If Brady wins the Super Bowl will it be considered more impressive then when he won his first in 2001?

[amfootball]

Yeah, like you never try to get sneaky digs in on Manning

But sometimes he makes it so easy for me. ;)   Who you picking in the Broncos/Chargers game?

[AntonMcG]

But sometimes he makes it so easy for me. ;)   Who you picking in the Broncos/Chargers game?

 

Broncos in a shootout. Adjustments will be made on offense after the regular season game.

 

That is as far the the Broncos go though I think.

[amfootball]

Broncos in a shootout. Adjustments will be made on offense after the regular season game.

 

That is as far the the Broncos go though I think.

So you think the Pats or Colts will take out the Broncos in Denver?

[AntonMcG]

So you think the Pats or Colts will take out the Broncos in Denver?

 

Yes, their defense is far too poor and I do not see who makes plays for them against good offenses. Von Miller's injury ended their SB chances for me.

 

Next year, when they get their D-Line back in place, along with Miller and Clady should be enough for them to be the pick of the NFL. That being said, the same argument could have been made for the Patriots at the start of last year's off-season. Injuries etc. can never be accounted for.

[JerodMayo51]

Its not going to be the same as the last time we played Denver.  We had Gronk back healthy for that game and he was a big part of our offensive attack and a big part of that 24 point comeback.  

 

Hopefully the extra bye week helped them get some more practice in the red zone.  They need to go back to their 2001 style where they used creativity and trickery to get production in the redzone, since the didn't have any real weapons of note on the offense at that time.

 

Its going to be a great weekend.  If the Patriots end up losing, I'll root for the Colts from the AFC and the 49ers from the NFC!  

[Yehoodi]

I have watched every game of the Patriots 2001 season, and trying to convince me that Brady was the main reason they won the Super Bowl is downright absurd. Too many people talk about football without watching it, I suggest everyone go back and watch an great TEAM making a fairytale run. Brady made plays, but he was not relied upon.

 

Again, I watched it all, no justification you attempt to throw at me will convince me otherwise.

 

whatever floats your boat . . . the bottom line is the issue of whether or not 2001 was impressive or not as a body of work . . . and again I will remind you that this "TEAM" was 5-13 before he arrived . . . I am NOT SAYING that he was the MAIN reason why they went 11-5 overall, but he was a important factor and more so than what you want to give credit . . .

 

you must remember that we were a good team but not a great team, and the SB thingie was not a thought on pats fans minds back then, much less than when our franchise QB went down 0-2 for the season. . . my best football friend who is a pats fan didn't even want to hear it when I was talking to him week three after Mass of his thoughts on the pats and the Bledsoe situation, and he said they were done and really did not want to get into it . . . and it was the sentiment of a lot of people around here . . . now had this team been the great T-E-A-M that you claimed they were there would be less worries and more about gee if we can just go x and x till Bledsoe comes back we might make the playoffs . . . and so on . .. but there was not a lot of this at the time . . .

 

so yah revisionist history can change the dynamic of a season and or one who forget the status of a team and its fan base prior to success . . . but the bottom line the team had a change and coincided with the change at QB . . . if Brady was such is non issue why did BB keep him on the roster as a 4th QB in 2000?, why did BB not put Bledsoe back in at QB? If we had such a great team and any QB would have success why was the franchise QB on the bench?  after all he has to due it sit back and don't look stupid cant Bledsoe handle this? isn't that why you gave him the franchise money in the off season?

 

The answer to those questions are the very same answers to your question about those who think they know how to watch football . . . sometimes it is not what you do (mucho stats), is what you do not do (mistakes, TOs, etc.) and Brady falls in the later and more than Bledsoe . . . Bledsoe was great and glad he is in the Patriot HOF as he was instrumental and helping our team come up from the bottom of the NFL in the early 90s . . . but he was not as clean as Brady . . .  

