So you think that by quoting you verbatim it is "cut & paste" now?

Did you or did you not post that the '89 49ers were the greatest NFL team of all time? My God but you seem to have some sort of complex where instead of even trying to answer you pretend to be simple minded.

Just admit that you forgot that they lost 6 games during the '88 season and that at least two other 49er team was better than the '89 Super Bowl team and we can move on.

But I refuse to allow you to lie or pretend that you did not post it. It's in the damn quote marks previous posts!:eek:

Yup - the football Giants won. All the records the Pats achieved this year are for naught.

But who's the real loser? Tiki Barber...

Dude, if you are going by superbowl teams in the respective year that the SB was played, I highly suggest you read my last post and edit what you said about the 1996 packers. The packers who didn't even play in the superbowl in 1996.

LOL, dd74:D

Not sure what "train" you might be talking about "DUDE" but I never mentioned the '97 Packers or the '98 Packers. Those are your words.

What I did say was that the '96 Packers (who won the Super Bowl on Jan. 27, 1997) would rank up with some of the best NFL teams of all time.

And yes, the Packers also pissed me off when they lost to Denver in the 1998 Super Bowl. In fact, there was a story in today's Milwaukee Sentinel about Ron Wolf still bitter about that loss and now blaming Holmgren.

That refreshing. Glad you made it back to reality. Where in there did he mention anything about the 88 49ers? The only thing I see is Montana and the 89 49ers, which was a bad ass team.

You are the one who got lost and may now realize the reality that you mis-spoke. I NEVER mentioned the 1997 nor the 1998 Packers. You mentioned them.

I foolishly assumed that any fool (even Mule) would know that the teams that played in the 1989 Super Bowl played the regular season games in 1988.

Just as the 1996 Packers that I mentioned won the 1997 Super bowl.

You made the mistake not I.

WI wide body, let's recap this whole pissing match between you and Mule and later, mattdavis11. By going back to all of the threads, it's obvious that you are the one confused and a bit aggressive here with the name calling - like calling Mule a dimwit.



We'll start from the top:

Note that Mule talks about the '89 team. Read it again - the '89 team.

This seems to be where YOU lost your train of thought. The '89 team didn't lose 6 games. The '88 team did. Mule's talking about the '89 team, you keep talking about the '88 team that went to the '89 Superbowl. He never mentioned the '88 team. I'll say it again. He mentioned the '89 team.


and
Comprehension seems to be a problem here. The team that lost 6 games in '88 is not the '89 team. It's the '88 team. Mule specifically mentioned the '89 team. The '89 team. The '89 team. NOT the '88 team. He mentioned nothing about the '89 Super Bowl Game team. He mentioned the '89 team, which played the Superbowl in '90. Get it!? Find ANYWHERE in this thread where Mule mentioned the '88 team, or even the team that went to the '89 Superbowl. You won't because he didn't. He clearly stated that he considered the '89 team to be the best. And the '89 team did NOT go to the '89 Superbowl. It went to the '90 Superbowl. Jeez.

If you are going to start attacking someone for what they wrote, be sure that you read and understand exactly what it is that they are writing before you start going on the offensive and calling people names.

This has to be a tough loss for the Pats, but there were some things that that team lacked,...expect them to make adjustments in personel, and be in the hunt again next year.

as for the Giants...this is wonderful...let's hope that this group doesnt tank out like a lot of recent Super Bowl teams do the following year.

Congrats to the Giants and their fans. The Giants played the better game last night. I'm happy for Manning in particular - he's a deserving and classy guy who is (finally) coming into his own and getting some recognition.

Not the outcome I was hoping for, but a good game nonetheless.

The loss has to be even tougher with all the news coming to light about "Dollar" Bill Bellichik cheating in previous Super Bowls. If you think his facial expression looks like he's smelling something bad on his upper lip, keep watching. It might get much worse. Say it ain't so Bill!:eek::eek::eek:

Thanks 450.:)

I heard something on ESPN about Belichick cheating in Superbowls, but was still too stunned about how he handled the press conference after the game, and proceeding that, how he walked off the field while the game was still being played.

Where's the class?

Randy Moss was the only one who had any class afterward.

You seem to be finally getting it. People who talk about the year in which a team wins the Super Bowl as "that season" is incorrect. Thus the Packer team tha twon the 1997 Super Bowl was...as I said...the 1996 team. Mule was talking about the 49er '89 Super Bowl team in his original post. He indicated that a few posts later. I don't feel like looking it up but that WAS his implication.

As he often does Mule then started talking about the 1989 "season" record of 14-2. BTW, 1989 was NOT a year of strong NFL teams. Only one AFC team lost less than 6 games and of the other top teams in the NFC one lost 4games and only two others lost less than 6 games. It's goofy to pretend that 1989 was a great year for strong NFL teams.

The 1985 Bear team would most likely have destroyed the 1989 49ers in most
PLAYERS judgements.

So I guess that you and I have a deal: You can ignore what you said about the "1997" and "1998" Packers and I can ignore the 1988 and 1989 49er thing!;)

whatever makes you happy.;)

Here's a player who thinks otherwise!
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1202159150.jpg