Watched Super Bowl 39 (Pats/Eagles) for the first time

[GoPats]

Oh hooray, a thread that's degenerated to the point where people are talking about Spygate!

 

 

Tom brady is average in any other system. New england is a system qbs dream job. Just ask that matt cassell guy

I always used to ask this question in response to statements like this one.

 

If the system is so simple, and so friendly to any QB with even marginal talent, then why doesn't every single NFL team implement the same system?

 

Another way your theory has been floated is that Brady is a "dink and dunk QB." So if true, again... why doesn't every single NFL team do it? If it's so simple, so easy, then why do teams that are consistently far less successful than New England not copy the concept?

 

And lastly, if Brady's job really is so easy, then why would the Patriots pay him nearly $20M/year when they could get virtually anyone to do the same thing?

 

When you're done realizing that you've painted yourself into a corner, and come up with some kind of, "but... but..." response, let us know.

 

I'm kidding, I'm kidding... just don't be "that guy." I'll listen to good arguments all day, but you're rehashing stuff that even most Indy fans have acknowledged as hooey. You think Manning's better, that's cool. But some sad attempt to discredit Brady doesn't make Manning who you want him to be. Both guys are HOF quarterbacks, and among the best of all time. We're fortunate to have seen them play in their primes.

[GoPats]

On topic, though...

 

During the 4th quarter of that Super Bowl, when the Eagles were driving ever-so-slowly down the field, I kept thinking, "What the *%$&*# are they doing? They're wasting SO MUCH TIME!!!" It was really poor clock management in the 4th, IMO, that did them in. Could have been a much tighter ending.

 

The Patriots' defense back in those days wasn't on par with, say, the 2000 Ravens or even the Steelers' SB teams of the 2000s, but they played their best when it mattered most.

[amfootball]

Oh hooray, a thread that's degenerated to the point where people are talking about Spygate!

 

 

I always used to ask this question in response to statements like this one.

 

If the system is so simple, and so friendly to any QB with even marginal talent, then why doesn't every single NFL team implement the same system?

 

Another way your theory has been floated is that Brady is a "dink and dunk QB." So if true, again... why doesn't every single NFL team do it? If it's so simple, so easy, then why do teams that are consistently far less successful than New England not copy the concept?

 

And lastly, if Brady's job really is so easy, then why would the Patriots pay him nearly $20M/year when they could get virtually anyone to do the same thing?

 

When you're done realizing that you've painted yourself into a corner, and come up with some kind of, "but... but..." response, let us know.

 

I'm kidding, I'm kidding... just don't be "that guy." I'll listen to good arguments all day, but you're rehashing stuff that even most Indy fans have acknowledged as hooey. You think Manning's better, that's cool. But some sad attempt to discredit Brady doesn't make Manning who you want him to be. Both guys are HOF quarterbacks, and among the best of all time. We're fortunate to have seen them play in their primes.

Better yet, why didn't the Pats just keep Cassell? Would have cost them a lot less money than Brady to run the "system."

[Dustin]

Better yet, why didn't the Pats just keep Cassell? Would have cost them a lot less money than Brady to run the "system."

 

Cassell probably would have won them the 2 super bowls vs the Giants.

[amfootball]

Cassell probably would have won them the 2 super bowls vs the Giants.

LOL! Good one. :-) And completed the perfect season too...

[Dustin]

LOL! Good one. :-) And completed the perfect season too...

 

I always think Brady gets to much flack for that poor Super Bowl performance. I mean what did people expect? He had been beating up on terrible teams all year and carrying a completely terrible team all the way to the Super Bowl. Were people actually surprised that he couldn't put up more than 14 against a good New York Giants defense?

[amfootball]

I always think Brady gets to much flack for that poor Super Bowl performance. I mean what did people expect? He had been beating up on terrible teams all year and carrying a completely terrible team all the way to the Super Bowl. Were people actually surprised that he couldn't put up more than 14 against a good New York Giants defense?

Are you talking about 2007? The pats played one of the toughest schedules in league history - 10 playoff teams. They were just that good. Destroying everyone. Brady had a season for the ages. I think in the SB his ankle injury really hampered the offense combined with a lights out performance by the Giants on D. They really took it to the Pats all day. All that combined with the luck in the end and you have the team of the decade getting beat by the sixth seed. I supposed that is what makes sports great.

 

Now if you are talking about 2011, I competely agree. The Pats were not a good team and Brady willed them to the Bowl only to have Welker drop that pass right in his hands and watch his D break down again late in a SB.

[Dustin]

Are you talking about 2007? The pats played one of the toughest schedules in league history - 10 playoff teams. They were just that good. Destroying everyone. Brady had a season for the ages. I think in the SB his ankle injury really hampered the offense combined with a lights out performance by the Giants on D. They really took it to the Pats all day. All that combined with the luck in the end and you have the team of the decade getting beat by the sixth seed. I supposed that is what makes sports great.

 

Now if you are talking about 2011, I competely agree. The Pats were not a good team and Brady willed them to the Bowl only to have Welker drop that pass right in his hands and watch his D break down again late in a SB.

 

Yeah I was talking about the 2011 one. Got the score messed up.

[amfootball]

Yeah I was talking about the 2011 one. Got the score messed up.

You know what is funny Brady's rating in that SB, 2011, was 91. He also set a SB record for most consecutive completions with 17 breaking Montana. He actually played a great game save for the safety. If Wes makes that catch they win by nine.

