|
Post by hehatesshe on Feb 7, 2019 22:17:04 GMT
Question: What has more rings, Tom Brady or the Olympic symbol? Brady's rings have asterisks. The Olympic flag doesn't have asterisks. This just proves that Brady - haters are too stupid to answer a simple math question involving counting. I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself soon.
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Feb 7, 2019 22:18:40 GMT
But it was a shorter season, so does not cut it. Yes, it does. Same with John Wooden's 4 undefeated seasons. Those were 30-game seasons but they still count. And so does the Dolphins undefeated season, the only undefeated season in NFL history. Since you Pats jealous Pats fans are too stupid to understand, I'll explain it to you more slowly. NFL teams don't get to make their own schedule. NFL teams play the schedule that the NFL gives them. The 1972 Dolphins played the schedule that the NF gave them and won EVERY game. All the 2007 Patriots had to do to match or better than was to play the schedule the NFL gave them and win EVERY game. But the 2007 Patriots FAILED to do that. And that just bugs Pats fans so much that they have to claim that losing the Super Bowl is better than going undefeated and winning the Super Bowl. LOL!!! 14 is shorter than 16 16 is harder than 14.
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Feb 7, 2019 22:19:37 GMT
Question: What has more rings, Tom Brady or the Olympic symbol? Brady's rings have asterisks. The Olympic flag doesn't have asterisks. Please show me an official record that has the asterisk. I can't seem to find one.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 7, 2019 23:40:19 GMT
King Kong Shady tries to claim that losing the Super Bowl is better than going 17-0 and winning the Super Bowl. LOL!!! That's the 3rd time you got it wrong, Always Wrong. You really can't get anything right, can you cupcake. Tell us again how 17 > 18 ... 'cause that never gets old!
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 7, 2019 23:53:50 GMT
King Kong Shady tries to claim that losing the Super Bowl is better than going 17-0 and winning the Super Bowl. LOL!!! That's the 3rd time you got it wrong, Always Wrong. You really can't get anything right, can you cupcake. Tell us again how 17 > 18 ... 'cause that never gets old! LOL!!! It's pretty clear that you're jealous that the Pats can never claim the greatest season in NFL history because you keep intentionally leaving off the L part of the W-L records. 17-0 >>> 18*-1. It's not the 17 or 18 that's important. It's the ZERO and ONE that's important. And ZERO losses is always always historic and better than ONE loss, especially when that ONE loss is in the biggest game of the season.Once again, 17-0 >>> 18*-1. Always has been and always will be. And that just bugs the hell out of you Pats fans.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 8, 2019 1:34:35 GMT
you keep intentionally leaving off the L part of the W-L records. When talking about the greatest undefeated single season win streak, an L simply means the streak has come to an end. No team has ever bested the Patriots in that regard, including the '72 Dolphins. That is a fact that is not in dispute. You're probably the only person (excluding the clinically retarded) who can't figure out that 18 > 17.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 8, 2019 2:06:02 GMT
you keep intentionally leaving off the L part of the W-L records. When talking about the greatest undefeated single season win streak, an L simply means the streak has come to an end. No team has ever bested the Patriots in that regard, including the '72 Dolphins. That is a fact that is not in dispute. You're probably the only person (excluding the clinically retarded) who can't figure out that 18 > 17. An L means no perfection. Like I said, there are 2 numbers to a W-L record. And the 17 or 18 isn't the important one. The ZERO and ONE are the important numbers. And ZERO LOSSES >>> ONE LOSS. And 17-0 >>> 18*-1. Always has been and always will be.
And the fact that you're trying to claim that ONE LOSS is better than ZERO LOSSES only further confirms that you Pats fans are really jealous and it really bugs you that the Dolphins had the greatest season in NFL history and the Pats have NEVER been able to match or beat the Dolphins historic and revered season.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 8, 2019 9:33:13 GMT
you're trying to claim that ONE LOSS is better than ZERO LOSSES Wrong again, Always Wrong. I've repeatedly "claimed" two things ... that few people, other than you, would disagree with. 1. 18 > 17 2. It's always better to win the World Championship. That means the Patriots hold the title for the greatest undefeated single season win streak in NFL history.
It also means that any team that wins the Super Bowl had a "better" season than the team that didn't. Apparently, everyone gets it ... but you.
|
|
|
Post by shadyvsesham on Feb 8, 2019 11:11:50 GMT
This thread in a nutshell!
