Michael Irvin wants to add Belichick’s name to the Lombardi Trophy

[child please]

Originally Posted by JetsFanatic

Belichick would have been fired in 2001 had he not stepped in sh*t with Brady.

No doubt about it. Biggest fraud in sports history.

[Bleedgreen]

Originally Posted by FF2®

Right, so just as Starr was coming into his own Lombardi walks in and inherits a veteran team with 7 or 8 Hall of Famers.

I cant make it any more clear for you.

Weak responses do not make anything clear. The fact is that these Hall of Fame veterans were not Hall of Fame veterans before Lombardi. The facts back me up on this. A team that has 8 combined wins in the 3 seasons prior to Lombardi's arrival has just players. Not HOF players. The only variable that changed was Lombardi. Instead, you offer me "coming into his own?". You argue like you've never watched football in you life.

[sec318]

this is why I gave up watching NFL networks pre and post game shows.

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Michael Irvin wants to add Belichick’s name to the Lombardi Trophy

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...mbardi-trophy/

[Jet Nut]

Originally Posted by FF2®

I have no idea. I can't keep up with the bandings!

Whats a banding or banded?

[Jordy]

Originally Posted by ASH_1962

I am 50 years old


I was 7 the last time the NY Jets went to a SB and I did not know what was going on.

WTF does ANYONE here know about SB winning, and SB winning coaches?

What a complete joke anyone connected with the NYJ is for criticizing BB. Until we at least get back to a SB we all have to pipe down and KEEP QUIET, especially concerning those who have won multiple SB's, let alone gone and lost.

First, you have nothing on me in regards to Jets history.

Second, how do you explain the fact that BB has not won a Super Bowl since he was caught in Spygate?

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Jordy

Second, how do you explain the fact that BB has not won a Super Bowl since he was caught in Spygate?

Seriously Jordy?

BB's has a higher winning percentage post-Spygate.

BB lost one Super Bowl on a freak catch by Tyree and lost another on a dropped pass.

Please explain to me how Spygate would have factored into those two plays?

[Jordy]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

Seriously Jordy?

BB's has a higher winning percentage post-Spygate.

BB lost one Super Bowl on a freak catch by Tyree and lost another on a dropped pass.

Please explain to me how Spygate would have factored into those two plays?

First, my question was directed at ASH.

Second, close only counts in horseshoes and **** happens.

Facts is facts.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Jordy

First, my question was directed at ASH.

Second, close only counts in horseshoes and **** happens.

Facts is facts.

It's been 7 years since Spygate.

If Spygate actually gave the Pats some sort of competitive advantage on offense, why has their offense been so much more productive than pre-Sygate?

If the Pats were a stumbling .500 team with a bottom 3rd offense over the last 7 years, your arguement might have some validity.

Losing 2 Super Bowl's on two plays has nothing to do with Spygate whatsoever, and you know it.

[Jordy]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

It's been 7 years since Spygate.

If Spygate actually gave the Pats some sort of competitive advantage on offense, why has their offense been so much more productive than pre-Sygate?

If the Pats were a stumbling .500 team with a bottom 3rd offense over the last 7 years, your arguement might have some validity.

Losing 2 Super Bowl's on two plays has nothing to do with Spygate whatsoever, and you know it.

You're not pulling me in TX.

This thread is about BB and the ridiculous notion of renaming the trophy.

He hasn't won a Super Bowl since Spygate. That's a fact. We are all entitled to draw our own conclusions.

By the way, I've never heard anyone suggest that the Larry O'Brien Trophy should be changed to the Red Auerbach Trophy or the Phil Jackson Trophy.

And those two are certainly more deserving than B frickin' B.

[Mohegangreen]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

It's been 7 years since Spygate.

If Spygate actually gave the Pats some sort of competitive advantage on offense, why has their offense been so much more productive than pre-Sygate?

If the Pats were a stumbling .500 team with a bottom 3rd offense over the last 7 years, your arguement might have some validity.

Losing 2 Super Bowl's on two plays has nothing to do with Spygate whatsoever, and you know it.

More than anything it can just be karma that cost NE 2 SB's

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Jordy

You're not pulling me in TX.

This thread is about BB and the ridiculous notion of renaming the trophy.

He hasn't won a Super Bowl since Spygate. That's a fact. We are all entitled to draw our own conclusions.

First off, re-naming the trophy is utterly ridiculous. Irvin must be back on crack.

And yes, all posters are entitled to their own opinion, no matter how absurd.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Mohegangreen

More than anything it can just be karma that cost NE 2 SB's

That has more validity than Spygate.

[Mohegangreen]

Can we discuss Kraft and his girlfriend again? that was more fun

[Laxman]

Originally Posted by First DOWN!

Please don't associate the entire Jet fan base with a few nimrods here. Thank you.


It'd be easier for me to say BB's success is a product of cheating if the Pats went back to sucking. But all they've done is stay near the top of the NFL. If it wasn't for a few lucky breaks, they would have won two SBs and have an unprecedented season in 07. As much as some idiots here just refuse to acknowledge how unbelievable that feat would have been, that was a great accomplishment and I respect the hell out of what they did. F#ck the Pats, but some of you are retarded.

They won all three of their tainted SBs by 3 points..... you could just as easily make the argument that they could be 0-5 in SBs, without a few lucky breaks.