How Much $$ did Eric Kaselius (sp?) bet on NE? (1 Viewer)

[Kleck.]

Wow! Talk about holding a grudge.

No ####. He's still complaining about the game.

 

[Workhorse]

Joe,

Thats why I take you to task for it.  As owner, it makes it very difficult for you.  You almost arent allowed to have a favorite team.

You called Pats fans a bunch of "Whiny Tools".  How are the Pats fans that are part of your customer base supposed to accept your analysis of the Pats as unbiased when you have a documented dislike for their fanbase?

Thats all I am trying to get across.

Sweeping generalizations of a whole fanbase which has been running rampart for quite some time and appears to be endorsed by Management doesnt do any favors for the reputation of FBG's.

I said some of the fans I knew were whiny tools. That can be said for every single NFL Franchise.The response to that statement (not whining - I'm more careful now ) has been interesting in itself but that's another story.

I should have kept that to myself. Lesson learned several years ago.

And you're right, I'm not allowed to have a favorite team. And I don't for that reason.

It's in our customers interests that I write from the point of view like we did on the Patriots vs Steelers matchup that is totally absolutely unbiased. And make the projections like we did that are totally and completely unbiased.

Glad you were able to see that in the matchups and stat projections.

But back to my original point on Kaselius, he went on forever about it. Did he pick New England big on Friday?

J

As the target of the original "whiny tools" comment, I thought it was fun banter between myself and Joe B, nothing more. It was seized on by OTHER folks who used it for their own anti-Pats purposes.For the record, Joe has been pretty fair in his assessments of the Patriots (and every other team) over the years.

Don't make that one comment into something that really isn't there. I don't see the anti-Pats bias with Joe at all.

Now CHASE, on the other hand...

 

[Helm]

The Patriots didnt give that game away?

I know its the Patriots here and this board (with management leading the way) loves to hate and bash the Pats. However, isnt it pretty commonly said when a professional team has 5 turnovers in a game that lead to ALL of the opponents points that they gave the game away? Cant you just take the Patriots out of the equation and respond to what you saw on the field?

The Denver D played very well and pressured Brady a great deal. They forced the Pats into FG's and attempted FG's instead of TD's. However, even with all of the miscues, if Brady doesnt throw that pick, the Pats still have an excellent chance to win that game (if not for the interception they kick a FG and still would have been trailing 10-9 going into the 4th quarter).

That play is on Brady and the LT. Then down 11, Brady misses a very open Troy Brown for a TD which would have brought them back to within 4. Vinatieri misses the FG.

The Pats had their chances and missed them.

I'm not buying some Pats fans saying the Pats dominated the game because of the stats. The Pats D played great. The Pats O moved the ball real well but would then turn the ball over. Denver stiffened inside the 30's. The Pats had the ball the whole 2nd half, of course they had more yards.

The refs were as shocked as anyone when Watson caught Bailey and made the wrong call on the field. The call could not be reversed even though EVERYONE watching the game had to know it could only be a touchback by sheer physics and geometry.

The interference call was hideous but it was brought on by the Faulk fumble.

To say the Pats did not shoot themselves in the foot in a very winnable game is just not being honest.

 

[SSOG]

However, even with all of the miscues, if Brady doesnt throw that pick, the Pats still have an excellent chance to win that game (if not for the interception they kick a FG and still would have been trailing 10-9 going into the 4th quarter).

That play is on Brady and the LT. Then down 11, Brady misses a very open Troy Brown for a TD which would have brought them back to within 4. Vinatieri misses the FG.

Right, Denver's defense had nothing to do with any of that. New England's offense is so potent that it will score every single possession... unless it doesn't feel like it. The fact that Denver blitzed and pressured Tom Brady didn't at all affect his decision-making. The fact that Denver had been sending confusing blitzes all game didn't at all affect the LT missing that blitz pickup. Denver was pretty much just on the field so it would look respectable while the Patriots won the game, until Tom Brady decided for no reason whatsoever to throw the ball to Champ Bailey, or to miss Troy Brown.The nature of the blitz is that people get open against it, but QBs are so harried they have trouble finding them. You're saying that doesn't factor in at all to the fact that Brady was missing open receivers all night? Is Brady omniscient, did Brady know where all the open receivers would be and where all the blitzers would come from, and did he miss the receivers on purpose?

