Beth: Mer and I have actually been having part of this discussion over on the SG msg board.
Kristen: Yes, I have been reading your posts and lurking in the shadows with an occasional "I heart David Givens" thrown in for good measure.
Anyway, here's what I think. I'm skeptical about T.O.'s ability to heal miraculously and come back to tear it up. And, though it remains to be seen if he will run his legs, he will most certainly run his mouth. Ask Vanderjagt about giving the Pats extra motivation.
Here's the thing: I really like Donovan McNabb. I really, really do. If Tom Brady weren't my QB, I'd want D-Nabb hands down. No Manning, no Vick, no Roethlisberger, none of that. He deserves to be in this game. And he deserved to win on Sunday. Without Chad Lews, and most likely without T.O. - at least at full speed - I would be concerned about the Eagles recieving game. I guess that puts more pressure on Westbrook and Mitchell and the capable shoulders of McNabb. I'll bet they can handle it. Or, I would bet they could handle it if they were playing anyone else. That's not
overconfidence because the combination of McNabb and Andy Reid surely gives me pause. But I think maybe it's a bad year to be an NFC champ.
Part of me wants this to be a really close game and part of me wants it to be a huge blowout. Not because I don't like the Eagles because, aside from T.O., I have much love for the Eagles and can certainly identify with their fan base, and I do take some sort of twisted pride in the fact that they've apparently adopted the Red Sox as their motivation. It's just that I agree with Beth, people still don't get it. They still think Tom Brady is "pretty good" and Belichick is "pretty smart." It's time to solidy those "best ever" arguments. Also, we're losing both our offensive and defensive coordinators after the SB and I can't say that doesn't worry me. Who knows when and if we'll ever be here again? But I shall refrain from trash-talking the Eagles because they are a damn good team and truth be told, I'm terrified. I always am. I think most honest fans are. Ignore the loud-mouthed jackasses. Something tells me they're new to this bandwagon. Converts are always the worst.
Oh, and Mer, I agree with you re: Tommy's hair. It's called Supercuts, Tom. Look into it. But not until after the Super Bowl. Whatever you do, do not ask Freddie Mitchell for the number of his stylist.
By the way, Sam, this is genius: "Hell may have no fury like a woman scorned, but heaven hath no sweetness like a sports fan vindicated." I dropped that one on my resident office Steelers fan after she attempted to make me feel bad by telling me about her boyfriend rocking back and forth in the corner and hanging his Joey Porter jersey in his closet while saying, "Bye. See you next year." She was trying to take advantage of my good sportsmanship. Eh, I'm over it.
Beth: I like the hair. What can I say. I don't think Tommy has ever shown up
in any kind of haircut, clothing style, etc. where it hasn't made me happy to see him.
Mer: Lots of things to get to here.
TO has an injury that takes 12 weeks to heal, at the least. It's been 7 weeks so far. He will not play. If he somehow convinces Andy Reid to let him suit up, he'll be as effective as Randy Moss was against the Eagles.
"Without Chad Lews, and most likely without T.O. - at least at full speed - I would be concerned about the Eagles recieving game. I guess that puts more pressure on Westbrook and Mitchell and the capable shoulders of McNabb."
Yes, losing TO and Chad Lewis is very concerning, and to be honest, I think it might be too much for them to overcome. A good team should be able to overcome injury, but losing the guy around whom you built your offense, and then one of his best replacements, may just be too much. Westbrook can only do so much when he's in double coverage.
I'm letting the TO comments slide. I don't have the energy for that debate again. Who is it that talks about Tom Brady as only being "good" and Belichek as only being "pretty smart?" Where are you all hearing this? For the few weeks, I've heard nothng but Patriots asskissing. Everyone talks about how they are a dynasty and how you can't pick against them until they lose and how Belichek is one of the greatest coaches in the history of the NFL. I don't know if Pats fans are inventing this "we aren't respected" attitude as a source of motivation, but it's insane. I've heard nothing of the sort and in fact, I've heard exactly the opposite.