 

Also, Brady and the team was not as bad as some may think . . . they ended up 6th in scoring only behind teams that had Manning, Young, Farve, Warner (MVP) and Gannon (MVP 2002), and this is true even though they only scored 20 points in the first two games . . . they inch up higher in a points per game under Brady (14 games as starter) . . . so not exactly chump change under Brady . . . btw this "TEAM" was 25th in this category the year prior under Bledsoe, BB and Weis . . . . and other than Troy Brown, we weren't the Greatest Show on Turf at the skilled positions btw . . .

 

We also went 11-3 under Brady which tied for a franchise win record, and given that Brady helped to do this in 14 games, Brady winning percentage for those 14 games was higher than any season we ever had in our 40 year history . . .

 

So bottom line, you can twist any way want to favor your argument but you can't ignore the facts and the production and the lack of mistakes, in the end you had a team and franchise that was down coming off a 5-11 season, some were tired of BB dry presser, some wanted him fired, and after a change in QB midway week two the team when on to set a record for franchise wins, #2 seed, and with a rookie QB that help lead his team to 11 wins and enough points to only be behind 3 HOF QBs, the Greatest Show on Turf and the following years MVP . . . and that my friend is impressive, regardless of how deep you want to stick your head in the sand . . .

 

Was the be all end all, no . . . but he did replace and supplant our starting franchise QB, and help his team be in the top tier of the teams in the NFL in record and scoring points . . . and that is something . . .

[braveheartcolt]

Brady was very average throughout the whole 2001 season. And that is coming from an unbiased Colts fan who has not seen one snap of that season. Can't really argue with solid facts.

[TAPLOOK]

Brady was very average throughout the whole 2001 season. And that is coming from an unbiased Colts fan who has not seen one snap of that season. Can't really argue with solid facts.

You didn't even see a snap but have an unbiased opinion. Interesting.

 

 

 

It was apparent after 3-4 games that Brady was very special. He was a leader from the get go and possessed the "it factor". It was his team. I watched every snap many multiple times.

[braveheartcolt]

You didn't even see a snap but have an unbiased opinion. Interesting.

 

 

 

It was apparent after 3-4 games that Brady was very special. He was a leader from the get go and possessed the "it factor". It was his team. I watched every snap many multiple times.

You should change your username to Sherlock.

[TAPLOOK]

You should change your username to Sherlock.

Absolutely. Can you share with us the facts that you admittedly never witnessed?

[GoPats]

I have watched every game of the Patriots 2001 season, and trying to convince me that Brady was the main reason they won the Super Bowl is downright absurd. Too many people talk about football without watching it, I suggest everyone go back and watch an great TEAM making a fairytale run. Brady made plays, but he was not relied upon.

 

Again, I watched it all, no justification you attempt to throw at me will convince me otherwise.

 

Mostly true, but Brady did have a couple of big games along the way. There was an OT win against San Diego that comes to mind, a 4-TD game against New Orleans, and he threw for a ton of yards in the second half of the Tuck Rule game. 

 

He also had a couple of stinkers along the way. 

 

So all in all though, yes... absolutely a team thing. As punctuated by the Patriots' refusal to get individual introductions in the Super Bowl. 

[Shane Bond]

If Brady is a much better player now than earlier, why did he win 3 SBs before and none after?.

[MWilkerson950]

I keep thinking about this scenario and I don't think anything tops 2001/2002 but this season would come close and perhaps even further Brady's legacy of doing a lot with little offensive talent not to mention the injuries.

 

Thoughts?

 

The 2001 SuperBowl run was one of the most least impressive playoff runs for a QB of all time. Brady didn't even win the AFCCG, and it took him to the Super Bowl to throw his first TD. He also got bailed out by a tuck rule after getting fooled badly by a blindside blitz and blew the game the week before. 

[TAPLOOK]

The 2001 SuperBowl run was one of the most least impressive playoff runs for a QB of all time. Brady didn't even win the AFCCG, and it took him to the Super Bowl to throw his first TD. He also got bailed out by a tuck rule after getting fooled badly by a blindside blitz and blew the game the week before. 

Yep. No one was impressed.

[southwest1]

Actually he is.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7_aDs1lm10

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNmJU0xobv0

 

 

I don't see and don't believe the Patriots will win the super bowl this year.  Nope!  They just don't have that overall complete team like what the 49ers or Saints have.  I think the aggressiveness of the Seahawks who have a better defense than the Giants had in the the two super bowls they beat the Pats would be too much for the Patriots.  I think the Panthers can beat the Patriots in the SB and they already did earlier in the year.