[southwest1]

Look, people have a right to believe what they want to believe. I'm no expert here. I just am extremely perplexed as to why some people can't let SpyGate go already. I never saw the tapes & neither did anyone else besides Roger Goodell since he burned them or destroyed them. The fact that NE got to the SB & almost won the game in 2012 proves that Belichick is wicked smart & has no need to even contemplate cheating. Did the Pats cheat? I can't prove or disprove it because the evidence was discarded. Okay sure, Belichick was fined. That verifies a rule infraction not cheating. 

 

The Tuck Rule was misinterpreted by the referees in my view, but to Tom Brady's credit, he keep his composure despite a controversial call & won the game against Oakland to win the game & advance to the SB. 

 

How Belichick shut down the Rams RB Faulk in 2001 was a genius though. No one can deny that especially after watching the coach's tape of their 1st SB Championship. I don't hate the Patriots. I respect their Playoff consistency & I don't care that they haven't won a SB since 2004. They are a darn good football franchise that could easily have won the SB in 2007 & 2012 minus a crucial play or 2 that easily could have gone differently. 

 

I am a Colts fan 1st & foremost, but I have a ton of respect & admiration for my arch rival & SpyGate will never change that. The reason people get so furious at the Patriots is their ability to win consistently. I hate to lose too, but I don't make a SpyGate excuse when Foxboro kicks my Colts caboose. The Patriots just executed on the field better than we did. End of the story. 

[southwest1]

Cassell probably would have won them the 2 super bowls vs the Giants.

Whoa...Now, let's not get carried away here. Cassell is a decent game manager, but he's not a franchise let alone SB winning QB. Please tell me that you were being sarcastic Dustin. I like you man, but I can't make that Grand Canyon leap buddy...Sorry.

[Dustin]

Whoa...Now, let's not get carried away here. Cassell is a decent game manager, but he's not a franchise let alone SB winning QB. Please tell me that you were being sarcastic Dustin. I like you man, but I can't make that Grand Canyon leap buddy...Sorry.

Yeah I was being sarcastic. Guess I better use the emoticon next time.

[MAC]

Are you talking about 2007? The pats played one of the toughest schedules in league history - 10 playoff teams. They were just that good. Destroying everyone. Brady had a season for the ages. I think in the SB his ankle injury really hampered the offense combined with a lights out performance by the Giants on D. They really took it to the Pats all day. All that combined with the luck in the end and you have the team of the decade getting beat by the sixth seed. I supposed that is what makes sports great.

 

Now if you are talking about 2011, I competely agree. The Pats were not a good team and Brady willed them to the Bowl only to have Welker drop that pass right in his hands and watch his D break down again late in a SB.

This always amuses me. If that was a "drop", then apparently Pats fans are accustomed to a vastly superior brand of WR play than Colts fans are. In my opinion if he had made the catch it would have made the highlight reels, and if their was any error it was on the part of Brady.

 

Speaking of highlight reels and superior WR play, it's the worst kind of sour grapes to blame "luck" for the Pats superbowl loss. Tyree's catch was amazing, not lucky. Why is it that when Brady makes a comeback it's because he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, when he fails to make a comeback there's an excuse, and when someone else makes a comeback it's because of luck? I'd be amused to hear your take on the Colts AFC championship game win over the Pats. Here's a hint: "Peyton outplayed Brady and the better TEAM won". It happens.

[MAC]

No, in the ones he lost his D wilted at the end.

 

And I believe Adam's right foot delivered Manning his only SB win to

the tune of FIVE field goals against the Ravens in the divisional round

of the playoffs - the only points the Colts offense scored.

Hmm, I thought you said that the defense "wilted" in all three SB's that he won as well? So is it Brady who has wilted over time because he can no longer overcome the defenses short-comings?

 

The fact is that the average they gave up in the first three was 22.33, and the average they gave up in the last two was only 19. Oh, and the average they scored in the first three was 25.33, while the average they scored in the last two was only 15.5. If we are going to be superficial and parse these details for justification for what we already believe, what would you conclude from the above? It LOOKS like Brady has taken a huge step back since the first SBs, and is no longer a clutch player.

 

That's ridiculous of course, he's a much better player in every respect now than he was then. But thus is the problem with tiny sample sizes - such as your effort to denigrate Peyton in that Ravens game, while laughably crediting "the kicker" because he used to be a Patriot. Do you credit Vinatieri for the Pats SB wins? Some do (personally I think that's silly. Kickers don't win games, they just do their job - some with a slightly higher degree of accuracy than others).

 

Peyton successfully led five scoring drives in the game you mention, as many as Brady led in the last two SBs combined - against a vastly superior defense. The Colts controlled the game from start to finish - really not a good comparison for you.

[southwest1]

Now if you are talking about 2011, I competely agree. The Pats were not a good team and Brady willed them to the Bowl only to have Welker drop that pass right in his hands and watch his D break down again late in a SB.

For the life of me, I can't understand why NE fans keep making WR Wes Welker out to be some sort of SB villain. Disappointment I get...a little anger is reasonable/understandable I suppose. But, I liken to an Olympic skater who practices 6 days a week at 4 in the morning. They perform a perfect routine every morning & then during their turn at the Olympics under the international spotlight their spin goes wrong in mid air & they descend & hit the ice hard. My point is you can grab the ball perfectly in critical situations in Playoffs games & everybody loves you, but you miss a catch in the 4th Qtr of the SB & Patriots Nation wants to disown you as a clutch WR? Really? Naturally, not every Patriots fan holds this viewpoint of course I know, but Welker gets way too much blame for their 2012 Giants SB loss IMO.

