Only 7 people have more rings than he does, lol…
But you know… For the record and all…
lmao
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
For the record.
[/quote]
For the record you haven’t a clue as to what you’re talking about.
The man has 5 rings on his mantel at home. This is a fact. You might want to, you know, have a clue as to what you’re talking about before you drone on and on like so many other pocket book fans who just can’t get over the fact the Pats have had a good run the last decade.
Enjoy it.
As for delusional Pats fan, again, you have no idea what you’re talking about, lol. And many people that actually post in this thread, beyond the lame trolling you have today, can vouch for this. [/quote]
I’m a Giants fan, how can I be jealous? I’m more of a “what’s the big deal” camp.
Yes, I’ve read all your many posts. You’re always the smartest guy in the room. Sure, ok.[/quote]
You’re not much of a Giants fan if you didn’t realize Belichick has 5 rings and not 3.
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
I’m more of a “what’s the big deal” camp.
[/quote]
lol, yes, people that feel this way always post childish whiney posts about a team that lost the next day just like you did.
Super giants fan you are if you don’t even know where the other 2 rings come from.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Crybaby Belichick whining about Welker (big guy LOL) taking out Talib (little guy LOLLL).
“…one of the worst plays I’ve seen.”!!! LMAO -that play would’ve barely been a blip in the SF-Seattle game.
Now that Brady’s long ball accuracy is clearly continuing it’s decline (started with that Welker pass vs. Giants in SB loss imo), Belichick better ride off into the sunset to spend more time with his family (oh, wait…) before he pulls a Shanahan…well, ok maybe not that bad![/quote]
yawn…
I guess 5 rings make people jealous.
[/quote]
Typical delusional Patriots fan.
Uh, that’s 5 appearances, only 3 rings. One loss with a clearly superior team vs. Giants (due to questionable coaching decisions), another loss with an equal Giants team due to Brady errant pass to Welker vs. Eli Manning laser strike to Manningham. For the record.
[/quote]
Uh, I guess you don’t know shit about Belichick then. He won two rings with the Giants in 1986 and 1990. I hate the guy’s guts like everyone else, but he is literally the only defensive coordinator who could ever slow down Joe Montana with any regularity. When Montana was putting up record performances in the late 80’s, he was still only managing something like 7 points a game against Belichick-led defenses.[/quote]
I’ve always been a Giants fan. I don’t count ancillary rings from coaches.
Stay classy, Seattle.
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
I don’t count ancillary rings from coaches.[/quote]
lmao
Armchair experts everywhere rejoice, some faceless e-warrior has completely debunked the myth that coordinators deserve accolades for their efforts.
Priceless garbage is priceless.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Stay classy, Seattle.[/quote]
Ouch, I didn’t see that.
I read something about it, and that is a piss poor showing by that fan. His/her tickets should be striped for a year.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
I don’t count ancillary rings from coaches.[/quote]
lmao
Armchair experts everywhere rejoice, some faceless e-warrior has completely debunked the myth that coordinators deserve accolades for their efforts.
Priceless garbage is priceless.
[/quote]
Wrong again. I’m faceless, but I’ve posted pictures. Young whippersnappers always think they know it all…
And I’m not an armchair guy either; but if you want any back in the day stuff, you can talk to yourself I guess.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Stay classy, Seattle.[/quote]
Ouch, I didn’t see that.
I read something about it, and that is a piss poor showing by that fan. His/her tickets should be striped for a year. [/quote]
There’s drunk dumb fucks at every stadium. That is totally shitty.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Stay classy, Seattle.[/quote]
Ouch, I didn’t see that.
I read something about it, and that is a piss poor showing by that fan. His/her tickets should be striped for a year. [/quote]
There’s drunk dumb fucks at every stadium. That is totally shitty. [/quote]
Without question.
Every team has assface fans.
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Crybaby Belichick whining about Welker (big guy LOL) taking out Talib (little guy LOLLL).
“…one of the worst plays I’ve seen.”!!! LMAO -that play would’ve barely been a blip in the SF-Seattle game.
Now that Brady’s long ball accuracy is clearly continuing it’s decline (started with that Welker pass vs. Giants in SB loss imo), Belichick better ride off into the sunset to spend more time with his family (oh, wait…) before he pulls a Shanahan…well, ok maybe not that bad![/quote]
yawn…
I guess 5 rings make people jealous.
[/quote]
Typical delusional Patriots fan.
Uh, that’s 5 appearances, only 3 rings. One loss with a clearly superior team vs. Giants (due to questionable coaching decisions), another loss with an equal Giants team due to Brady errant pass to Welker vs. Eli Manning laser strike to Manningham. For the record.
