Jump to content

THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS


daveyt
 Share

Recommended Posts

^^^^Yeah well everyone is a bit different besides BEANTOWN is what's written on the back of my B'S jersey. I've always liked that terminology and always will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm also a bandwagoner only since our family move to Mattapan, Dorchester & Cambridge in 1971-72. The Patriots were the abyss of the NFL where the league walked all over them in those years. For me it was all well and good they were losers....the city had the Bruins and Celtics STILL in their dominance. The Red Sox were ALWAYS loveable but never really dominated.

 

Still to this day with ALL their great dominance over the last 20 year the Patriots Are STILL my #4 BEANTOWN team. Sox, C's, & B'S are all above the Patriots besides I still can't stand this current logo, I will always love that old logo, now that was to me a FOOTBALL logo....

GO PATRIOTS!

 

PS: IF the Patriots win I foresee that damn kid paraded out there with his 13 yrs old with umpteen championship and umpteen parades....the kid annoys the hell out of me. He has no idea of the many years that have gone by with umpteen BEANTOWN losing.

 

Except you use the phrase "Beantown," which we generally don't do. ;)

 

I'm really fuckked up then.

 

I hate the Red Sux and the Hateriots and BILLY BEANE!

 

GO A'S!

 

Ugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GO EAGLES!!!!

 

The NOT FOR LONG League is a FIX.

 

If it wasn't for the "FUCKK RULE" the Raiders would have won that game fair and square in the snow. A complete joke!

 

The Patriots did win the game fair and square. The rule was the rule.

 

Rick!

 

YOU ARE KILLING ME!

 

IT WAS A FUMBLE!!!!! THAT RULE WAS REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS FRAUD!

 

I NEED TO FIX THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD:

 

"THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS SUCK"

 

FIXED!!! CAPS ON!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GO EAGLES!!!!

 

The NOT FOR LONG League is a FIX.

 

If it wasn't for the "FUCKK RULE" the Raiders would have won that game fair and square in the snow. A complete joke!

 

The Patriots did win the game fair and square. The rule was the rule.

 

According to the league and the destruction of the tape you cheated in the Super Bowl. Cheating pricks. Ive got one more day to fantasize - I hope we win and you guys finally admit you had JFK murdered. Also that you colluded with the Russians to support Trump, had lawn darts banned, and encourage Yoko Ono to f-ck with The Beatles. lol.

Edited by lerxt1990
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GO EAGLES!!!!

 

The NOT FOR LONG League is a FIX.

 

If it wasn't for the "FUCKK RULE" the Raiders would have won that game fair and square in the snow. A complete joke!

 

The Patriots did win the game fair and square. The rule was the rule.

 

According to the league and the destruction of the tape you cheated in the Super Bowl. Cheating pricks. Ive got one more day to fantasize - I hope we win and you guys finally admit you had JFK murdered. Also that you colluded with the Russians to support Trump, had lawn darts banned, and encourage Yoko Ono to f-ck with The Beatles. lol.

 

Cheated. Lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GO EAGLES!!!!

 

The NOT FOR LONG League is a FIX.

 

If it wasn't for the "FUCKK RULE" the Raiders would have won that game fair and square in the snow. A complete joke!

 

The Patriots did win the game fair and square. The rule was the rule.

 

Rick!

 

YOU ARE KILLING ME!

 

IT WAS A FUMBLE!!!!! THAT RULE WAS REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS FRAUD!

 

I NEED TO FIX THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD:

 

"THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS SUCK"

 

FIXED!!! CAPS ON!

 

They changed the rule, true. AFTER THAT HAPPENED! CAPS ON! :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GO EAGLES!!!!

 

The NOT FOR LONG League is a FIX.

 

If it wasn't for the "FUCKK RULE" the Raiders would have won that game fair and square in the snow. A complete joke!

 

The Patriots did win the game fair and square. The rule was the rule.

 

Rick!

 

YOU ARE KILLING ME!

 

IT WAS A FUMBLE!!!!! THAT RULE WAS REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS FRAUD!

 

I NEED TO FIX THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD:

 

"THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS SUCK"

 

FIXED!!! CAPS ON!

 

They changed the rule, true. AFTER THAT HAPPENED! CAPS ON! :)

 

I know!! IT FIGURES!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing for sure - we won, but New England is a beast. An absolute beast. Brady can still throw the ball and march down the field. Holy f-ck. It also took not turning the ball over and not committing penalties and going for it on 4th down to beat NE. F-cking beasts.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing for sure - we won, but New England is a beast. An absolute beast. Brady can still throw the ball and march down the field. Holy f-ck. It also took not turning the ball over and not committing penalties and going for it on 4th down to beat NE. F-cking beasts.

 

Brady played as well this year as he ever has.