The only reason that I am even bringing this drop up is that I don't want it to haunt Wes Welker. Cut it loose & bury it forever. How can a great WR move on & forget it if the media & fans won't allow him to? I 'd even say this against the Dallas Cowboys & that FG Tony Romo missed that FG kick against Seattle & I hate the Cowboys to my core.

[Superman]

TI'd be amused to hear your take on the Colts AFC championship game win over the Pats. Here's a hint: "Peyton outplayed Brady and the better TEAM won". It happens.

 

As a Colts/Manning fan, I'd love to co-sign that. But in reality, Manning outplayed the Patriots' defense, not Brady. And then our defense came up with a big stop in a meaningful game.

 

Another example of this is Patriots vs. Giants the following year. Brady didn't do anything wrong; he actually gave his team the lead late in the fourth quarter, but the defense couldn't put it away. (This happened with us against the Chargers the next season, and then against the Jets two seasons after that.)

 

And that's the reason why I can't stand all this noise about QB wins, particularly in the playoffs. The quarterback is the most important player in the game, and probably in all of team sports, but he can't do it by himself.

[MAC]

As a Colts/Manning fan, I'd love to co-sign that. But in reality, Manning outplayed the Patriots' defense, not Brady. And then our defense came up with a big stop in a meaningful game.

 

Another example of this is Patriots vs. Giants the following year. Brady didn't do anything wrong; he actually gave his team the lead late in the fourth quarter, but the defense couldn't put it away. (This happened with us against the Chargers the next season, and then against the Jets two seasons after that.)

 

And that's the reason why I can't stand all this noise about QB wins, particularly in the playoffs. The quarterback is the most important player in the game, and probably in all of team sports, but he can't do it by himself.

Of course. The meaning of the phrase is that "Manning had a better game than Brady". That is completely independent of which team beat whom, which is why I emphasized that "the better TEAM won". The poster I replied to is in every thread where Brady can conceivably be relevant to argue that he responsible for all the Patriots wins, and someone else is at fault for anything else that happens. My default position is that individual comparison is one thing and team comparison is another. The Pats SB wins is NOT sufficient proof on it's own that Brady is superior to anyone.

[Superman]

Of course. The meaning of the phrase is that "Manning had a better game than Brady". That is completely independent of which team beat whom, which is why I emphasized that "the better TEAM won". The poster I replied to is in every thread where Brady can conceivably be relevant to argue that he responsible for all the Patriots wins, and someone else is at fault for anything else that happens. My default position is that individual comparison is one thing and team comparison is another. The Pats SB wins is NOT sufficient proof on it's own that Brady is superior to anyone.

 

We're on the same page.

[southwest1]

And that's the reason why I can't stand all this noise about QB wins, particularly in the playoffs. The quarterback is the most important player in the game, and probably in all of team sports, but he can't do it by himself.

 

 

Of course. The meaning of the phrase is that "Manning had a better game than Brady". That is completely independent of which team beat whom, which is why I emphasized that "the better TEAM won". The poster I replied to is in every thread where Brady can conceivably be relevant to argue that he responsible for all the Patriots wins, and someone else is at fault for anything else that happens. My default position is that individual comparison is one thing and team comparison is another. The Pats SB wins is NOT sufficient proof on it's own that Brady is superior to anyone.

A valid point MAC & Superman. A QB cannot literally win a game all by himself, but both Brady & Manning have carried entire teams on their shoulders for years & made up for glaring offensive or defensive weaknesses. Brady in 2007 & Manning in 2009. A lackluster defense in both cases. Not pathetic just not stout & top notch. But, I do concede that LBs, DEs, DB's, WRs, TE's, & RBs all play a crucial role in any game victory. 

[MAC]

Wow. I mean wow. You are comparing Manning and his EIGHT one and done's and league leading 11 playoff losses with Unitas and his 4 rings? Really? My gosh. May be the most absurd comparison I have ever seen up here.

You apparently haven't spent much time here.

 

What four "rings" are you referring to with Unitas? Are you including his high school and college graduation rings? Unitas won two NFL championships early in his career, and one Super Bowl at the tail end (with eroding sills on a team built around defense.) If one were to say that an old NFL championship is loosely akin to winning an NFC or AFC championship, then he has three of those (the Colts had a fourth with their excellent team that made it to SB III, but Johnny had even less to do with that than Bledsoe did with the Pats 01 win). Peyton obviously has two, and his career is far from over.

 

More importantly it was a different time, with only two teams making the playoffs until the SB era. You mock Manning's eleven losses, but Unitas only started eight playoff games in his entire career. You have to make the playoffs in the first place in order to lose a playoff game - something that Unitas couldn't do during seven years out of an eight year stretch which largely constituted the prime of his career.

 

I'm not trying to denigrate a Colts legend, just pointing out how miss-leading comparisons can be. The bottom line is that I would agree with the point being made by the fellow you were responding to, and have said similar things for years. Unitas's "failures" never stopped anyone from admiring him as a transcendent player, the greatest QB of his generation, and probably the defining figure of the first 50 years of the game. The lack of championships was largely because the Packers were a better team - Lombardi's team. Starr was a great QB, but he wasn't Johnny Unitas. Similarly I think that the Patriots will be remembered as Belichicks team, and Brady as a great QB - but "not Peyton Manning".

