NFL Playoff Thread

You're a sad case, and you are far more worked up over this than I. The stage of acceptance in the grief process -- that some people in life are no good lying cheating dogs -- has long been reached. I am content with it. I have what the Quakers call "peace at the center."

But only you would remember the bullshit from an argument on this site, from five years ago.

 

16-0 Patriots, don't rest starters, they lose Super Bowl.
14-0 Colts take their foot off the gas, lose last 2, lose Super Bowl.
13-0 Packers lose to Chiefs, rest some starters (including QB) Week 17, lose first round playoff game.

Not 100% sure what, if anything, to make of this. I don't like resting starters, and I really don't like it on offense when you are a pass heavy team. That, to me, is a rhythm and timing thing that is really hard to get back. Rodgers and his receivers just looked a half-second off today, and I'm not convinced that it was all the Giants D.
I also think there may be something to not having people tell you from about Week 9 on that you may be one of the greatest teams of all time. Next year I think I'll root for my team to be 6-2 at the halfway point, not 8-0.

 

Pretty damn easy when you have been bringing it up at every opportunity since then.

 

Did the bell wake up the baby this time?

Given how often people do it to one another in general around here, it's not a strange coincidence at all. Given that it seems to be the only rhetorical tactic you know, I'm not surprised that you don't notice it.

 

Because I am an officiating wonk. It is a pleasing obsession. No shortage of morons to criticize. I have asked you in the past to take a rules test to determine how precious little you actually know about the NFL rulebook. Oh, you think you know it, like you think you know everything, but you don't know diddily shit about the rules. That has been amply demonstrated these many years on this thread.

 

Saints in 2009 were also 13-0, then lost their last three (including Week 17 when they rested their starters), then won the Super Bowl. I don't think there's a lot of conclusive proof either way on that issue.

 

There isn't proof. The Packers loss had nothing to do with resting starters.

The painful truth I didn't want to admit is that the Packers offense fell of drastically late in the season. They were better than most, but as someone who watches every game, I was starting to get nervous with the last handful of games; it started with the loss in KC. Ever in the wins after that, Rodgers looked a notch worse. He went from completing 75% of his passes to floating around 60. The drops seemed to get worse, the rhythm fell off...they really didn't look good until they played the Lions. And that might be the one defense worse than theirs.

The defense was slop all year. When Rodgers was playing lights out football, they were still struggling to win a lot of games. So when he started playing just "good" and not absolutely ridiculous, you could assume they would struggle.

Tonight, he wasn't that bad. Without all the drops, he does OK. But he certainly wasn't great, really no one was for GB. The playoffs are all about peaking at the right time. The Packers were damn near unbeatable from Week 16 until the last 1/4 of this year. And then you saw the flaws catch up to them.

But to say the resting starters had much to do with tonight, I think that's a cop out. The writing was on the wall for this. I think a LOT of GB fans had that in the back of their mind. It is a shame. I thought they had a real shot at a dynasty, but alas, in the words of Ron Wolf...it's a one year wonder, nothing but a fart in the wind...

 

Once again presenting your opinion as fact. Of course, you don't back it up with a single example of a rule or interpretation on which I was incorrect, so it's really just you making stuff up.

Also, none of what you wrote refutes either of my points. You still can't come up with a valid reason why the NFL would take the massive risk of fixing even one game, much less many. And you still make it very easy to keep track of this debate because you have been bringing it up constantly since Super Bowl XL.

Oh, and this thread has only been around a couple of weeks, not years.

 

No one should have so little self-respect than to go through your post catalog and chart all of your misfirings.

If you would like to take an independent rules test, I can set it up. And I will bet you my next paycheck that you ... don't prevail.

Now move on before you get the thread locked.

 

Translation: You can't find even one, so you blather on about there being many. I'm not the one engaging in a personal attack here, Herbie. That would be you. I'm just asking you to back up your accusation. No please do so or move on yourself.

You want to match rule book knowledge? Hell. You might be right. But that is just you changing the subject from your ridiculous conspiracy theories.

 

That's right, you will lose. Just as Ivan Drago said.

This lack of knowledge kind of disqualifies you from pish-poshing a studied analysis of the officiating in that shitshow. Which is how this whole thing began, years ago.

Now move on.

 

Except we're not debating whether or not calls were made correctly. We are debating what that means, which means your self-proclaimed expertise is barely relevant.

We all get it, Herbie. your favorite team finally got to the Super Bowl and played like dogshit. Rather than just accepting their failure, you have spent the years since whining not only about the officiating, which was clearly bad in that game, but your delusions of some kind of conspiracy. The one you have no evidence to support. The one you can't present a reasonable motive for. The one that is all in your head.

Now, move on and spare us the foolishness already or find some shred of something to back up your claims for once.