 

He was matched on Sunday by Foles, another guy who people should love. Until he wins again. Then the knives are coming. ;)

 

Enjoy the parade Lerxt.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing for sure - we won, but New England is a beast. An absolute beast. Brady can still throw the ball and march down the field. Holy f-ck. It also took not turning the ball over and not committing penalties and going for it on 4th down to beat NE. F-cking beasts.

 

Brady played as well this year as he ever has.

 

He was matched on Sunday by Foles, another guy who people should love. Until he wins again. Then the knives are coming. ;)

 

Enjoy the parade Lerxt.

 

Will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of talk today around Belichik having a "fear-based" approach to his team. Thoughts?

 

Fear is ultimately not a healthy way to motivate people.

I think there should be a certain amount of fear to bring out the respect factor. It doesn't necessarily need to be the driving force but fear should be in the mix. The number one thing you want from your players is loyalty. And the best way to cultivate loyalty is by inspiring them. Still, fear is a healthy part of the mix imo.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of talk today around Belichik having a "fear-based" approach to his team. Thoughts?

 

Fear is ultimately not a healthy way to motivate people.

I think there should be a certain amount of fear to bring out the respect factor. It doesn't necessarily need to be the driving force but fear should be in the mix. The number one thing you want from your players is loyalty. And the best way to cultivate loyalty is by inspiring them. Still, fear is a healthy part of the mix imo.

I think, because of its complexity, football takes a different level and kind of discipline than, say, baseball or basketball.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of talk today around Belichik having a "fear-based" approach to his team. Thoughts?

 

Fear is ultimately not a healthy way to motivate people.

In education we refer to what we call having a "level of concern". Simply put (so a even a guy like you can understand? [hee hee] ), people perform better when they care (enough, but not too much). A healthy level of concern can be fostered in many ways, including with fear (a negative leadership style) or with praise (a positive leadership style) or combinations of the two. A neutral climate/culture tends to be ineffective.

 

The downside of using fear and discipline to motivate people is that, while it can produce results, in the long run it fosters resentment.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of talk today around Belichik having a "fear-based" approach to his team. Thoughts?

 

Fear is ultimately not a healthy way to motivate people.

In education we refer to what we call having a "level of concern". Simply put (so a even a guy like you can understand? [hee hee] ), people perform better when they care (enough, but not too much). A healthy level of concern can be fostered in many ways, including with fear (a negative leadership style) or with praise (a positive leadership style) or combinations of the two. A neutral climate/culture tends to be ineffective.

 

The downside of using fear and discipline to motivate people is that, while it can produce results, in the long run it fosters resentment.

 

I don't think "fear" of losing your job is necessarily using "fear" as a leadership style, if that makes sense. If you're not producing you're going to lose your job. If you care, you "fear" that happening. But I think of "fear" as a leadership style more in the sense of threatening and intimidating people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of talk today around Belichik having a "fear-based" approach to his team. Thoughts?

 

Fear is ultimately not a healthy way to motivate people.

In education we refer to what we call having a "level of concern". Simply put (so a even a guy like you can understand? [hee hee] ), people perform better when they care (enough, but not too much). A healthy level of concern can be fostered in many ways, including with fear (a negative leadership style) or with praise (a positive leadership style) or combinations of the two. A neutral climate/culture tends to be ineffective.

 

The downside of using fear and discipline to motivate people is that, while it can produce results, in the long run it fosters resentment.

 

I don't think "fear" of losing your job is necessarily using "fear" as a leadership style, if that makes sense. If you're not producing you're going to lose your job. If you care, you "fear" that happening. But I think of "fear" as a leadership style more in the sense of threatening and intimidating people.

 

EDIT: And, yes, I got the "so even a guy like you can understand," reference. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of talk today around Belichik having a "fear-based" approach to his team. Thoughts?

 

Fear is ultimately not a healthy way to motivate people.

In education we refer to what we call having a "level of concern". Simply put (so a even a guy like you can understand? [hee hee] ), people perform better when they care (enough, but not too much). A healthy level of concern can be fostered in many ways, including with fear (a negative leadership style) or with praise (a positive leadership style) or combinations of the two. A neutral climate/culture tends to be ineffective.

 

The downside of using fear and discipline to motivate people is that, while it can produce results, in the long run it fosters resentment.

 

I don't think "fear" of losing your job is necessarily using "fear" as a leadership style, if that makes sense. If you're not producing you're going to lose your job. If you care, you "fear" that happening. But I think of "fear" as a leadership style more in the sense of threatening and intimidating people.

I suppose I'm viewing "fear" as a leadership style differently than you and goose. Tom Landry was feared but he wasn't a threatening person. I feared my Dad but I loved him and never carried resentment. There are many ways a leader can make his men fear him.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can relate this to dog training (the style of which seems to be verboten raising kids). Using negative reinforcement will accomplish what you want, but the dog will be afraid of you. Positive reinforcement will foster a happier dog who wants to be a part of what you're doing vs doing it because if I don't, I'll get a whack or shock (yes, most field training dolts still use a shock collar for correction).
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...