What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Were the Patriots handed the 01, 03 titles? (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jous

Footballguy
In the recent topic about the 2005 Steelers, it was questioned a few times how many controversial advantages the 2001 and 2003 Patriots received, after it was brought up that the 2005 Steelers had perhaps a controversial advantage. Bostonfred said he'd only discuss it in a separate topic, so I decided that this would be interesting enough to indeed discuss.

Anyway, a very strong case can be made that the 2001 Patriots were outright handed the Lombardi trophy via an NFL conspiracy. Everybody nows about the infamous Tuck Rule....a ruling only equaled in how terrible it was by Polamalu's INT reversal against the Colts in 2005. Even if Brady did "tuck" the ball, and the ref decided to use this call for perhaps the first time in decades, it's obvious that Brady had possession of the ball. He did NOT want to drop it, and Woodson's hit forced it out. That's a fumble, it has to be.

And in the 2001 SuperBowl (Pats vs Rams) the Patriots also may have gotten unfair advantages through terrible officiating. If you look on the internet you'll find many examples of blatant Patriots personal fouls (including one of the worst face-mask pulling I've ever seen) that weren't called.

Also, while I don't nescessarily believe it goes this deep, many have said that the NFL wanted the Patriots to win it all after 9/11....and it does seem a tad suspicious that it worked out that way.

As for the 2003 Patriots, it's all about the AFCCG versus the Colts. This time the NFL even later admitted that they made several errors, and there should have been around 5 or so pass interferences called, but they weren't, likely because the game was at Foxboro. The Colts probably should have won that game...

Discuss.

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
Boy this has never been discussed before.

IMO 2001 was a fluke, 2003 & 2004 were not.
2003 was a fluke because Kasay got tired.2004 was a fluke because McNabb got tired.

Even the a diehard Pats fan will admit they were just lucky.

 
Boy this has never been discussed before.

IMO 2001 was a fluke, 2003 & 2004 were not.
2003 was a fluke because Kasay got tired.2004 was a fluke because McNabb got tired.

Even the a diehard Pats fan will admit they were just lucky.
Well, Carolina definitely shot themselves in the foot on that last kickoff. Game should've gone into overtime with Carolina having the momentum.In 2004, Philly had a chance to put the game away in the 1st quarter. It could've easily been 17-0 early and 17-7 heading into halftime. I guess coaching and prior experienced helped there.

However the big thing in 2003/2004 was that the Patriots won because they made less mistakes in the game, not because of obscure rules.

 

bostonfred

Footballguy
Boy this has never been discussed before.

IMO 2001 was a fluke, 2003 & 2004 were not.
2003 was a fluke because Kasay got tired.2004 was a fluke because McNabb got tired.

Even the a diehard Pats fan will admit they were just lucky.
Professional football players shouldn't get tired. Specifically, kickers.
 

Jous

Footballguy
I don't think it will be debated that the Pats didn't deserve to beat Carolina and Philly.

The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.

I won't argue with the Patriots' 2004 season though. Nothing controversial at all, they just flatout dominated.

 

NEUPJ

Footballguy
Even if Brady did "tuck" the ball, and the ref decided to use this call for perhaps the first time in decades, it's obvious that Brady had possession of the ball. He did NOT want to drop it, and Woodson's hit forced it out. That's a fumble, it has to be.
He did NOT want to drop it, and Woodson's illegal hit to the head forced it out. That's a foul, it has to be.
 

AB in DC

Footballguy
Boy this has never been discussed before.

IMO 2001 was a fluke, 2003 & 2004 were not.
2003 was a fluke because Kasay got tired.2004 was a fluke because McNabb got tired.

Even the a diehard Pats fan will admit they were just lucky.
2002 was a fluke because Gruden knew all the Oakland signals2000 was a fluke because the refs took away a NYG lead on a phanton penalty

1999 was a fluke because the refs overturned that Bert Emanuel catch

1998 was a fluke because Gary Anderson missed his only FG of the year at an unlucky time and Atlanta didn't belong in the Super Bowl over Minnesota

1995 was a fluke because O'Donnell lost his head

1994 was a fluke because San Diego didn't belong in the Super Bowl over Pittsburgh

etc etc

 

Pat Patriot

Footballguy
I don't think it will be debated that the Pats didn't deserve to beat Carolina and Philly.