Also, what's with Patriots fans whining about unlucky breaks? Without a lot of lucky breaks, your winning streak never runs to 10 games in the first place. That's the nature of football- the vast majority of games are decided by one or two bounces. If you don't recover all 4 of your fumbles last week, perhaps Jacksonville beats you. If the Tuck play never got challenged, perhaps Oakland beats you. If Denver didn't call that timeout, maybe Belichick never challenges the Samuel INT, and maybe Denver scores on that possession and makes the whole poing academic anyway. If Shanahan never went for it on 4th-and-1, or if he'd called a run up the middle, then again, Denver scores more points and this whole "what if" game is academic. The point is that ALL GAMES IN THE NFL hinge on just a few breaks. EVERY ONE OF THEM. And for the past 10 games, you've completely discounted the luck involved in winning, but the first loss, Patriot fans swarm around and say "UNLUCKY BREAKS! UNLUCKY BREAKS!"

I suppose that luck is only involved when the calls go against you. When they go FOR your team... well then, none of that would have had any impact on the game, anyway.

I'm especially sick of everyone whining about the pass-interference call in the first half. Yes, it was a bad call. It was also in the first half. Your team had 30 minutes to overcome that. If they couldn't overcome one bad call in 30 minutes, then perhaps they weren't the better team, after all. And it's not like that call decided the game. Denver still would have had 2nd-and-10 from NE's 40 yard line, and still would stand a very good chance of scoring, especially considering Denver had just moved the ball very well, going all the way down the field and getting the ball on NE's 3 yard line before turning it over on downs.

 

[Helm]

I'm especially sick of everyone whining

Very good choice of words.

 

[Workhorse]

The "bend but don't break"/"gamble for turnovers" defense/special teams strategy is legit and the Broncos have been playing this kind of defense all season. In fact, it's the same exact type of defense that the Pats rode through the playoffs for their first Super Bowl title.I'm pissed that the Pats weren't able to counter it effectively.The better team won.

 

[Pat Patriot]

However, even with all of the miscues, if Brady doesnt throw that pick, the Pats still have an excellent chance to win that game (if not for the interception they kick a FG and still would have been trailing 10-9 going into the 4th quarter).

That play is on Brady and the LT.  Then down 11, Brady misses a very open Troy Brown for a TD which would have brought them back to within 4.  Vinatieri misses the FG.

Right, Denver's defense had nothing to do with any of that. New England's offense is so potent that it will score every single possession... unless it doesn't feel like it. The fact that Denver blitzed and pressured Tom Brady didn't at all affect his decision-making. The fact that Denver had been sending confusing blitzes all game didn't at all affect the LT missing that blitz pickup. Denver was pretty much just on the field so it would look respectable while the Patriots won the game, until Tom Brady decided for no reason whatsoever to throw the ball to Champ Bailey, or to miss Troy Brown.The nature of the blitz is that people get open against it, but QBs are so harried they have trouble finding them. You're saying that doesn't factor in at all to the fact that Brady was missing open receivers all night? Is Brady omniscient, did Brady know where all the open receivers would be and where all the blitzers would come from, and did he miss the receivers on purpose?

