2008 Pro Bowl Rosters Announced: Adrian Peterson, Ben Roethlisberger Mark Some of the 1st Time Selections

564 days ago

Jubanator14

1

VOTE:

+1

+0

-0

(Edited 12/18/07 10:57PM by Jubanator14)

That is really great that the fans,coaches,and players voted Taylor as the starter. Does the NFC D take a cue from the Redskins and only start 10 guys for the first play?

564 days ago

flhsbagger

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

Three names that, in my opinion, have been overlooked...Wes Welker, Brian Urlacher, and Greg Jennings.

564 days ago

Pat

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

8 Pro Bowlers for the Pats...I think it's hard to leave Welker off the team, but I can't argue with any of the guys who took his spot.

564 days ago

blamka

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

11 for the Cowboys...my favorite is Marion The Barbarian. Not bad to make the Pro Bowl with Purple Jesus and Westbrook when you split carries.

564 days ago

flhsbagger

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

I'm also having a hard time accepting that Minnesota is ranked 10th in the NFC in total defense and them having 3 Defensive starters for the Pro Bowl.

564 days ago

toddbrazda

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

A bit surprised that Urlacher was left off and Briggs was in. Wonder if that will serve as motivation for him next year.

564 days ago

barmarjeff

1

VOTE:

+1

+0

-0

Hey, maybe Devin Hester will finally be able to return a normal kick.

564 days ago

MrNFL

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

No Eric Steinbach? The guy helped singlehandedly turn one of the worst lines in football into a great success. Not that I'm going to watch the Pro Bowl anyhow, but that guy should be there.

564 days ago

MrNFL

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

pogoowner wrote:

Singlehandedly? If I'm not mistaken, Joe Thomas was added at the all-important left tackle position.

Mispoke, not singlehandedly because Thomas has been very good, Shaffer has stepped up at the other tackle spot, and Fraley has been solid at center. However Steinbach had a HUGE role in helping that line, and he's been beastly this year.

563 days ago

Indydave

1

VOTE:

+1

+0

-0

Mario Williams should join the official "Snubbed" list too IMO.

563 days ago

Serpent22

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

Nick Barnett was definitely a player that should have been elected to the Pro Bowl.

4th Leading Tackler in the NFC (3rd In Solo tackles)
3.5 Sacks, 2 int, and a fumble recovery.

Basically if you watched the St. Louis game you saw Nick Barnett flying across the field making tackles.

Otherwise Fred Taylor was the biggest snub. Marques Colston also had a terrific year. I also wonder how they picked Al Harris over Charles Woodson....Woodson returns punts as well as defends and I think it was obvious in the Dallas game how sorely Woodson was missed.

563 days ago

donm454

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

This is bullsh*t. Jags are 10-4, number 3 team in the AFC, and have 0 selections, while as the 1-13 Dolphins have 1, the 8-6 Vikings have 7. Fred Taylor being snubbed again is really sad for the NFL. He's one of the best RB in NFL history, over 10,000 yds, and 0 probowls. Its a joke. And when they play New England in the AFC Championship Game. Ill be laughin when this team with 0 All-Stars gives them their first and only loss.

563 days ago

Pat

0

VOTE:

+0

-1

donm454 wrote:

This is bullsh*t. Jags are 10-4, number 3 team in the AFC, and have 0 selections, while as the 1-13 Dolphins have 1, the 8-6 Vikings have 7. Fred Taylor being snubbed again is really sad for the NFL. He's one of the best RB in NFL history, over 10,000 yds, and 0 probowls. Its a joke. And when they play New England in the AFC Championship Game. Ill be laughin when this team with 0 All-Stars gives them their first and only loss.

Let's not get ridiculous...

563 days ago

donm454

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

Pat wrote:

Let's not get ridiculous...

Taylor not being in the ProBowl is rediculous... Jags beating New England is not.

563 days ago

Pat

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

donm454 wrote:

Taylor not being in the ProBowl is rediculous... Jags beating New England is not.

As of right now, no one else has been able to do it. And the Patriots have already beaten a team who has beaten the Jags twice, as well as everyone else who they've had the opportunity to play. Although I agree that Taylor should be in the Pro Bowl. But at the same time, I think that LT, Parker and Addai are also very worthy candidates. Sometimes very good players get left off the Pro Bowl roster (see Wes Welker). But sometimes, that's just how it is. Sorry, Fred...keep on trucking.

563 days ago

donm454

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

Pat wrote:

As of right now, no one else has been able to do it. And the Patriots have already beaten a team who has beaten the Jags twice, as well as everyone else who they've had the opportunity to play. Although I agree that Taylor should be in the Pro Bowl. But at the same time, I think that LT, Parker and Addai are also very worthy candidates. Sometimes very good players get left off the Pro Bowl roster (see Wes Welker). But sometimes, that's just how it is. Sorry, Fred...keep on trucking.

They lost the second at Indy and lost Garrard in the first quarter in game 1. The Jags have proven they can play in the snow, which in something Indy and San Diego cant do. The Pats are bound to stumble and if they do what they did against Phila or Baltimore vs Jacksonville, they will lose.

563 days ago

Pat

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

(Edited 12/19/07 5:37PM by Pat)
donm454 wrote:

They lost the second at Indy and lost Garrard in the first quarter in game 1. The Jags have proven they can play in the snow, which in something Indy and San Diego cant do. The Pats are bound to stumble and if they do what they did against Phila or Baltimore vs Jacksonville, they will lose.

This is an incorrect assumption. They are NOT bound to stumble. I'm not sure why everyone believes this.