[-JJ-]

Hmm, I thought you said that the defense "wilted" in all three SB's that he won as well? So is it Brady who has wilted over time because he can no longer overcome the defenses short-comings?

 

The fact is that the average they gave up in the first three was 22.33, and the average they gave up in the last two was only 19. Oh, and the average they scored in the first three was 25.33, while the average they scored in the last two was only 15.5. If we are going to be superficial and parse these details for justification for what we already believe, what would you conclude from the above? It LOOKS like Brady has taken a huge step back since the first SBs, and is no longer a clutch player.

 

That's ridiculous of course, he's a much better player in every respect now than he was then. But thus is the problem with tiny sample sizes - such as your effort to denigrate Peyton in that Ravens game, while laughably crediting "the kicker" because he used to be a Patriot. Do you credit Vinatieri for the Pats SB wins? Some do (personally I think that's silly. Kickers don't win games, they just do their job - some with a slightly higher degree of accuracy than others).

 

Peyton successfully led five scoring drives in the game you mention, as many as Brady led in the last two SBs combined - against a vastly superior defense. The Colts controlled the game from start to finish - really not a good comparison for you.

Nice to see sdomeone else who says kickers don't win games. It was getting lonely here

 

I watched the Ravens game and agree that Manning played well. Quite well as a matter of fact.  Making big 3rd downs to get in range so the kicker could win the game...er I mean do his job;) 

[MAC]

Nice to see sdomeone else who says kickers don't win games. It was getting lonely here

 

I watched the Ravens game and agree that Manning played well. Quite well as a matter of fact.  Making big 3rd downs to get in range so the kicker could win the game...er I mean do his job;) 

Nice of you to ignore the rest of it.   I have little interest in alienating our great Pats fans on here, and wince at the thought of rekindling "the debate that can never die" once again. Pot stirred sufficiently (over numerous threads) to the point that my resistance is cracking.

 

You might want to ignore my ensuing two posts as well. : :

 

I know, I'll say something actually relevant to the OP.

 

I admire the Eagles ability to get to the conference championship game 5 times in 6 years, but think of them as a consistent albeit fundamentally flawed team. They typically only went as far as Brian Westbrook could take them, and if there is one thing that Belichick knows how to do, it's take away your best player. McNab was solid, but not a star, and never the kind of QB that would take a team on his back when they needed him. The vomiting was a bit of a surprise, and I'd prefer to think that it was a physical problem, not a stress reaction. But regardless the result was far from a surprise. I suspect that the AFC had several teams who were better than the NFC's best that year.

[Kenny]

Oh hooray, a thread that's degenerated to the point where people are talking about Spygate!

 

 

I always used to ask this question in response to statements like this one.

 

If the system is so simple, and so friendly to any QB with even marginal talent, then why doesn't every single NFL team implement the same system?

 

Another way your theory has been floated is that Brady is a "dink and dunk QB." So if true, again... why doesn't every single NFL team do it? If it's so simple, so easy, then why do teams that are consistently far less successful than New England not copy the concept?

 

And lastly, if Brady's job really is so easy, then why would the Patriots pay him nearly $20M/year when they could get virtually anyone to do the same thing?

 

When you're done realizing that you've painted yourself into a corner, and come up with some kind of, "but... but..." response, let us know.

 

I'm kidding, I'm kidding... just don't be "that guy." I'll listen to good arguments all day, but you're rehashing stuff that even most Indy fans have acknowledged as hooey. You think Manning's better, that's cool. But some sad attempt to discredit Brady doesn't make Manning who you want him to be. Both guys are HOF quarterbacks, and among the best of all time. We're fortunate to have seen them play in their primes.

 

Come on you're above this GoPats .Let the drones drone on about this they are all on my ignore list(Colts and Pats fans alike). You are one of our bright spots from the pats locals, don't stoop to their level . Any football fan with half a brain knows these two are two of the greatest ever that you really can't pin a better one out of without a ton of woulda coulda shouldas. Can't wait for all this to die or a mod to close this.

[zoom49]

owens balled that game to bad his fat qb wasnt in good shape like him I wanted brian dawkins to win a ring

[amfootball]

For the life of me, I can't understand why NE fans keep making WR Wes Welker out to be some sort of SB villain. Disappointment I get...a little anger is reasonable/understandable I suppose. But, I liken to an Olympic skater who practices 6 days a week at 4 in the morning. They perform a perfect routine every morning & then during their turn at the Olympics under the international spotlight their spin goes wrong in mid air & they descend & hit the ice hard. My point is you can grab the ball perfectly in critical situations in Playoffs games & everybody loves you, but you miss a catch in the 4th Qtr of the SB & Patriots Nation wants to disown you as a clutch WR? Really? Naturally, not every Patriots fan holds this viewpoint of course I know, but Welker gets way too much blame for their 2012 Giants SB loss IMO.

The only reason that I am even bringing this drop up is that I don't want it to haunt Wes Welker. Cut it loose & bury it forever. How can a great WR move on & forget it if the media & fans won't allow him to? I 'd even say this against the Dallas Cowboys & that FG Tony Romo missed that FG kick against Seattle & I hate the Cowboys to my core.