The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.

I won't argue with the Patriots' 2004 season though. Nothing controversial at all, they just flatout dominated.
And the undisputable referee errors were what as the Pats built an 18-0 halftime lead over Indy?
 

Workhorse

Footballguy
The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.
I'm going ignore my common sense and good judgement and ask a follow up to this:Would you care to cite the "undisputable referee errors" in that game? I mean, if they were so pivotal to the outcome, you should be able to list them off the top of your hear, right?

Interesting that these "errors" that Pats bashers like to invoke were so obvious that there was virtually no mention of them in the papers the day following the game. It wasn't until Bill Polian started whining that folks began complaining about the refs...

 

massraider

Footballguy
In 2001, against the Raiders, the best thing the pats had going for them was the weather. The snowy conditions made Oakland's short passing game a memory. I doubt God was in on the conspiracy.

I don't think Coleman called the rule incorrectly, I think it should not have been overturned. I thought the replay was inconclusive, as it seemed like it was possible that Brady's left hand may have touched the ball.

Which doesn't matter. The Pats still had to move the ball, and Vinitiari had to kick a field goal in that weather. The Raiders still could've stopped them.

All that being said, I'm a Raiders fan, and I don't care anymore.

That 2001 Pats team was a great story, and played a heck of a Super Bowl.

God, let this die.

 

bostonfred

Footballguy
I don't think it will be debated that the Pats didn't deserve to beat Carolina and Philly.

The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.

I won't argue with the Patriots' 2004 season though. Nothing controversial at all, they just flatout dominated.
I think you're misunderestimating Bass. He'll gladly argue the above.
 

Jous

Footballguy
The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.
I'm going ignore my common sense and good judgement and ask a follow up to this:Would you care to cite the "undisputable referee errors" in that game? I mean, if they were so pivotal to the outcome, you should be able to list them off the top of your hear, right?

Interesting that these "errors" that Pats bashers like to invoke were so obvious that there was virtually no mention of them in the papers the day following the game. It wasn't until Bill Polian started whining that folks began complaining about the refs...
Well....the NFL DID admit that were were "several instances were flags should have been thrown" for defensive pass interference against the Pats. One of them, if I remember right, was even on 4th down of the Colts' final drive before the Pats ran the clock out. I'll try to find it on the net to show you....but there was indeed a statement form the NFL admitting errors. And it was talked about for a while....it's just old news now, covered up by the fact that the Patriots 3 SB wins have them being a dynasty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Footballguy
*Ty Law was lucky to intercept Manning three times.

*Tom Brady was lucky to be so clutch.

*BB's gameplans were pure luck. I mean how in the world could he outcoach Mike Martz normally?

*Adam Vinatieri kicking pressure-packed FGs was luck.

*The Pats organization building a roster full of depth and than having to use it was luck.

*The Pats redoing a good portion of their roster inbetween in 01 and 04 was luck. Drafting good players was luck.

*Tedy Bruschi playing put of his mind in big games was luck.

*Rodney Harrison's leadership ability was luck.

*The Pats getting Corey Dillon for a second rounder was luck.

*The Pats winning two out of three AFC championships on the road was luck.

*The Pats drafting Richard Seymour when everyone knew they should take David Terrell was luck.

*The fact that the NFL mandated the Pats take Brady in the sixth round was luck. The fact the NFL also made BB stick with Brady instead of Bledsoe was double luck.

*Trading Bledsoe within the division and getting Ty Warren in return was luck.

*The Pats winning 21 consecutive games was luck.

*Holding the Colts to three points AFTER the rule changes and without their starting CBs as well as best defensive player (Seymour) was luck.

*Having a front office that spends to the cap but doesn't go into cap hell was luck.

*Having an owner using his own money to finance a stadium thus making the organization one of the most profitable in the NFL was luck.

Yup, good thing a few calls went the Pats way because it makes no sense how this franchise has been successful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jetpack

Footballguy
The correct answer is "Yes". They were handed all three titles by a hidden consortium which included the NFL, the mafia, the free Masons, Richard Nixon (yes, he's still alive), and perhaps a bit incredibly, In-and-Out Burger.

