Shaq Lawson update...

[trapezeus]

Re: Shaq Lawson update...

another thread hijacked by people arguing with OP.

[justasportsfan]

Re: Shaq Lawson update...

another thread hijacked by people arguing with OP.

If we didn't argue, the thread would've been dead long time ago.

[stuckincincy]

Re: Shaq Lawson update...

If we didn't argue, the thread would've been dead long time ago.

Quite correct. This site is where we release some of our jerkiness...which is a benefit to those around us in the real world. Much better to stomp our feet and whine here than on something like Facebook.

A catharsis, I would say.

[justasportsfan]

Re: Shaq Lawson update...

Quite correct. This site is where we release all our jerkiness...to the betterment of those around us.

I can't remember a more quite offseason than we have this year here on BZ. It's like hardly anyone talks football anymore.

[ICRockets]

Re: Shaq Lawson update...

I can't remember a more quite offseason than we have this year here on BZ. It's like hardly anyone talks football anymore.

It's a combination of it being an election year and the fact that literally none of us like Rex Ryan.

[Goobylal]

Re: Shaw Lawson update...

That's debatable at least, without Brady.

It's not debatable: it's totally wrong. The only place, besides QB, where they're better is TE's and LB's. But QB is the most important position by far and you can't just take a HOF and replace him with a scrub and think things will be the same. There's a reason why offensive players who leave the Cheaters never do much elsewhere.

[swiper]

Re: Shaq Lawson update...

I can't remember a more quite offseason than we have this year here on BZ. It's like hardly anyone talks football anymore.

Did you mean "quiet?" Spelling has never been all that important to Republicans. Like taking care of their neighbors in need.

[OpIv37]

Re: Shaw Lawson update...

It's not debatable: it's totally wrong. The only place, besides QB, where they're better is TE's and LB's. But QB is the most important position by far and you can't just take a HOF and replace him with a scrub and think things will be the same. There's a reason why offensive players who leave the Cheaters never do much elsewhere.

They're only more talented at two positions but they're perennial contenders while we struggle to break .500? Please.

Oh, and the last time they replaced a HOF QB with a scrub, they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs on tiebreakers. And that was a full season. This is only 4 games.

[ICRockets]

Re: Shaw Lawson update...

They're only more talented at two positions but they're perennial contenders while we struggle to break .500? Please.

Oh, and the last time they replaced a HOF QB with a scrub, they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs on tiebreakers. And that was a full season. This is only 4 games.

So the exception that proves the rule is actually just the rule?

[Goobylal]

Re: Shaw Lawson update...

They're only more talented at two positions but they're perennial contenders while we struggle to break .500? Please.

Oh, and the last time they replaced a HOF QB with a scrub, they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs on tiebreakers. And that was a full season. This is only 4 games.

Yeah, it's called having Brady. Belichick was a sub-.500 coach with the Browns and the year after he took over an 8-8 Cheaters team. Having a prolific offense that not only score points but keeps the defense off the field is a huge advantage.

As for that 2008 season, they also had a team that had the greatest offense of all time that returned entirely intact, the 4th ranked defense in yards and points, and who went 18-1 the year before, barely losing the SB thanks to a miraculous catch. But they still missed the playoffs didn't they? Think they make the playoffs and go deep in them if Brady had played? This current team is nowhere near that one.

[OpIv37]

Re: Shaw Lawson update...

So the exception that proves the rule is actually just the rule?

The rule is that NE still plays well when starters aren't available. They've done it time and time again. Granted, they've only had to go without Brady for an extended period once since he became the starter, but they're one for one.

[OpIv37]

Re: Shaw Lawson update...

Yeah, it's called having Brady. Belichick was a sub-.500 coach with the Browns and the year after he took over an 8-8 Cheaters team. Having a prolific offense that not only score points but keeps the defense off the field is a huge advantage.

As for that 2008 season, they also had a team that had the greatest offense of all time that returned entirely intact, the 4th ranked defense in yards and points, and who went 18-1 the year before, barely losing the SB thanks to a miraculous catch. But they still missed the playoffs didn't they? Think they make the playoffs and go deep in them if Brady had played? This current team is nowhere near that one.

Every year. Every damn year. "this NE team isn't as good as their past teams." Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

[Goobylal]

Re: Shaw Lawson update...

Every year. Every damn year. "this NE team isn't as good as their past teams." Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Show me where I've said that once. As long as they have Brady and Belichick, they are good enough to beat the Bills consistently. Just like how the SB era Bills beat their division opponents consistently.

[OpIv37]

Re: Shaw Lawson update...

Show me where I've said that once. As long as they have Brady and Belichick, they are good enough to beat the Bills consistently. Just like how the SB era Bills beat their division opponents consistently.

They were good enough to get 11 wins without Brady.

[feldspar]

Re: Shaw Lawson update...

They were good enough to get 11 wins without Brady.

The Patriots have exactly TWO players left from that 2008 team, and they are both Special Teams players...not including Brady, of course. I don't know how many coaches remain, but probably not too many.

Today's Patriots roster isn't nearly as good as it was back then. That 2007 team was probably the best one I've ever seen, or close enough to it. That carried over into 2008 when Brady got hurt.Saying the Patriots beat us without Brady in 2008 means nothing in relation to this year's matchup. Why totally ignore the fact that the Bills beat the Pats with Jimmy Garoppolo at QB recently? It means just as much.

I don't think that anyone in their right mind is going to say that anyone in the AFC East has gained ground on the Pats at this point, even with Brady missing four games. They are still odds-on favorites to win the Super Bowl. But I think the Bills have a fair shot of beating them in week 4 without Brady. That's about as far as I'd go with that. Wish that game was to take place in Buffalo...