Couple of thoughts here. No one in NE believes Welker to be a villain. 99% want the Pats to resign him this offseason. Most believe he should be played like a top receiver even though he plays the slot. 100+ catches for several seasons now. The guy is big time.

 

Now, in terms of the SB. Welker said himself after that drop that he makes that catch 100 out of 100 times. You can actually see him drop to his knees and grab his head when he drops it as he knows he should have caught it. The SB magnifies every play especially ones where the game is in the balance. If Adam Vinateri misses that kick against the Rams he is viewed like Bill Buckner. Those are the breaks. I remember Rodney Harrison saying that after the stickum helmet catch by Tyree he was going to retire from football. That is how much it hurt. That is the cost you pay when you play in the NFL and you are the player that has the balance of the game in his hands. And while I agree that one play did not decide the game as it was only second down and the Pats did not convert on third and their D wilted as it always done at the end of Super Bowls, it is his drop that signified the beginning of the end in most people’s minds. It is unfair but a cruel reality when you are on the biggest stage with a chance to seal the game.

[amfootball]

Nice of you to ignore the rest of it.   I have little interest in alienating our great Pats fans on here, and wince at the thought of rekindling "the debate that can never die" once again. Pot stirred sufficiently (over numerous threads) to the point that my resistance is cracking.

 

You might want to ignore my ensuing two posts as well. : :

 

I know, I'll say something actually relevant to the OP.

 

I admire the Eagles ability to get to the conference championship game 5 times in 6 years, but think of them as a consistent albeit fundamentally flawed team. They typically only went as far as Brian Westbrook could take them, and if there is one thing that Belichick knows how to do, it's take away your best player. McNab was solid, but not a star, and never the kind of QB that would take a team on his back when they needed him. The vomiting was a bit of a surprise, and I'd prefer to think that it was a physical problem, not a stress reaction. But regardless the result was far from a surprise. I suspect that the AFC had several teams who were better than the NFC's best that year.

Let me first stay, I can’t stand the Eagles but this post is just ridiculous. The Eagles were the most dominate team in the NFC for years. You really believe they went as far as Westbrook took them? Did you forget about Jim Johnson and that defense? The Eagles were #2 in points allowed in 2004. Also, I think you are forgetting about Terrell Owens who had one of his best seasons that year and played an amazing SB on a broken ankle.

 

The Pats were the only team that would have beaten that Eagles that year. They were 13-3 and the Pats were 14-2 and both began the season on six and seven game win streaks before losing to the Steelers.

 

What turned the SB was Charlie Weiss. Brady said at half time when the score was tied that Charlie threw out the entire offensive game plan because the Eagles were stuffing it and began doing screens and misdirection plays to slow the blitz. This allowed the Pats to score 10 points in the fourth quarter and effectively put the game away. It was a brilliant plan by Weiss but that Eagles team was scary good.

[MAC]

Let me first stay, I can’t stand the Eagles but this post is just ridiculous. The Eagles were the most dominate team in the NFC for years. You really believe they went as far as Westbrook took them? Did you forget about Jim Johnson and that defense? The Eagles were #2 in points allowed in 2004. Also, I think you are forgetting about Terrell Owens who had one of his best seasons that year and played an amazing SB on a broken ankle.

 

The Pats were the only team that would have beaten that Eagles that year. They were 13-3 and the Pats were 14-2 and both began the season on eight game win streaks before losing to the Steelers.

 

What turned the SB was Charlie Weiss. Brady said at half time when the score was tied that Charlie threw out the entire offensive game plan because the Eagles were stuffing it and began doing screens and misdirection plays to slow the blitz. This allowed the Pats to score 10 points in the fourth quarter and effectively put the game away. It was a brilliant plan by Weiss but that Eagles team was scary good.

Ridiculous, really?

 

I live 50 miles from Philadelphia and for the entire duration of McNab's tenure I worked closely with more Eagles fan's than I care to remember. Salesmen, accountants, dispatchers,  truck drivers, equipment operators - few thought much of McNab. I also listened to Philly sports talk often while commuting. I also went to one game a year for about five years by our Eagle fanatic insurance agent. All in all, I think that I have a pretty good feel for Eagles football during the period. Sure they were proud of the defense, but Westbrook was "the man". Reed could never get him enough touches for their satisfaction. Owens was a fruitcake. While they were happy to have him, they had their fingers crossed every time he stepped on the field. He wasn't exactly their bread and butter.

 

During this same period the AFC had a decided advantage in inter-conference play. The Rams were briefly special, but for years the Colts, Patriots, Steelers, etc were routinely considered head and shoulders above the best that the NFC had to offer. I thought that this was a given. In fact in that particular year, the Eagles lost to the Steelers 27-3, and only beat the 4-12 Browns 34-31. (Their other AFC game was a loss to the Bengals, but they were resting starters).

 

And perhaps my sentiments are influenced by the fact that the Colts beat the Eagles 44-17 in 1999, 35-13 in 2002, and 45-21 in 2006. The first two were in Philladelphia, and I was there. They weren't as close as the scores might indicate, and the insurance salesman dragged me away at the end of the third quarter, and was strangely quiet on the trip home. So perhaps you (and the Patriots) found the Eagles of that era "scary good", but neither myself nor the Colts did. What's actually ridiculous is your assertion that "The Pats were the only team that would have beaten that Eagles that year.". I beg to differ (although I do appreciate your acknowledging that at least one other person besides Brady contributed to their success).