Also, what's with Patriots fans whining about unlucky breaks? Without a lot of lucky breaks, your winning streak never runs to 10 games in the first place. That's the nature of football- the vast majority of games are decided by one or two bounces. If you don't recover all 4 of your fumbles last week, perhaps Jacksonville beats you. If the Tuck play never got challenged, perhaps Oakland beats you. If Denver didn't call that timeout, maybe Belichick never challenges the Samuel INT, and maybe Denver scores on that possession and makes the whole poing academic anyway. If Shanahan never went for it on 4th-and-1, or if he'd called a run up the middle, then again, Denver scores more points and this whole "what if" game is academic. The point is that ALL GAMES IN THE NFL hinge on just a few breaks. EVERY ONE OF THEM. And for the past 10 games, you've completely discounted the luck involved in winning, but the first loss, Patriot fans swarm around and say "UNLUCKY BREAKS! UNLUCKY BREAKS!"

I suppose that luck is only involved when the calls go against you. When they go FOR your team... well then, none of that would have had any impact on the game, anyway.

I'm especially sick of everyone whining about the pass-interference call in the first half. Yes, it was a bad call. It was also in the first half. Your team had 30 minutes to overcome that. If they couldn't overcome one bad call in 30 minutes, then perhaps they weren't the better team, after all. And it's not like that call decided the game. Denver still would have had 2nd-and-10 from NE's 40 yard line, and still would stand a very good chance of scoring, especially considering Denver had just moved the ball very well, going all the way down the field and getting the ball on NE's 3 yard line before turning it over on downs.

Why must everyone on here go to the extreme and call people out as "Whining" just because you want to offer an analysis of the game.First, you didnt quote my whole post so that is a little disengenuous.

Second, I have been saying ever since Saturday that Denver's Defense played great and they had a great scheme. Putting the safety up on the line of scrimmage surely confused the 3rd string tackle into missing his assignment.

I said all along that Champ Bailey made a great play. But so that I am not worshipping at the feet of Brady, I must say that he made an awful one as well.

These teams were pretty evenly matched. Nobody manhandled the other team. Denver forced the Patriots into a number of mistakes that they could not recover from.

Are you telling me if your team had missed so many opportunities and chances on the field, you wouldnt be playing the IF game a little bit after the fact?

I have never said that Denver didnt deserve to win.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Are you telling me if your team had missed so many opportunities and chances on the field, you wouldnt be playing the IF game a little bit after the fact?

I think part of the thing is that *some* Patriots fans took exception to the "what-if" discussions during previous playoff game results (especially all 3 2001 playoff games), so now that *some* (and obviously not necessarily the same) Patriots fans are playing the "what-if" game, it could possibly look hypocritical.

 

[Pick]

Wow! Talk about holding a grudge.

No ####. He's still complaining about the game.

I don't mind that. The game aint too old. It's the obscure references to posts from several months ago that I find funny. Dude has a serious beef that he's kept warm in the microwave for way too long.

 

[pinequick]

Why must everyone on here go to the extreme and call people out as "Whining" just because you want to offer an analysis of the game.

Man, I never really bought into this whole "whiny tool" stuff until I read this thread. Thanks Pat!

 

[gzilla]

However, even with all of the miscues, if Brady doesnt throw that pick, the Pats still have an excellent chance to win that game (if not for the interception they kick a FG and still would have been trailing 10-9 going into the 4th quarter).

That play is on Brady and the LT.  Then down 11, Brady misses a very open Troy Brown for a TD which would have brought them back to within 4.  Vinatieri misses the FG.

Right, Denver's defense had nothing to do with any of that. New England's offense is so potent that it will score every single possession... unless it doesn't feel like it. The fact that Denver blitzed and pressured Tom Brady didn't at all affect his decision-making. The fact that Denver had been sending confusing blitzes all game didn't at all affect the LT missing that blitz pickup. Denver was pretty much just on the field so it would look respectable while the Patriots won the game, until Tom Brady decided for no reason whatsoever to throw the ball to Champ Bailey, or to miss Troy Brown.The nature of the blitz is that people get open against it, but QBs are so harried they have trouble finding them. You're saying that doesn't factor in at all to the fact that Brady was missing open receivers all night? Is Brady omniscient, did Brady know where all the open receivers would be and where all the blitzers would come from, and did he miss the receivers on purpose?