 

Jous

Footballguy
Well at least this topic is proving my point. If almost everyone here agrees that the Pats deserved their titles, then why are there so many people questioning Pittsburgh's 2005 title? It makes no sense.

 

Z-Dog

Footballguy
It's obvious that luck figures into winning superbowls. Duh.

The major issue for me is the officiating. The AFCCG vs. the Colts was horrible, and ultimately led to a rule change on how those penalties are called. The tuck rule was a poor call, perhaps, but it was mitigated by several factors, including weather, and the fact that the Raiders didn't have to let the Patriots drive down to FG position, and that Vinatieri hit a great kick. This past year's superbowl suffered from ref issues as well. What can you do?

 

Boston

Footballguy
The correct answer is "Yes". They were handed all three titles by a hidden consortium which included the NFL, the mafia, the free Masons, Richard Nixon (yes, he's still alive), and perhaps a bit incredibly, In-and-Out Burger.
I believe the correct term is...a Cabal..
 

Pat Patriot

Footballguy
The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.
I'm going ignore my common sense and good judgement and ask a follow up to this:Would you care to cite the "undisputable referee errors" in that game? I mean, if they were so pivotal to the outcome, you should be able to list them off the top of your hear, right?

Interesting that these "errors" that Pats bashers like to invoke were so obvious that there was virtually no mention of them in the papers the day following the game. It wasn't until Bill Polian started whining that folks began complaining about the refs...
Well....the NFL DID admit that were were "several instances were flags should have been thrown" for defensive pass interference against the Pats. One of them, if I remember right, was even on 4th down of the Colts' final drive before the Pats ran the clock out. I'll try to find it on the net to show you....but there was indeed a statement form the NFL admitting errors. And it was talked about for a while....it's just old news now, covered up by the fact that the Patriots 3 SB wins have them being a dynasty.
There was less than a minute left and the Colts were down by 10. The only thing us Pats fans were sweating out was the 3.5 pt spread and a possible Colt backdoor cover.The Pats physically kicked the #### out of the Colts that day.

 

Jous

Footballguy
But there's a difference between legally and ILLEGALLY kciking the #### out of a team. The Pats committed a lot of pass int....even the NFL admitted it

 

Jous

Footballguy
Again, I'm not nearly as anti-Patriot as I seem. I'm trying to show the mass hypocrisy that for some reason people choose to say that the Steelers were handed their win, but have ignored it when other franchises have cases they they had breaks in the championship runs.

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I don't think it will be debated that the Pats didn't deserve to beat Carolina and Philly.

The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.

I won't argue with the Patriots' 2004 season though. Nothing controversial at all, they just flatout dominated.
I think you're misunderestimating Bass. He'll gladly argue the above.
Just picking up on the arguments you already used when you said the paties were lucky McNabb got tired.
 

Boston

Footballguy
But there's a difference between legally and ILLEGALLY kciking the #### out of a team. The Pats committed a lot of pass int....even the NFL admitted it
The Pats took advantage of lax officiating. If Indy or any other team was smart they would have done likewise. It wasn't like the Pats were getting away with something that others were getting flagged for. This was a smart move by a coaching staff that put their team in a better position to succeed because they dotted their i's and crossed their t's. It's no different than teams taking advantage of a wide strike zone, physical play under the basket or a goaltender wearing big equipment. If the officials are going to allow it it's up the coaching staff to put their players in a position to take advantage of it.By the way...the following year when the stiff rules were in effect they beat the Colts even worse. That was also without their starting CBs and best D player (Seymour) injured and a WR at CB.

 

56

Footballguy
The only thing that has any merit in this entire thread is the tuck rule. Clearly the Pats owe so much to that BS call.

Other than that, the rest is :tinfoilhat:

 

Boston

Footballguy
Again, I'm not nearly as anti-Patriot as I seem. I'm trying to show the mass hypocrisy that for some reason people choose to say that the Steelers were handed their win, but have ignored it when other franchises have cases they they had breaks in the championship runs.
There were plenty of people taking shots at the Pats. Especially after 01. Once they won a third title in four years it pretty made much made this BS moot.As for the Steelers they may have caught a few breaks. That's not unusual for any championship team. It's what a team does with those breaks that counts and the Steelers took advantage of them and that's why they are the champs.