[amfootball]

Ridiculous, really?

 

I live 50 miles from Philadelphia and for the entire duration of McNab's tenure I worked closely with more Eagles fan's than I care to remember. Salesmen, accountants, dispatchers,  truck drivers, equipment operators - few thought much of McNab. I also listened to Philly sports talk often while commuting. I also went to one game a year for about five years by our Eagle fanatic insurance agent. All in all, I think that I have a pretty good feel for Eagles football during the period. Sure they were proud of the defense, but Westbrook was "the man". Reed could never get him enough touches for their satisfaction. Owens was a fruitcake. While they were happy to have him, they had their fingers crossed every time he stepped on the field. He wasn't exactly their bread and butter.

 

During this same period the AFC had a decided advantage in inter-conference play. The Rams were briefly special, but for years the Colts, Patriots, Steelers, etc were routinely considered head and shoulders above the best that the NFC had to offer. I thought that this was a given. In fact in that particular year, the Eagles lost to the Steelers 27-3, and only beat the 4-12 Browns 34-31. (Their other AFC game was a loss to the Bengals, but they were resting starters).

 

And perhaps my sentiments are influenced by the fact that the Colts beat the Eagles 44-17 in 1999, 35-13 in 2002, and 45-21 in 2006. The first two were in Philladelphia, and I was there. They weren't as close as the scores might indicate, and the insurance salesman dragged me away at the end of the third quarter, and was strangely quiet on the trip home. So perhaps you (and the Patriots) found the Eagles of that era "scary good", but neither myself nor the Colts did. What's actually ridiculous is your assertion that "The Pats were the only team that would have beaten that Eagles that year.". I beg to differ (although I do appreciate your acknowledging that at least one other person besides Brady contributed to their success).

I have never understood why McNabb was so hated in Philly. The guy was a superstar and may make the HoF. He should if you go by numbers and winning percentage and post-season wins. Someone had to get the ball to Westbrook, right? He never had a top notch WR until Ownes arrived and they had a special year together. Look what happened to Reid after McNabb left? What a disaster. McNabb never gets enough credit for running a pass happy that offense that put all the pressure on him to score points. I mean the Eagles routinely won 11 games a year. Like I said, they were the best team in the NFC for years.

 

In terms of 2004, I think you are selling the Eagles short. While I agree the AFC was the better conference, I don't think the other AFC teams beat them THAT year in the SB. The 2004 Pats was probably their strongest team of the championship teams with Branch, Givens and Dillion and that D shut them down until the fourth. If Ownes was healthy I shutter to think what might have happened.

[-JJ-]

I'll have to agree with amfootball on this one. I know people love to dump on the Eagles but they were good enough to win. They were just unforunate to run into the Patriots that year. Years past they were always bridesmaids but still..good.

Just like the Bills had a bad run of luck

 

Sort of a pet peave of mine too many fans dump on good teams they perceive bad etc. 

[GoPats]

Come on you're above this GoPats .Let the drones drone on about this they are all on my ignore list(Colts and Pats fans alike). You are one of our bright spots from the pats locals, don't stoop to their level . Any football fan with half a brain knows these two are two of the greatest ever that you really can't pin a better one out of without a ton of woulda coulda shouldas. Can't wait for all this to die or a mod to close this.

 

, okay, okay... I got sucked in.

 

That question I asked though (about why other teams don't implement similar systems), it does go back a few years. One of the things about great players, in any sport, is how they make everything look so easy. I think that works against Brady sometimes. He takes what the defense gives him, gets rid of the ball quickly, etc-etc... the game slows down for him, and as a result what you see on the field often looks kind of unspectacular in some ways. It's not like he's scrambling around, buying time, with five guys draped all over him like a Roethlisberger or someone along those lines.

 

I'll let anyone make a reasonable argument, anytime, but I still call it out when I smell the poop. ;)

 

 

I'll have to agree with amfootball on this one. I know people love to dump on the Eagles but they were good enough to win. They were just unforunate to run into the Patriots that year. Years past they were always bridesmaids but still..good.

Just like the Bills had a bad run of luck

 

Sort of a pet peave of mine too many fans dump on good teams they perceive bad etc. 

 

The Eagles seemed like they suffered from the classic, "just happy to be here" syndrome when they FINALLY broke through and got to a Super Bowl. They had a nice run but I don't think they ever had a shot in that game.

[dynasty13]

It took brady 62 more completions, not passes, completions to break peytons record by 1. At mannings rate had he thrown 62 more passes like brady he would have thrown 57.97 tds. Peyton also had a qb rating 4 points higher than brady. And like i said its the system. Brady goes down cassell leads that team to 11-5. Manning goes down and we go 2-14. Numbers dont lie

 

I've always loved this argument. Some Colts fans were (are) so obsessed with 'preserving' Peyton's edge in the 'who's better' debate that they had to undermine what Brady did and attempt to make the case for why Peyton's accomplishment was 'more impressive' because he did it in less passes. 

 

Let me ask you a question...and I really didn't want to respond but its just such a flawed supposed 'trump card' that you just threw out there...but let me give you an example. One quarterback takes over on their opponents 30 yard line, and because of their good field position, 'only' needed to make 4 passes for a touchdown. Another quarterback took over on their own 10 and drove down the field and completed 9 passes for a touchdown.

