 29.  And then 29 times 41=1189.  1189 plus 100 is 1289.  51 into 1289 is 25.27. PostScript- I assumed the odds were equal for each team to win, since the NFL does more than any other league to insure parity.  Besides reversing the draft order, as most other sports do, the NFL has merchandise and local media profit sharing and salary caps.  As if that is not enough, the league also adjusts the schedule by the reverse order of finish the previous year.  Imagine if that happened in baseball and the owners of the Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, etc -all deep in debt, were forced to play the best teams in the league allot more!  
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]

    (YawN!

    So, again please tell me how many times the Patriots played the Giants or ANY NFL TEAM from 1960-69. PLEASE! So much for your "50", which has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. Only a troll would even begin to make an attempt to connect MLB and the NFL.... I see your point: 162 game seasons vs 16. BRILLIANT!

    Now you know what "assume" does. If you don't know, don't assume. It's much better to say little and leave folks wondering about your intelligence than to say something dumb and eliminate all doubt. Stink to what you can reasonably count with your shoes off, and leave those big numbers to people who know what they mean and how to use 'em.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : I am not assuming that every team has an equal chance at the beginning of the season...far from it.  I am assuming that over 51 years those chances even out, especially in the NFL that does so much to even out the chances for each team.   Look at the small market Green Bay Packers - they are the most successful franchise in the history of the NFL in a city of 100,000 people,with 11 championships (the next teams are 7 championships).
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]

    Ace, you're just making it worse for yourself... give it up.

    15 teams have NOT won a Super Bowl since the merger, which is all that matters, and puts all teams on a historical equal footing. This is just about 1/2 of the league (46.8%). Again so much for your "assumption theory". Let me know if you need any help identifying these "4% chance" teams.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.

    In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom Line: Pats won 3 Super Bowls by total of 9 points, but for the grace of vinatieri, they would be Oh and 6. : But your right about one thing, I am sort of a troll ever since '05 when I moved downeast.  I will say this, whatever the Hub teams do, Boston is a great sports town.  That is coming from a guy who lived in really pathetic sports towns like Washington, LA and pretty much anywhere in Florida.  Talking sports there is like talking to a chick...in other words like talking to that poster on here named AZPAT...who insults without having a clue what he is talking about.
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]

    Sparky, I have a 50% "chance" to properly ID you as a moron, and I proved as much too. Want to talk NFL, then keep it to post merger, unless you want to ID anything that happened before it. Show what you know, NOT what you obviously haven't got a clue about.... every team has a 4% chance to win teh Super Bowl...

    LMFAO!
     

Share