Also, what's with Patriots fans whining about unlucky breaks? Without a lot of lucky breaks, your winning streak never runs to 10 games in the first place. That's the nature of football- the vast majority of games are decided by one or two bounces. If you don't recover all 4 of your fumbles last week, perhaps Jacksonville beats you. If the Tuck play never got challenged, perhaps Oakland beats you. If Denver didn't call that timeout, maybe Belichick never challenges the Samuel INT, and maybe Denver scores on that possession and makes the whole poing academic anyway. If Shanahan never went for it on 4th-and-1, or if he'd called a run up the middle, then again, Denver scores more points and this whole "what if" game is academic. The point is that ALL GAMES IN THE NFL hinge on just a few breaks. EVERY ONE OF THEM. And for the past 10 games, you've completely discounted the luck involved in winning, but the first loss, Patriot fans swarm around and say "UNLUCKY BREAKS! UNLUCKY BREAKS!"

I suppose that luck is only involved when the calls go against you. When they go FOR your team... well then, none of that would have had any impact on the game, anyway.

I'm especially sick of everyone whining about the pass-interference call in the first half. Yes, it was a bad call. It was also in the first half. Your team had 30 minutes to overcome that. If they couldn't overcome one bad call in 30 minutes, then perhaps they weren't the better team, after all. And it's not like that call decided the game. Denver still would have had 2nd-and-10 from NE's 40 yard line, and still would stand a very good chance of scoring, especially considering Denver had just moved the ball very well, going all the way down the field and getting the ball on NE's 3 yard line before turning it over on downs.

No offense but as an unbiased observer (I'm neither a Patriots fan nor a Broncos fan) I did get the distinct feeling that the Patriots did more to lose that game than the Broncos did to win it. Granted, this is a subjective opinion and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make any difference. But, I didn't get that feeling watching the Seahawks, Panthers, or Steelers win. It seemed to me that the Patriots had several chances to take control of the game. And the reasons that they didn't were more mistakes than they were forced errors or great plays. Even the Bailey interception wasn't a great play IMO. Brady made a very pooor decision throwing that ball. Bailey took advantage of it.I'm not sure why the Bronco fans are upset with this assessment. I think you can make the argument that the Broncos weren't pushed at all in that win because of the mistakes that the Patriots played. And you can make the argument that if they needed to, the Broncos could have done much much more to win the game...but they didn't have to.

Having said that, based on what I saw in that game, if they played the game 10 times, I think the Patriots would have won 7 of them. To me, that should make the win all the more sweet for the Broncos.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I like Eric 'TheSilly@rse's schtick. He brings a lot of passion - SOUNDS like a younger Kornheiser.But his hatred for Chicago teams is unacceptable.

 

[el centro]

Erik Kuselias is my favorite ESPN talking head, other than mel kiper.  he wasn't at the top of his game today, but it was all about defending his picks.

Personally, I'm a Cowherd homer myself! Kuselias irritates me too much - he rants too often & usually I disagree. Cowherd keeps me laughing with his rants, and style. I preferred Kuselias' show when he & his brother did it together - they combatted one another & kept it fresh & interesting.Mike & Mike are losing their appeal - they've spread themselves too thin. The Dan Patrick Show hasn't been the same without Dibbs - and his arrogance just eats at me. There's only so much I can handle of his "my golf game handicap.. my J... " if he's such an athlete - why is broadcasting it, rather than playing it.

Nonetheless - it's the only Sportsgarb on, so I listen anyway.

 

[SSOG]

Why must everyone on here go to the extreme and call people out as "Whining" just because you want to offer an analysis of the game.

First, you didnt quote my whole post so that is a little disengenuous.

Second, I have been saying ever since Saturday that Denver's Defense played great and they had a great scheme. Putting the safety up on the line of scrimmage surely confused the 3rd string tackle into missing his assignment.

I said all along that Champ Bailey made a great play. But so that I am not worshipping at the feet of Brady, I must say that he made an awful one as well.