[/quote]
Uh, I guess you don’t know shit about Belichick then. He won two rings with the Giants in 1986 and 1990. I hate the guy’s guts like everyone else, but he is literally the only defensive coordinator who could ever slow down Joe Montana with any regularity. When Montana was putting up record performances in the late 80’s, he was still only managing something like 7 points a game against Belichick-led defenses.[/quote]
I’ve always been a Giants fan. I don’t count ancillary rings from coaches.[/quote]
Obviously you don’t know what “ancillary” means. I’ll tell you.
First of all, I’m not sure you understand the part of speech or its function within a sentence, given how you’ve used it to modify “rings”. It can function as either a noun or an adjective, and I can only guess that you’ve used it as an adjective here. Ancillary as an adjective is the quality of providing NECESSARY support to an organization, system, institution, or industry. A ring is none of those things, so there is no such thing as “ancillary rings”, given that ancillary, by definition, cannot modify “rings”.
But setting that aside for a moment, let’s focus on the rest of the definition. Whether used as a noun or an adjective, ancillary implies a high degree of necessity in order to function. Once one wades through your grammatical doltishness, it becomes clear that you have implied (however unwittingly) that Belichick’s contributions were ancillary, meaning that they were integrally necessary to the function of the institution that is the NY Giants.
My point is that only a fucking mongoloid would argue that “ancillary rings” don’t count.
Bowman is a true warrior. Every rabid fan I watched the game with offered nothing but respect for the guy when he went down. I’m getting madder and madder while sitting here thinking about that bullshit.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Stay classy, Seattle.[/quote]
Ouch, I didn’t see that.
I read something about it, and that is a piss poor showing by that fan. His/her tickets should be striped for a year. [/quote]
There’s drunk dumb fucks at every stadium. That is totally shitty. [/quote]
Without question.
Every team has assface fans. [/quote]
Yeah, well, you don’t see that shit at Candlestick Park. The worst I’ve ever seen is a half-hearted attempt at the wave while an injured opponent was on the ground. Most of the stadium shouted down the wave thing and in my section, it was only the opposing team’s fans (what few there were) who were participating in it.
This is the kind of shit that makes this loss easier to handle. I feel no animosity toward a fanbase and a team that is wholly without class or respect for the game or its players. I don’t feel anger toward a person who accidentally shits on my living room floor, only sorrow. Jjackrash is the lone exception. I KNOW he has zero class, but that’s because he’s a Chico State man, and none of us have class.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Crybaby Belichick whining about Welker (big guy LOL) taking out Talib (little guy LOLLL).
“…one of the worst plays I’ve seen.”!!! LMAO -that play would’ve barely been a blip in the SF-Seattle game.
Now that Brady’s long ball accuracy is clearly continuing it’s decline (started with that Welker pass vs. Giants in SB loss imo), Belichick better ride off into the sunset to spend more time with his family (oh, wait…) before he pulls a Shanahan…well, ok maybe not that bad![/quote]
yawn…
I guess 5 rings make people jealous.
[/quote]
Typical delusional Patriots fan.
Uh, that’s 5 appearances, only 3 rings. One loss with a clearly superior team vs. Giants (due to questionable coaching decisions), another loss with an equal Giants team due to Brady errant pass to Welker vs. Eli Manning laser strike to Manningham. For the record.
[/quote]
Uh, I guess you don’t know shit about Belichick then. He won two rings with the Giants in 1986 and 1990. I hate the guy’s guts like everyone else, but he is literally the only defensive coordinator who could ever slow down Joe Montana with any regularity. When Montana was putting up record performances in the late 80’s, he was still only managing something like 7 points a game against Belichick-led defenses.[/quote]
I’ve always been a Giants fan. I don’t count ancillary rings from coaches.[/quote]
Obviously you don’t know what “ancillary” means. I’ll tell you.
First of all, I’m not sure you understand the part of speech or its function within a sentence, given how you’ve used it to modify “rings”. It can function as either a noun or an adjective, and I can only guess that you’ve used it as an adjective here. Ancillary as an adjective is the quality of providing NECESSARY support to an organization, system, institution, or industry. A ring is none of those things, so there is no such thing as “ancillary rings”, given that ancillary, by definition, cannot modify “rings”.
But setting that aside for a moment, let’s focus on the rest of the definition. Whether used as a noun or an adjective, ancillary implies a high degree of necessity in order to function. Once one wades through your grammatical doltishness, it becomes clear that you have implied (however unwittingly) that Belichick’s contributions were ancillary, meaning that they were integrally necessary to the function of the institution that is the NY Giants.
