Tim Tebow's gonna personally wipe the lamb's blood off all the doors in New England. Literally- it'll be easier than him becoming a mid-tier NFL QB.
Bah. They've won more Super Bowls over the past five seasons than anyone else, and more than anyone else over the past ten except Pittsburgh and New England. What it is, is Dallas has underwhelmed in recent years. They can take anybody in one game. It's their performance over 16 that keeps them down.
Interesting stat: the Giants became the first reigning SB Champ to lose their opener in the past 8 seasons.
Another interesting stat: Over the last 5 years when the Giants have lost their first game they have ended the season with a ring.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8...ita-anthony-hargrove-overturned-appeals-panel Jonathan Vilma, Will Smith, Anthony Hargrove and Scott Fujita have won their appeal and are eligible to play in Week 1. Serves Goodell right for trying to wear all the damn hats.
Ben tried to squeeze that ball into a space that wasn't there. Not how we wanted to start the season. Still glad for some reason to see Peyton Manning playing like he was before he got hurt.
I seem to like Peyton a lot more in a Broncos jersey. I don't want him to go all the way because I'm a Pats fan () , but I want him to have a good season nonetheless
Him not being a Colt (Pats' eternal rival during the Brady/Manning era) anymore and the whole comeback sentiment.
I like what I saw from the Pats yesterday. Good all around showing from everyone. O-line and D-line were both on point, Wilfork was a beast as usual. The secondary was better than last year but still suspect hopefully a few more games will help them get it together.
that isn't why the Jets got him. the Jets have a Giants mole (not a giant mole) in their front office who made the decision to get Tebow to keep the attention off the Giants in the offseason, thus giving them a better chance to repeat. it is a bit puzzling though from the Jets perspective why Tebow and not McElroy is the 2nd string QB.
I expected the Jets to win yesterday, but I certainly didn't expect them to hang 48 on the Bills. it was great to see Sanchez look so comfortable back there (no happy feet), and I'm really glad for him personally, given the kind of offseason circus he's had to deal with, between Tebow and Holmes - not of his own making. the safety play was very encouraging as well. as a Jets fan, I know not to overreact to the first game of the season, but I am encouraged. as for Tebow and the wildcat - just a distraction, and a disruption to the offensive rhythm of the team. I say they will completely abandon it by mid-season.
Good, I found the correct thread... By the way, the Eagles suck. Bad. Whoever said that they were Super Bowl Contender is seriously smoking crack. You've gotta be high to pick them to go to a Super Bowl. They're the EXACT same team as last year, and Vick is one year older and shittier. 56 passes?? Way to be multi-dimensional, Andy. I can't wait until they can you and your sorry mustache, and send you to San Diego, so you can screw up the Chargers.
Lol... it's a math question. To simplify things, it will be an eternity before some franchises are able to have that hope, and more than one season for every team save one.
I meant hope springs eternal for the Steelers - to go for 7. and then you lose your opener... not an auspicious start. some 69% of teams that make the playoffs win their opener. odds are against your boys.
And I meant that no one else in the league can even have that hope. It's a post that didn't need a response, because there won't be an effective one until another team has six like we do. It won't be an eternity (didn't take us that long to get to six), but we'll hope every season until it happens. I like the Steelers' chances against your team of getting there first, regardless of who you support. Our odds of winning a seventh Lombardi are greater this season than any other team's. That'd be the case if every current Steeler decided to retire tomorrow and we hired a whole new team. You're deliberately ignoring the point of my post for lack of anything to dispute it directly, and that's beneath you. Or it ought to be. Besides... This. There's a way to go about looking for facts and stats --because so many exist-- and then assigning a level of importance to them. In this case, you'd look for the results of x number of previous champions to see if they've lost their first game. But you'd likely start with 2012 and go back. Now, I don't know if three seasons is enough of a streak to merit outweighing 69% of the champs winning their first game, but it doesn't matter unless you look up and compare the numbers for teams that lost their second, third, fourth, etc. games. He hasn't proven that we ought to consider a first-game loss in 197whatever more relevant than, say, the 2010 Packers first game loss. He hasn't shown that the same numbers don't apply to teams that lose their nth game, so we don't know if IMO, we'll show who we are over 16, not any given one. But more importantly, trolling other people's posts ought to come with facts. If you can't give an effecient rebuttal, shake the guy's hand and concede his truth.
First game tonight was a rout. I swear does Marvin Lewis have pictures of the ownership in compromising positions? How is he still the head coach is amazing. Marvin Lewis a lifetime of mediocrity. Raiders and Bolts should be fun.