 

Is one 'more impressive' than the other? See...when you throw out blanket statements like 'it took this guy more passes to only break the record by 1'...it raises a point that is just completely irrelevant to the larger significance of the broken record. It just doesn't matter...and that's something that many of you just cant seem to understand.

[GoPats]

I've always loved this argument. Some Colts fans were (are) so obsessed with 'preserving' Peyton's edge in the 'who's better' debate that they had to undermine what Brady did and attempt to make the case for why Peyton's accomplishment was 'more impressive' because he did it in less passes. 

 

Let me ask you a question...and I really didn't want to respond but its just such a flawed supposed 'trump card' that you just threw out there...but let me give you an example. One quarterback takes over on their opponents 30 yard line, and because of their good field position, 'only' needed to make 4 passes for a touchdown. Another quarterback took over on their own 10 and drove down the field and completed 9 passes for a touchdown.

 

Is one 'more impressive' than the other? See...when you throw out blanket statements like 'it took this guy more passes to only break the record by 1'...it raises a point that is just completely irrelevant to the larger significance of the broken record. It just doesn't matter...and that's something that many of you just cant seem to understand.

 

I didn't respond to that one, but if I had, I would have pointed out that Brady also threw two fewer INTs on 81 more attempts. ;)

[-JJ-]

, okay, okay... I got sucked in.

 

That question I asked though (about why other teams don't implement similar systems), it does go back a few years. One of the things about great players, in any sport, is how they make everything look so easy. I think that works against Brady sometimes. He takes what the defense gives him, gets rid of the ball quickly, etc-etc... the game slows down for him, and as a result what you see on the field often looks kind of unspectacular in some ways. It's not like he's scrambling around, buying time, with five guys draped all over him like a Roethlisberger or someone along those lines.

 

I'll let anyone make a reasonable argument, anytime, but I still call it out when I smell the poop. ;)

 

 

 

The Eagles seemed like they suffered from the classic, "just happy to be here" syndrome when they FINALLY broke through and got to a Super Bowl. They had a nice run but I don't think they ever had a shot in that game.

I would agree. And why wouldn't they be happy after all those misses:)

The Corey Dillion team (and I do think he's the difference) pretty much made NE inevitable to win.

[-JJ-]

I didn't respond to that one, but if I had, I would have pointed out that Brady also threw two fewer INTs on 81 more attempts. ;)

I think its ok to respond to some. We need transparency in drones ;-)

[Jules]

That was the best Pats team IMO we have seen in terms of true balance. I had like zero doubt they were going to beat the Eagles. I don't think I really got much into that game either. Eagles were a good team though no doubt but I never had full trust in McNabb.

 

The best Pats SB win for pure drama to me was Pats/Panthers. From a pure football standpoint I felt that game was fantastic. Defense all the way until offense took over. And Jake Delhomme was GOOD for a period of time there for the Panthers in some playoff games. That is one of my favorite SB games ever.

 

I think the best Brady "moment" to me was when he got the Pats in FG range at the end of the Rams SB to set up our favorite kicker for the win. A lot of people claim Brady was a near non factor in some playoff games and especially that one but I disagree. I thought Brady was incredibly poised in his second year and first year starting and I was impressed. And there is something to be said about being 14 point dogs and getting it done with a young QB.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVphiMBbGaM

[southwest1]

Couple of thoughts here. No one in NE believes Welker to be a villain. 99% want the Pats to resign him this offseason. Most believe he should be played like a top receiver even though he plays the slot. 100+ catches for several seasons now. The guy is big time.

Now, in terms of the SB. Welker said himself after that drop that he makes that catch 100 out of 100 times. You can actually see him drop to his knees and grab his head when he drops it as he knows he should have caught it. The SB magnifies every play especially ones where the game is in the balance. If Adam Vinateri misses that kick against the Rams he is viewed like Bill Buckner. Those are the breaks. I remember Rodney Harrison saying that after the stickum helmet catch by Tyree he was going to retire from football. That is how much it hurt. That is the cost you pay when you play in the NFL and you are the player that has the balance of the game in his hands. And while I agree that one play did not decide the game as it was only second down and the Pats did not convert on third and their D wilted as it always done at the end of Super Bowls, it is his drop that signified the beginning of the end in most people’s minds. It is unfair but a cruel reality when you are on the biggest stage with a chance to seal the game.

I agree with 99% of what you wrote here amfootball. A very thorough & well thought out response. #1: I will concede that since I do not live in Boston, Massachusetts I have no real idea how most NE fans view Wes Welker & the infamous dropped pass. I am glad to hear that Welker is still admired & widely respected in Foxboro. Perhaps, the NFL media is fanning the flames of controversy here not the Patriots organization or the players themselves. That is entirely possible. #2: Even if Wes Welker had caught that pass that was a poor throw by the elite QB Tom Brady, there is no guarantee that NE wins the game. Strange stuff happens in the SB man & nerves play a role even among seasoned NFL field veterans. Running backs can still fumble the ball. Steelers Jerome Bettis in 2005 vs the Colts & passes can still get deflected & knocked down in midair. My point is winning the SB was not a foregone conclusion for NE at that point. Yes NE's odds of winning a trophy dramatically increase I will admit, but again when the lights are brightest in the NFL pantheon of greatness strange stuff unfolds.