My point is that only a fucking mongoloid would argue that “ancillary rings” don’t count.[/quote]
What you’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that I’ve should’ve gone to Chico State instead of Princeton University for my education.
Let me ask you to explain this about Belichick: 36-44 record as Cleveland’s head coach, 5-11 in New England until Brady became the starter. Please explain to my low-IQ, doltish self -what makes Belichick any different than Shanahan? or even Marvin Lewis w/o a top 5 of all-time (yes, I actually like Brady, I think he’s where it all starts and ends for New England) QB?
I’m not even obsessed with Belichick, it’s just I watched that whole game yesterday, and to hear him essentially try to deflect, blame, whatever, being out-everythinged (illuminate my darkness by telling me if that is a word, and if so have I used it correctly) by Denver onto Welker getting knocked over by a larger more powerful Talib who then got hurt in the process is just too unbelievable not to mention is that a run on sentence?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Stay classy, Seattle.[/quote]
Eh, stuff like that happens in every stadium. I didn’t hear them booing when he got hurt so it was probably just one or two stupid fans.
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Crybaby Belichick whining about Welker (big guy LOL) taking out Talib (little guy LOLLL).
“…one of the worst plays I’ve seen.”!!! LMAO -that play would’ve barely been a blip in the SF-Seattle game.
Now that Brady’s long ball accuracy is clearly continuing it’s decline (started with that Welker pass vs. Giants in SB loss imo), Belichick better ride off into the sunset to spend more time with his family (oh, wait…) before he pulls a Shanahan…well, ok maybe not that bad![/quote]
yawn…
I guess 5 rings make people jealous.
[/quote]
Typical delusional Patriots fan.
Uh, that’s 5 appearances, only 3 rings. One loss with a clearly superior team vs. Giants (due to questionable coaching decisions), another loss with an equal Giants team due to Brady errant pass to Welker vs. Eli Manning laser strike to Manningham. For the record.
[/quote]
Uh, I guess you don’t know shit about Belichick then. He won two rings with the Giants in 1986 and 1990. I hate the guy’s guts like everyone else, but he is literally the only defensive coordinator who could ever slow down Joe Montana with any regularity. When Montana was putting up record performances in the late 80’s, he was still only managing something like 7 points a game against Belichick-led defenses.[/quote]
I’ve always been a Giants fan. I don’t count ancillary rings from coaches.[/quote]
Obviously you don’t know what “ancillary” means. I’ll tell you.
First of all, I’m not sure you understand the part of speech or its function within a sentence, given how you’ve used it to modify “rings”. It can function as either a noun or an adjective, and I can only guess that you’ve used it as an adjective here. Ancillary as an adjective is the quality of providing NECESSARY support to an organization, system, institution, or industry. A ring is none of those things, so there is no such thing as “ancillary rings”, given that ancillary, by definition, cannot modify “rings”.
But setting that aside for a moment, let’s focus on the rest of the definition. Whether used as a noun or an adjective, ancillary implies a high degree of necessity in order to function. Once one wades through your grammatical doltishness, it becomes clear that you have implied (however unwittingly) that Belichick’s contributions were ancillary, meaning that they were integrally necessary to the function of the institution that is the NY Giants.
My point is that only a fucking mongoloid would argue that “ancillary rings” don’t count.[/quote]
What you’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that I’ve should’ve gone to Chico State instead of Princeton University for my education.
Let me ask you to explain this about Belichick: 36-44 record as Cleveland’s head coach, 5-11 in New England until Brady became the starter. Please explain to my low-IQ, doltish self -what makes Belichick any different than Shanahan? or even Marvin Lewis w/o a top 5 of all-time (yes, I actually like Brady, I think he’s where it all starts and ends for New England) QB?
I’m not even obsessed with Belichick, it’s just I watched that whole game yesterday, and to hear him essentially try to deflect, blame, whatever, being out-everythinged (illuminate my darkness by telling me if that is a word, and if so have I used it correctly) by Denver onto Welker getting knocked over by a larger more powerful Talib who then got hurt in the process is just too unbelievable not to mention is that a run on sentence?
[/quote]
I have nothing to explain to you that I haven’t already. You said that Belichick had 3 rings, I correctly pointed out that he has 5, you responded by saying that you “don’t count ancillary rings”, whatever the hell that was supposed to mean, and now here we are.
I’ll tell you what makes Belichick different than the others. The others all had the chance to draft the greatest QB of his generation. Only Belichick actually did it. Now, did he envision Brady being as good as he has turned out to be? No, of course not. But the bottom line is that he selected Brady when literally the entire league didn’t even think he was worth a pick in the first 5 rounds of the draft.