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 8, 2019 14:40:02 GMT
you're trying to claim that ONE LOSS is better than ZERO LOSSES Wrong again, Always Wrong. I've repeatedly "claimed" two things ... that few people, other than you, would disagree with. 1. 18 > 17 2. It's always better to win the World Championship. And the Patriots did neither when they went 18*-1. LOL!!! So by your own admission 17-0 >>> 18*-1.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 8, 2019 14:47:01 GMT
This thread in a nutshell! Well, some idiot Pats fan KKB just doesn't seem to understand that 17-0 is and will always be better than 18*-1. Not just in the NFL, in any sport. If Duke is 17-0 and North Carolina is 18-1 in basketball, guess who's ranked #1? Like I try to explain to that idiot Pats fan KKB, it's not the 17 or 18 wins that's important. It's the ZERO LOSSES vs ONE LOSS that's important. And ZERO LOSSES is much better than ONE LOSS. Always has been and always will be. But that idiot Pats fan is so jealous that the Pats will never be able to claim that greatest season in NFL history that he's trying to claim that ONE LOSS is better than ZERO LOSSES so he's basically saying that 2015 Kentucky starting 38-0 and then losing in the Final Four is better than John Wooden's 4 UCLA teams that went 30-0 and won the National Championship. BTW, besides John Wooden's 4 undefeated seasons, 1956 USF, 1957 North Carolina, and 1976 Indiana also went undefeated. Most people wont' remember how many wins they had, but everyone remembers how many losses they had - ZERO LOSSES. That's because the number of wins isn't as important as the number of losses. That's what that idiot Pats fan KKB just doesn't seem to understand.
|
|
|
Post by shadyvsesham on Feb 8, 2019 15:10:53 GMT
This thread in a nutshell! Well, some idiot Pats fan KKB just doesn't seem to understand that 17-0 is and will always be better than 18*-1. Not just in the NFL, in any sport. If Duke is 17-0 and North Carolina is 18-1 in basketball, guess who's ranked #1? Like I try to explain to that idiot Pats fan KKB, it's not the 17 or 18 wins that's important. It's the ZERO LOSSES vs ONE LOSS that's important. And ZERO LOSSES is much better than ONE LOSS. Always has been and always will be. But that idiot Pats fan is so jealous that the Pats will never be able to claim that greatest season in NFL history that he's trying to claim that ONE LOSS is better than ZERO LOSSES so he's basically saying that 2015 Kentucky starting 38-0 and then losing in the Final Four is better than John Wooden's 4 UCLA teams that went 30-0 and won the National Championship. BTW, besides John Wooden's 4 undefeated seasons, 1956 USF, 1957 North Carolina, and 1976 Indiana also went undefeated. Most people wont' remember how many wins they had, but everyone remembers how many losses they had - ZERO LOSSES. That's because the number of wins isn't as important as the number of losses. That's what that idiot Pats fan KKB just doesn't seem to understand.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 8, 2019 23:41:07 GMT
it's not the 17 or 18 wins that's important. It's the ZERO LOSSES vs ONE LOSS that's important. Which is utter nonsense. When determining who holds the greatest undefeated single season win streak in NFL history, it's the wins that are counted. What sort of moron would count the loses? Whatever season length related accolade you wish to bestow upon the '72 Dolphins, it ended when the NFL added more games to the season. These days, 17 wins won't even get you the consolation prize of a Conference Championship.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 9, 2019 0:38:56 GMT
it's not the 17 or 18 wins that's important. It's the ZERO LOSSES vs ONE LOSS that's important. Which is utter nonsense. When determining who holds the greatest undefeated single season win streak in NFL history, it's the wins that are counted. What sort of moron would count the loses? Whatever season length related accolade you wish to bestow upon the '72 Dolphins, it ended when the NFL added more games to the season. When determining the greatest single season in NFL history, it's winning percentage that's important. And 17-0 is a better winning percentage than 18*-1. What sort of moron would think an 18*-1 winning percentage is better than a 17-0 winning percentage? And no amount of games the NFL adds to the season can ever wipe out the 17-0 season by the Dolphins. Because that 17-0 season is the ONLY UNDEFEATED SEASON in NFL history and thus still the greatest single season in NFL history. And it just really bugs you so much that the Pats have NEVER gone undefeated and NEVER had the greatest single season in NFL history that you're trying to claim going that losing a Super Bowl is better than going undefeated. LOL!!!