Have you forgotten that the Patriots aren't the only team to win a couple of close games in which they didn't play all that well?

TEN 13 @ JAC 10 - Lost to the average (at best) Titans
ATL 7 @ JAC 13 - Barely beat a terrible Falcons team
IND 29 @ JAC 7 - Got crushed by the Colts
JAC 24 @ TB 23 - Barely beating a mediocre NFC team...not impressed
JAC 24 @ NO 41 - A beating at the hands of a very inconsistent Saints team
JAC 25 @ IND 28 - Impressive, but still a loss
JAC 29 @ PIT 22 - An impressive win, but not nearly as impressive as when the Pats destroyed the Steelers

There's 7 games by the Jaguars that, if they play like that, the Pats will destroy them.

...you were saying?

563 days ago

donm454

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

Pat wrote:

This is an incorrect assumption. They are NOT bound to stumble. I'm not sure why everyone believes this.

Have you forgotten that the Patriots aren't the only team to win a couple of close games in which they didn't play all that well?

TEN 13 @ JAC 10 - Lost to the average (at best) Titans
ATL 7 @ JAC 13 - Barely beat a terrible Falcons team
IND 29 @ JAC 7 - Got crushed by the Colts
JAC 24 @ TB 23 - Barely beating a mediocre NFC team...not impressed
JAC 24 @ NO 41 - A beating at the hands of a very inconsistent Saints team
JAC 25 @ IND 28 - Impressive, but still a loss
JAC 29 @ PIT 22 - An impressive win, but not nearly as impressive as when the Pats destroyed the Steelers

There's 7 games by the Jaguars that, if they play like that, the Pats will destroy them.

...you were saying?

NE had pit at home....Pit has the WORST field in the nation... Jags had to go to pittsburgh in the snow and they gave the steelers their only loss at hienz

if you're gunna bring up margin of win... the pats only beat the eagles by 3, without mcnabb and 23 point favorite...they only win by 3

they only beat the team who lost to miami by 3 on a last play td

they only beat the jets at home by 10...and once again they were about 23 point favorites

you said new orleans was a very inconsistant team....they played jacksonville when they were on a roll and it looked at if they would turn 0-4 into a division title

and again... the 29-7 game vs indy was w/o garrard...the backups first 4 passes he was 1/4 for -2yds, 2 ints, and a safety...Garrard just threw his second interception of the ENTIRE SEASON

Oh and btw...if the Jags play the way they did in Pittsburgh, there's no doubt in my mind they will beat New England.

563 days ago

Pat

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

donm454 wrote:

NE had pit at home....Pit has the WORST field in the nation... Jags had to go to pittsburgh in the snow and they gave the steelers their only loss at hienz

if you're gunna bring up margin of win... the pats only beat the eagles by 3, without mcnabb and 23 point favorite...they only win by 3

they only beat the team who lost to miami by 3 on a last play td

they only beat the jets at home by 10...and once again they were about 23 point favorites

you said new orleans was a very inconsistant team....they played jacksonville when they were on a roll and it looked at if they would turn 0-4 into a division title

and again... the 29-7 game vs indy was w/o garrard...the backups first 4 passes he was 1/4 for -2yds, 2 ints, and a safety...Garrard just threw his second interception of the ENTIRE SEASON

Oh and btw...if the Jags play the way they did in Pittsburgh, there's no doubt in my mind they will beat New England.

I am honestly not interested in your excuses. My point is, ANYONE can take a couple bad games for ANY team and say "__________(any team) could beat them if they play like they did THAT day" ... but you're really not saying ANYTHING worthwhile.

Sure, the Patriots have played games in which they weren't at their best. But, even when they were playing sub-par, it was good enough to win. So sure, if the Pats play awful, and the Jags play their best game of the season, the upset might happen. But to just act like it's more than just wishful thinking is just ignorant.

I have no idea why people CONTINUE to try to discredit the Patriots, even after they've gone 14-0 so far. Is it really so difficult to just come to grips with the fact that they are easily the best team in football, and will probably win the Super Bowl? Is that really so difficult to admit? Why just keep grasping for straws? It's only going to make you look foolish in the end.

562 days ago

donm454

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

Pat wrote:

I am honestly not interested in your excuses. My point is, ANYONE can take a couple bad games for ANY team and say "__________(any team) could beat them if they play like they did THAT day" ... but you're really not saying ANYTHING worthwhile.

Sure, the Patriots have played games in which they weren't at their best. But, even when they were playing sub-par, it was good enough to win. So sure, if the Pats play awful, and the Jags play their best game of the season, the upset might happen. But to just act like it's more than just wishful thinking is just ignorant.

I have no idea why people CONTINUE to try to discredit the Patriots, even after they've gone 14-0 so far. Is it really so difficult to just come to grips with the fact that they are easily the best team in football, and will probably win the Super Bowl? Is that really so difficult to admit? Why just keep grasping for straws? It's only going to make you look foolish in the end.

Im not discrediting the Patriots, I believe whether or not they win the Super Bowl, this is the best team of all time. and im not making excuses about jacksonvilles losses, im showing facts. facts are they can play in bad weather giving them the best chances at beating new england.

562 days ago

donm454

0

VOTE:

+0

-0

pogoowner wrote:

Best team of all time, even if they don't win the Super Bowl? Now that's ridiculous.

No its not. Talentwise and statistically this team is better than anyone. And te best team does not always win every year. When Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl, they were even close to being the best. It would sure make alot of people like yourself think they werent the best team ever if they didnt win, but i think '07 Patriots would double up the '72 Dolphins