I loved Freddie Mitchell's hair. I love that dude's attitude. Some in the media have been criticizing him for always seeking attention. I guess some people always need something to complain about.
I found an interesting stat today. Check it:
Since the start of the 2001 season, including the playoffs, the Patriots'
record is 56-16. The Eagles' record is 54-19.
That's two more wins for the Patriots: Super Bowls.
That's three more losses for the Eagles: NFC championship games.
Pretty interesting, I'd say.
And just to prove that not everyone is disrespecting the Pats, here's this:
"I think Brady is as good as there is in the NFL," Jim Johnson said. "This guy is so accurate. I've already been studying film on him, and I can't believe some of the throws this guy is making. Montana was so darn cool, and Brady is just like that. I haven't seen anything that bothers him."
"You can see why he was the MVP of two Super Bowls. He's got a feel for the game right now, and you can see the confidence he has in making all the big throws. He doesn't make many mistakes, and they've got good receivers."
Kristen: Maybe I am searching for the negatives. I mean, you do have to look pretty hard. Perhaps it's a product of listening to Rodney Harrison week in and week out preaching about getting no respect. Maybe I just watch too much SportsCenter. I know that people respect the Pats and give them credit. I think part of it is the obsession that people have with numbers and records and stats. Brady will never be Manning. Never. And I wouldn't want him to be. I suspect he wouldn't want to be either. There just seems to be some sort of mental stumbling block that people can't get over in terms of defining things. They always say, "Is Tom Brady one of the best ever?" Why can't they just say, "Here's why Tom Brady is one of the best ever." Maybe
it's semantics. Perhaps I should not get so caught up in it.
I think Freddie Mitchell would have fit in well with the Red Sox. I do sort of like him. He reminds me a little bit of Pedro Martinez in that he's not afraid of self- promotion but it's a bit tongue in cheek. But at the end of the day, you're glad he's on your team.
Jeremiah Trotter scares me. I'll admit it. I am terrified that he'll come into some rough contact with Tommy's chicken legs.
Switching tracks for just a second, does anyone else think that Plaxico Burress' hissy fit over not getting more balls thrown his way was perhaps indicative as to why the Steelers couldn't get it together on Sunday?
Especially since he was being covered by a dude who was just signed two weeks ago. It's not like Ty Law was running rampant back there. Methinks you should stop whining, Plexiglass and step it up.
What do we think of Hines Ward's hanky fest?
Also, Ty Law and his little scooter made me all warm and fuzzy inside.
Beth: Yes, Mer, you've been hearing that stuff, but as Kristen pointed out, they've been putting it in v. hypothetical terms, like, "IS this true?" instead of "wow, hey, this is true." And the guys saying you can't pick against the Pats are saying it in the context of kicking themselves for picking against the Pats in BOTH playoff games, and only now they're jumping on the bandwagon. That's why it irks Pats
And seriously...Tommy does not get his due. Usually Belichik gets all the credit, Tommy's just another pretty face in the system. This pisses us off as well. And really, if you compare it to the on-air fellatio of Peyton Manning this year, he gets nothing.
I'm not saying NO ONE gets it. I'm saying SOME people REFUSE to get it. Like the idiot who asked Tommy, "Why do you think you play better in the postseason than in the regular season?" Hello??!?!? Could just be me (and Tommy) but I (we) happen to think that a 28-4 record over the past two regular seasons leaves little room for improvement. Why is someone even asking that question? Is it just that they've only
been paying attention to the pats in the postseason and suddenly realizing they're a good team? Hey, whaddya know, I think that's it.
In terms of their numbers and their consistency, they are NOT getting the respect they deserve. They aren't getting the kind of press even the Colts get in the regular season, and though the numbers make it undeniable, they're not getting the kind of coverage previous "dynasty teams" like the cowboys got. They're still being called lucky in some circles. I can't STAND that shit.
However, where you have a good point is that there's no good reason for Pats fans to let it really get to them. I try not to, try to just enjoy it for myself and know what i know and let it go and not write too many run on sentences that inadvertently rhyme and make me look like a jackass.
(To Be Continued...)