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 9, 2019 1:14:31 GMT
Question: What has more rings, Tom Brady or the Olympic symbol? Brady's rings have asterisks. The Olympic flag doesn't have asterisks. Wooden's UCLA teams should have asterisks, hypocrite
Abortions. Quit grinding the axe, Eugene. Fucking hypocritical asshole.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 9, 2019 1:39:52 GMT
When determining the greatest single season in NFL history, it's winning percentage that's important. Now it's "winning percentage". You can't keep your story straight, can you cupcake? The '72 Dolphins 17 game win streak became a footnote in NFL history the moment the Patriots won #18. It's pretty pathetic when the "greatest single season in NFL history" couldn't even take home a consolation prize today.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 9, 2019 7:13:15 GMT
When determining the greatest single season in NFL history, it's winning percentage that's important. Now it's "winning percentage". You can't keep your story straight, can you cupcake? The '72 Dolphins 17 game win streak became a footnote in NFL history the moment the Patriots won #18. Nope, it's 18*-1 that has become the footnote while 17-0 is still the greatest season in NFL history and the standard by which all other seasons are measured by. When the 2011 Packers started 13-0, the talk was about whether the Packers could join the Dolphins as the only undefeated team in NF history and not about whether the Packers could go 18-1. Like I said, the more you try to claim that 18*-1 is better than 17-0, the more you just prove that you Pats fans are really jealous of the Dolphins undefeated season and the more you just prove that it really bugs you Pats fans that the Dolphins 17-0 season is still the greatest season in NFL history and the Pats can NEVER claim the greatest season in NFL history, all because your Golden Boy Brady choked against a double-digit underdog in the biggest game in franchise history.
All he had to do was score 18 points against a #17-ranked defense and beat a double-digit underdog. But he choked. And that just really kills you Pats fans. LOL!!!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 9, 2019 13:59:43 GMT
Now it's "winning percentage". You can't keep your story straight, can you cupcake? The '72 Dolphins 17 game win streak became a footnote in NFL history the moment the Patriots won #18. Nope, it's 18*-1 that has become the footnote while 17-0 is still the greatest season in NFL history and the standard by which all other seasons are measured by. When the 2011 Packers started 13-0, the talk was about whether the Packers could join the Dolphins as the only undefeated team in NF history and not about whether the Packers could go 18-1. Sorry, Always Wrong. No one cares about an undefeated season. Ask any player or coach and they will all scoff at the notion that undefeated is important to them. And when the 2011 Packers were on their winning streak, the only significant comparison was whether they could best the 21 game winning streak set by the Patriots. 2011 Green Bay PackersGreen Bay Packers Undefeated SeasonNot one mention of the '72 Dolphins. That's because everyone (but you) understands how irrelevant they became after their lowly 17 game win streak was crushed by the Patriots. Once again, DC-Fan = Always Wrong
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 9, 2019 18:43:11 GMT
Nope, it's 18*-1 that has become the footnote while 17-0 is still the greatest season in NFL history and the standard by which all other seasons are measured by. When the 2011 Packers started 13-0, the talk was about whether the Packers could join the Dolphins as the only undefeated team in NF history and not about whether the Packers could go 18-1. Sorry, Always Wrong. No one cares about an undefeated season. Except for the Pats and Pats fans like you, who kept talking trash the entire 2007 season about how the Patriots would go 19-0 and kept talking about how the 2007 Patriots had a tougher schedule than the 1972 Dolphins. And except for NFL historians everywhere, who start talking about the Dolphins undefeated season every time a team starts 10-0, then 11-0, then 12-0, etc. 47 years later, the Dolphins 17-0 season is still the greatest season in NFL history and still the season that every team tries to match or eclipse every year and that is what really bugs Pats fans like you that the Pats have NEVER gone undefeated and the Pats can NEVER claim the greatest season in NFL history. LOL!!!
|
|
SportsFan19
Junior Member
@sportsfan19
Posts: 2,858
Likes: 2,255
|
Post by SportsFan19 on Feb 9, 2019 19:21:52 GMT
The only thing this thread had done is prove DC-Fan really is a ginger. There's no way an old Asian dude could be this bad with numbers.
|
|