 

bostonfred

Footballguy
I don't think it will be debated that the Pats didn't deserve to beat Carolina and Philly.

The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.

I won't argue with the Patriots' 2004 season though. Nothing controversial at all, they just flatout dominated.
I think you're misunderestimating Bass. He'll gladly argue the above.
Just picking up on the arguments you already used when you said the paties were lucky McNabb got tired.
Oh, I know. I'm just surprised you aren't talking about the Patriots being lucky the Colts line a Manning up at the quarterback position.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I don't think it will be debated that the Pats didn't deserve to beat Carolina and Philly.

The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.

I won't argue with the Patriots' 2004 season though. Nothing controversial at all, they just flatout dominated.
I think you're misunderestimating Bass. He'll gladly argue the above.
Just picking up on the arguments you already used when you said the paties were lucky McNabb got tired.
Oh, I know. I'm just surprised you aren't talking about the Patriots being lucky the Colts line a Manning up at the quarterback position.
You know dang well I've given the Pats their props on numerous occasions. Even to the point that I consider their system superior to the sign and spend mentality. You were the one who said the Pats were lucky and I dispute that.
 
In the recent topic about the 2005 Steelers, it was questioned a few times how many controversial advantages the 2001 and 2003 Patriots received, after it was brought up that the 2005 Steelers had perhaps a controversial advantage. Bostonfred said he'd only discuss it in a separate topic, so I decided that this would be interesting enough to indeed discuss.

Anyway, a very strong case can be made that the 2001 Patriots were outright handed the Lombardi trophy via an NFL conspiracy. Everybody nows about the infamous Tuck Rule....a ruling only equaled in how terrible it was by Polamalu's INT reversal against the Colts in 2005. Even if Brady did "tuck" the ball, and the ref decided to use this call for perhaps the first time in decades, it's obvious that Brady had possession of the ball. He did NOT want to drop it, and Woodson's hit forced it out. That's a fumble, it has to be.

And in the 2001 SuperBowl (Pats vs Rams) the Patriots also may have gotten unfair advantages through terrible officiating. If you look on the internet you'll find many examples of blatant Patriots personal fouls (including one of the worst face-mask pulling I've ever seen) that weren't called.

Also, while I don't nescessarily believe it goes this deep, many have said that the NFL wanted the Patriots to win it all after 9/11....and it does seem a tad suspicious that it worked out that way.

As for the 2003 Patriots, it's all about the AFCCG versus the Colts. This time the NFL even later admitted that they made several errors, and there should have been around 5 or so pass interferences called, but they weren't, likely because the game was at Foxboro. The Colts probably should have won that game...

Discuss.
We will have to write you a citation for this.
 

bostonfred

Footballguy
I don't think it will be debated that the Pats didn't deserve to beat Carolina and Philly.

The debate is that they probably didn't even deserve to be in the 2003 SuperBowl. Undisputable referee errors greatly contributed to their AFCCG win.

I won't argue with the Patriots' 2004 season though. Nothing controversial at all, they just flatout dominated.
I think you're misunderestimating Bass. He'll gladly argue the above.
Just picking up on the arguments you already used when you said the paties were lucky McNabb got tired.
Oh, I know. I'm just surprised you aren't talking about the Patriots being lucky the Colts line a Manning up at the quarterback position.
You know dang well I've given the Pats their props on numerous occasions. Even to the point that I consider their system superior to the sign and spend mentality. You were the one who said the Pats were lucky and I dispute that.
See, on the one hand, I think it's a credit to the Patriots organization that they don't have these problems. On the other, I think the Patriots are fortunate other organizations aren't run as well. I think it's a credit that the Patriots are clutch. I think it's fortunate for them when McNabb starts throwing up when he's got the ball at the end of the Superbowl. I think it's a credit to Tom Brady that he plays big in big games. I think it's they're fortunate that Manning doesn't perform well in non-Pastrami weeks, and that Maurile refuses to eat Pastrami the week before the Superbowl.
 