I’m not arguing that Belichick is the be-all, end-all of head coaches in the modern NFL. I save that distinction for a true revolutionary of the game, Bill Walsh. I’m only pointing that your argument makes you sound as if they just give away Princeton degrees out there, given that your argument is at least partially eroded by your inability to do something as simple as use a word anywhere close to its proper context.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Crybaby Belichick whining about Welker (big guy LOL) taking out Talib (little guy LOLLL).
“…one of the worst plays I’ve seen.”!!! LMAO -that play would’ve barely been a blip in the SF-Seattle game.
Now that Brady’s long ball accuracy is clearly continuing it’s decline (started with that Welker pass vs. Giants in SB loss imo), Belichick better ride off into the sunset to spend more time with his family (oh, wait…) before he pulls a Shanahan…well, ok maybe not that bad![/quote]
yawn…
I guess 5 rings make people jealous.
[/quote]
Typical delusional Patriots fan.
Uh, that’s 5 appearances, only 3 rings. One loss with a clearly superior team vs. Giants (due to questionable coaching decisions), another loss with an equal Giants team due to Brady errant pass to Welker vs. Eli Manning laser strike to Manningham. For the record.
[/quote]
Uh, I guess you don’t know shit about Belichick then. He won two rings with the Giants in 1986 and 1990. I hate the guy’s guts like everyone else, but he is literally the only defensive coordinator who could ever slow down Joe Montana with any regularity. When Montana was putting up record performances in the late 80’s, he was still only managing something like 7 points a game against Belichick-led defenses.[/quote]
I’ve always been a Giants fan. I don’t count ancillary rings from coaches.[/quote]
Obviously you don’t know what “ancillary” means. I’ll tell you.
First of all, I’m not sure you understand the part of speech or its function within a sentence, given how you’ve used it to modify “rings”. It can function as either a noun or an adjective, and I can only guess that you’ve used it as an adjective here. Ancillary as an adjective is the quality of providing NECESSARY support to an organization, system, institution, or industry. A ring is none of those things, so there is no such thing as “ancillary rings”, given that ancillary, by definition, cannot modify “rings”.
But setting that aside for a moment, let’s focus on the rest of the definition. Whether used as a noun or an adjective, ancillary implies a high degree of necessity in order to function. Once one wades through your grammatical doltishness, it becomes clear that you have implied (however unwittingly) that Belichick’s contributions were ancillary, meaning that they were integrally necessary to the function of the institution that is the NY Giants.
My point is that only a fucking mongoloid would argue that “ancillary rings” don’t count.[/quote]
What you’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that I’ve should’ve gone to Chico State instead of Princeton University for my education.
Let me ask you to explain this about Belichick: 36-44 record as Cleveland’s head coach, 5-11 in New England until Brady became the starter. Please explain to my low-IQ, doltish self -what makes Belichick any different than Shanahan? or even Marvin Lewis w/o a top 5 of all-time (yes, I actually like Brady, I think he’s where it all starts and ends for New England) QB?
I’m not even obsessed with Belichick, it’s just I watched that whole game yesterday, and to hear him essentially try to deflect, blame, whatever, being out-everythinged (illuminate my darkness by telling me if that is a word, and if so have I used it correctly) by Denver onto Welker getting knocked over by a larger more powerful Talib who then got hurt in the process is just too unbelievable not to mention is that a run on sentence?
[/quote]
I have nothing to explain to you that I haven’t already. You said that Belichick had 3 rings, I correctly pointed out that he has 5, you responded by saying that you “don’t count ancillary rings”, whatever the hell that was supposed to mean, and now here we are.
I’ll tell you what makes Belichick different than the others. The others all had the chance to draft the greatest QB of his generation. Only Belichick actually did it. Now, did he envision Brady being as good as he has turned out to be? No, of course not. But the bottom line is that he selected Brady when literally the entire league didn’t even think he was worth a pick in the first 5 rounds of the draft.
I’m not arguing that Belichick is the be-all, end-all of head coaches in the modern NFL. I save that distinction for a true revolutionary of the game, Bill Walsh. I’m only pointing that your argument makes you sound as if they just give away Princeton degrees out there, given that your argument is at least partially eroded by your inability to do something as simple as use a word anywhere close to its proper context.[/quote]
I feel unrequited, as your response has blown right by my points.
I don’t usually do bombast, but when I do, I read your posts.
Plus you allow your personal biases to corrode your points of view. But as I’ve said before, I still enjoy reading your posts due to their unique nature. Keep up the good work.