I would make the argument that Gronk's inability to make that catch against Blackburn in the 2nd half of the 2012 SB had more to do with the outcome of that SB more than any other play in that game. If Gronk makes that catch for a 1st down, Welker's dropped pass is now irrelevant IMHO. It's ironic how Gronk gets a complete pass on that play & Welker doesn't for his play? Just thinking outloud...Generally, the player with the most NFL tenure, Welker in this case, usually gets the benefit of the doubt or he should In my view anyway.

I like you amfootball. You are a fair minded individual who has an interesting take on things. Nice chatting with you man.

[Jules]

JMO of course, but I still prefer the Brady of the "early years" even though since the SB wins he has statistically become a much better QB and a yearly MVP candidate.

 

There was an element of Brady in the old days where I felt he was more fearless, more calm......I can't quite put my finger on it. Those Pats teams too used to seem to thrive on "disrespect" as well.

 

Perhaps injuries/age just change everyone. But, I really did like the early Brady a lot as a QB even though many (well here) give much of the credit to the D and coaching.

 

I feel like some magic might be missing now.

 

 

JMO again.

[-JJ-]

That was the best Pats team IMO we have seen in terms of true balance. I had like zero doubt they were going to beat the Eagles. I don't think I really got much into that game either. Eagles were a good team though no doubt but I never had full trust in McNabb.

 

The best Pats SB win for pure drama to me was Pats/Panthers. From a pure football standpoint I felt that game was fantastic. Defense all the way until offense took over. And Jake Delhomme was GOOD for a period of time there for the Panthers in some playoff games. That is one of my favorite SB games ever.

 

I think the best Brady "moment" to me was when he got the Pats in FG range at the end of the Rams SB to set up our favorite kicker for the win. A lot of people claim Brady was a near non factor in some playoff games and especially that one but I disagree. I thought Brady was incredibly poised in his second year and first year starting and I was impressed. And there is something to be said about being 14 point dogs and getting it done with a young QB.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVphiMBbGaM

I agree 100% on that anaylsis.    Personally as a pat fan I might go with the Rams SB because of the odds and the strategy employed but certainly from a pure football fan the Panthers game would be the one.

 

thanks for posting that video too:)

[southwest1]

That was the best Pats team IMO we have seen in terms of true balance. I had like zero doubt they were going to beat the Eagles. I don't think I really got much into that game either. Eagles were a good team though no doubt but I never had full trust in McNabb.

 

The best Pats SB win for pure drama to me was Pats/Panthers. From a pure football standpoint I felt that game was fantastic. Defense all the way until offense took over. And Jake Delhomme was GOOD for a period of time there for the Panthers in some playoff games. That is one of my favorite SB games ever.

 

I think the best Brady "moment" to me was when he got the Pats in FG range at the end of the Rams SB to set up our favorite kicker for the win. A lot of people claim Brady was a near non factor in some playoff games and especially that one but I disagree. I thought Brady was incredibly poised in his second year and first year starting and I was impressed. And there is something to be said about being 14 point dogs and getting it done with a young QB.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVphiMBbGaM

Pat Summerall was 1 of my favorite TV broadcasters. Was this his last SB doing play by play? John Madden: "Don't be stupid. Play for Overtime here." Madden calling Belichick dumb. Now that is funny.  You gotta know when to take calculated risks John. "This guy is really cool...The way he has been playing today. I am really impressed with his calmness." What no glowing complements like the ones you cascade upon HOF QB Brett Favre? Just kidding John.  ;) "...Now, I kidda like what the Patriots are doing  ...Charlie Weiss & this Patriot team are letting it all hang out." Madden I like you as a coach...as a TV broadcaster not so much.

[-JJ-]

I agree with 99% of what you wrote here amfootball. A very thorough & well thought out response. #1: I will concede that since I do not live in Boston, Massachusetts I have no real idea how most NE fans view Wes Welker & the infamous dropped pass. I am glad to hear that Welker is still admired & widely respected in Foxboro. Perhaps, the NFL media is fanning the flames of controversy here not the Patriots organization or the players themselves. That is entirely possible. #2: Even if Wes Welker had caught that pass that was a poor throw by the elite QB Tom Brady, there is no guarantee that NE wins the game. Strange stuff happens in the SB man & nerves play a role even among seasoned NFL field veterans. Running backs can still fumble the ball. Steelers Jerome Bettis in 2005 vs the Colts & passes can still get deflected & knocked down in midair. My point is winning the SB was not a foregone conclusion for NE at that point. Yes NE's odds of winning a trophy dramatically increase I will admit, but again when the lights are brightest in the NFL pantheon of greatness strange stuff unfolds.

I would make the argument that Gronk's inability to make that catch against Blackburn in the 2nd half of the 2012 SB had more to do with the outcome of that SB more than any other play in that game. If Gronk makes that catch for a 1st down, Welker's dropped pass is now irrelevant IMHO. It's ironic how Gronk gets a complete pass on that play & Welker doesn't for his play? Just thinking outloud...Generally, the player with the most NFL tenure, Welker in this case, usually gets the benefit of the doubt or he should In my view anyway.

I like you amfootball. You are a fair minded individual who has an interesting take on things. Nice chatting with you man.

I never blamed Welker because you are going to drop one once in awhile. Its juist too bad it happened there but the game could have been won before as is the case with all these one play wins.

 

Buckner's through his legs play is only the scapegoat of a pitcher named Hurst who failed to seal the deal and the rest of the team.