These teams were pretty evenly matched. Nobody manhandled the other team. Denver forced the Patriots into a number of mistakes that they could not recover from.

Are you telling me if your team had missed so many opportunities and chances on the field, you wouldnt be playing the IF game a little bit after the fact?

I have never said that Denver didnt deserve to win.

That "whining" comment wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the crowd who keeps saying "If just two bounces had gone the other way, New England would have won. New England was the better team, they just gave the game away. Denver didn't deserve that win".Also, I like to think that no, if my team hadn't missed so many opportunities, I wouldn't be playing the "if" game. I could be wrong, but I like to think I got over my case of the "What-Ifs" two years ago when Plummer missed 5 games (Denver went 1-4 without him and 9-2 with him), and I "What-Ifed" my way into saying that Denver was one of the best teams in the AFC when Plummer was on the field... until Indy disabused me of that notion.

No offense but as an unbiased observer (I'm neither a Patriots fan nor a Broncos fan) I did get the distinct feeling that the Patriots did more to lose that game than the Broncos did to win it. Granted, this is a subjective opinion and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make any difference. But, I didn't get that feeling watching the Seahawks, Panthers, or Steelers win. It seemed to me that the Patriots had several chances to take control of the game. And the reasons that they didn't were more mistakes than they were forced errors or great plays. Even the Bailey interception wasn't a great play IMO. Brady made a very pooor decision throwing that ball. Bailey took advantage of it.

I'm not sure why the Bronco fans are upset with this assessment. I think you can make the argument that the Broncos weren't pushed at all in that win because of the mistakes that the Patriots played. And you can make the argument that if they needed to, the Broncos could have done much much more to win the game...but they didn't have to.

Having said that, based on what I saw in that game, if they played the game 10 times, I think the Patriots would have won 7 of them. To me, that should make the win all the more sweet for the Broncos.

*MY* impression of the game (admittedly as a biased observer, but one who has seen all the Broncos games this season) is that Tom Brady was making mistakes... because Denver had bought a timeshare in his head. Denver blitzed him early, hit him a lot (despite the fact that they didn't sack him once, they were all over him all game), and CLEARLY had him rattled. When Denver dropped back and only rushed 3 or 4, he kept hearing footsteps that weren't there, because of all the times that Denver had sent 7 or 8. So he was forcing plays and throwing early and making shaky decisions all game. It wasn't that Tom Brady was playing poorly, it's that Denver's blitz was in his head in a HUGE way. And that's been Denver's Modus Operandi all season. Denver has allowed the fourth lowest passer-rating among opposing QBs in the entire NFL. Denver has also allowed the 4th lowest completion percentage, and the 6th lowest yards per attempt. All because they get in a QB's head with the blitz (like they did to Brady), and then take advantage of it when he gets skittish and shaky (like they did to Tom Brady).

 

[Joe Bryant]

*MY* impression of the game (admittedly as a biased observer, but one who has seen all the Broncos games this season) is that Tom Brady was making mistakes... because Denver had bought a timeshare in his head. Denver blitzed him early, hit him a lot (despite the fact that they didn't sack him once, they were all over him all game), and CLEARLY had him rattled. When Denver dropped back and only rushed 3 or 4, he kept hearing footsteps that weren't there, because of all the times that Denver had sent 7 or 8. So he was forcing plays and throwing early and making shaky decisions all game. It wasn't that Tom Brady was playing poorly, it's that Denver's blitz was in his head in a HUGE way. And that's been Denver's Modus Operandi all season. Denver has allowed the fourth lowest passer-rating among opposing QBs in the entire NFL. Denver has also allowed the 4th lowest completion percentage, and the 6th lowest yards per attempt. All because they get in a QB's head with the blitz (like they did to Brady), and then take advantage of it when he gets skittish and shaky (like they did to Tom Brady).

This was sort of how I saw it too. Forced errors are definitely a part of it.J