ChromeWeasel

Footballguy
In the recent topic about the 2005 Steelers, it was questioned a few times how many controversial advantages the 2001 and 2003 Patriots received, after it was brought up that the 2005 Steelers had perhaps a controversial advantage. Bostonfred said he'd only discuss it in a separate topic, so I decided that this would be interesting enough to indeed discuss.

Anyway, a very strong case can be made that the 2001 Patriots were outright handed the Lombardi trophy via an NFL conspiracy. Everybody nows about the infamous Tuck Rule....a ruling only equaled in how terrible it was by Polamalu's INT reversal against the Colts in 2005. Even if Brady did "tuck" the ball, and the ref decided to use this call for perhaps the first time in decades, it's obvious that Brady had possession of the ball. He did NOT want to drop it, and Woodson's hit forced it out. That's a fumble, it has to be.

And in the 2001 SuperBowl (Pats vs Rams) the Patriots also may have gotten unfair advantages through terrible officiating. If you look on the internet you'll find many examples of blatant Patriots personal fouls (including one of the worst face-mask pulling I've ever seen) that weren't called.

Also, while I don't nescessarily believe it goes this deep, many have said that the NFL wanted the Patriots to win it all after 9/11....and it does seem a tad suspicious that it worked out that way.

As for the 2003 Patriots, it's all about the AFCCG versus the Colts. This time the NFL even later admitted that they made several errors, and there should have been around 5 or so pass interferences called, but they weren't, likely because the game was at Foxboro. The Colts probably should have won that game...

Discuss.
:shock: At this point it's obvious that Pats fans here werent whiney tools. They were mostly just debating idiots in threads like these. Three superbowls in 4 years and you still have posts from people trying to start more issues.

To the OP, think what you want. No argument anyone makes is going to save you from being a moron.

 

nerangers

Footballguy
Our first SB win is still the sweetest....and I think it was fair and square. Bad calls always seem to happen to both sides of game.

2001:

Maybe the Tuck rule should never had been called, and instead roughing the Passer. :D

During a 2001-2002 divisional playoff game against the Oakland Raiders (played in January 2002), Tom Brady had been ruled as having fumbled on a pass attempt, with Oakland protecting a three-point lead. Citing the controversial "tuck rule," where a ball is ruled an incomplete pass after the quarterback starts any forward throwing motion, referee Walt Coleman overturned the decision after reviewing the instant replay, calling the drop an incomplete pass rather than a fumble (some analysts have claimed that Oakland should have been called for "roughing the passer" on that play, as the player who made contact with Brady hit his head; such a call would have rendered the "tuck rule" controversy obsolete
After the call, Adam V hit two field goals to win the game. In the Steelers game, Brady gets hurt, Bledsoe has to come in, and Pittsburgh's comeback ends due to two Kordell Stewart interceptions in the last three minutes of the game. Don't see anything being handed to them here.

The Rams played totally flat...here is a little reminder of how the game ended if you think it was handed to the Pats:

The Patriots had no timeouts left for their ensuing drive, causing color commentator John Madden to declare famously that they should run the clock out and go to overtime. However, New England decided to go for the win. Brady opened the drive with three completions to running back J.R. Redmond, moving the ball to their 41-yard line with 33 seconds left. Then after an incomplete pass, Brady completed a 23-yard pass to wide receiver Troy Brown, and followed it up with a 6-yard completion to tight end Jermaine Wiggins to advance to the Rams 30-yard line. Brady then spiked the ball with seven seconds left, setting up Vinatieri's 48-yard field goal attempt. Vinatieri's game-winning kick sailed through the uprights as time expired, marking the first time in Super Bowl history that a game had been won by a score on the final play.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Part of the 2001 blame needs to be placed on Gruden for that terrible decision in the Raiders-Patriots games.

 

Bad_Mo

Footballguy
Boy this has never been discussed before.

IMO 2001 was a fluke, 2003 & 2004 were not.
2003 was a fluke because Kasay got tired.2004 was a fluke because McNabb got tired.

Even the a diehard Pats fan will admit they were just lucky.
Luck....or a better conditioned team? You cite two examples of guys getting gassed. That doesn't happen to the great teams. Try again....
 

Bad_Mo

Footballguy
In the recent topic about the 2005 Steelers, it was questioned a few times how many controversial advantages the 2001 and 2003 Patriots received, after it was brought up that the 2005 Steelers had perhaps a controversial advantage. Bostonfred said he'd only discuss it in a separate topic, so I decided that this would be interesting enough to indeed discuss.

Anyway, a very strong case can be made that the 2001 Patriots were outright handed the Lombardi trophy via an NFL conspiracy. Everybody nows about the infamous Tuck Rule....a ruling only equaled in how terrible it was by Polamalu's INT reversal against the Colts in 2005. Even if Brady did "tuck" the ball, and the ref decided to use this call for perhaps the first time in decades, it's obvious that Brady had possession of the ball. He did NOT want to drop it, and Woodson's hit forced it out. That's a fumble, it has to be.

And in the 2001 SuperBowl (Pats vs Rams) the Patriots also may have gotten unfair advantages through terrible officiating. If you look on the internet you'll find many examples of blatant Patriots personal fouls (including one of the worst face-mask pulling I've ever seen) that weren't called.

Also, while I don't nescessarily believe it goes this deep, many have said that the NFL wanted the Patriots to win it all after 9/11....and it does seem a tad suspicious that it worked out that way.

As for the 2003 Patriots, it's all about the AFCCG versus the Colts. This time the NFL even later admitted that they made several errors, and there should have been around 5 or so pass interferences called, but they weren't, likely because the game was at Foxboro. The Colts probably should have won that game...

Discuss.
I'm pretty sure you could have started 18 different threads about 27 different topics that make sense. Stop wasting our time reading this drivel.
 

Baracuda

Footballguy
No team that wins a superbowl is ever handed it. To pick one event and "blame" the Patriots entire successful season(s) on it lacks intelligence and wisdom.

 

Spike

Footballguy
In 2001, against the Raiders, the best thing the pats had going for them was the weather. The snowy conditions made Oakland's short passing game a memory. I doubt God was in on the conspiracy.

I don't think Coleman called the rule incorrectly, I think it should not have been overturned. I thought the replay was inconclusive, as it seemed like it was possible that Brady's left hand may have touched the ball.

Which doesn't matter. The Pats still had to move the ball, and Vinitiari had to kick a field goal in that weather. The Raiders still could've stopped them.

All that being said, I'm a Raiders fan, and I don't care anymore.

That 2001 Pats team was a great story, and played a heck of a Super Bowl.

God, let this die.
:goodposting:
 

Jous

Footballguy
In the recent topic about the 2005 Steelers, it was questioned a few times how many controversial advantages the 2001 and 2003 Patriots received, after it was brought up that the 2005 Steelers had perhaps a controversial advantage. Bostonfred said he'd only discuss it in a separate topic, so I decided that this would be interesting enough to indeed discuss.

Anyway, a very strong case can be made that the 2001 Patriots were outright handed the Lombardi trophy via an NFL conspiracy. Everybody nows about the infamous Tuck Rule....a ruling only equaled in how terrible it was by Polamalu's INT reversal against the Colts in 2005. Even if Brady did "tuck" the ball, and the ref decided to use this call for perhaps the first time in decades, it's obvious that Brady had possession of the ball. He did NOT want to drop it, and Woodson's hit forced it out. That's a fumble, it has to be.

And in the 2001 SuperBowl (Pats vs Rams) the Patriots also may have gotten unfair advantages through terrible officiating. If you look on the internet you'll find many examples of blatant Patriots personal fouls (including one of the worst face-mask pulling I've ever seen) that weren't called.

Also, while I don't nescessarily believe it goes this deep, many have said that the NFL wanted the Patriots to win it all after 9/11....and it does seem a tad suspicious that it worked out that way.

As for the 2003 Patriots, it's all about the AFCCG versus the Colts. This time the NFL even later admitted that they made several errors, and there should have been around 5 or so pass interferences called, but they weren't, likely because the game was at Foxboro. The Colts probably should have won that game...

Discuss.
I'm pretty sure you could have started 18 different threads about 27 different topics that make sense. Stop wasting our time reading this drivel.
If you don't like the topic, don't click on it. Apparently enough people were interested to warrent a decent number of replies, however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top