 

I think the 49ers, Saints and Seahawks would beat the Patriots.  Pats beat the Saints earlier in the season but I think the Saints have gotten better since and that was in NE and not on a neutral field.

 

 

Look at all these teams in the post season.  They all have mobile QB's who can run for fist downs except Brady.  I do think and see a trend emerging as the NFL will continue to bring in more mobile QB's who can not only throw but can run.  And yes, Peyton is more mobile than Brady.

 

Now just watch, I'm going to be attacked by Patriots fans: "What are you talking about?  Brady is mobile, he's got great feet!"  lol

 

Some Patriots fans don't seem to understand the difference between actually running for a first down to keep the drive going vs happy feet in the pocket.

First of all, Brady does run because he rarely has to due to his pump fakes & slight of hand finger motion on & off the football. Tom excels at sliding his feet in the pocket to create more time for his WR's & TE's to get open & that allows him to change the launch point on the ball in order to reduce or increase the velocity on the ball depending on whether the ball needs to float & softly drop & zoom out with power like cannon fire. 

 

In addition, Brady is very good at the QB sneak in order to convert 3rd downs into 1st downs. My point is this: Because of Brady's smart decision making, shuffling feet, & QB sneak success ratio, there is no need for him to physically run. 

 

Peyton, on the other hand, runs like a giraffe. He has no speed & the only reason that Raiders TD play worked is than Manning is a fixed spot pocket passer that rarely moves if ever in his decade plus NFL career. Saying Manning is a better runner than Brady is pointless because neither QB relies on scrambling to win football games. Also, the frequency of a rare couple of runs that scores 2 TDs in a 15 year career means almost nothing because it does not signify a successful body of work which signifies winning games by running with the football. JMO.

 

If you forced me into corner, I'd say Brady is faster on his feet than Peyton, but again it it pointless because neither QB relies on their feet to carry them to game victory. Neither QB is trying to be Russel Wilson or Colin Kaepernick & I still prefer traditional pocket passers anyway. 

[southwest1]

Hey Yehoodi, 

 

After reading post #86 on this page, I must admit that I like your detailed answers to other posters on here. That's probably because I tend to get longwinded myself from time to time.  Some people may dislike reading long posts, but I always appreciate the context you provide your audience & you are always very polite. Nice work! I always learn something from your perspective & I like people who make me think & provide me with a fresh perspective on Patriots history & lore. 

 

Hey that reminds me, I need to log onto the NE site & see what BB & Brady are saying about Luck & the problems INDY presents this weekend. Plus, I need to hear the respect Luck & Coach Pagano gives NE too. 

 

I love this rivalry! Oh Yeah...

 

Thank you for the INDY props Tom Brady regarding Mathis, our team toughness, & beating the Niners & Seahawks etc...My respect for you just skyrocketed man! 

 

http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Brady-17-These-are-the-moments-you-dream-about/b7ff4c94-1627-419b-b7f4-bf7195bf9fe4

 

This is probably a kill your adversary with kindness ploy on NE's part...Smart. 

[southwest1]

"They are a phenomenal football team." --Andrew Luck

 

http://www.colts.com/videos/videos/Andrew_Luck_It_is_going_to_be_a_dog_fight/d5e76c2c-1349-43d3-8ff4-3dd985b190cf

 

That's what SW1 loves most about the INDY vs NE rivalry...Mutual respect on both sides...

[southwest1]

I have to give credit to VL too for cluing me into how darn good Chandler Jones is, which INDY HC Chuck Pagano thinks highly of & 1st ballot HOF QB Tom Brady obviously. 

 

http://www.colts.com/videos/videos/Coach_Pagano_Guys_are_excited/6a2d1433-f644-475f-95b4-cc68030b3a49

 

I know how incredibly flawless NE is & that INDY has to play a great game to even have a chance at winning this weekend. I know all too well how hard it is to beat the Patriots at Foxboro.

 

What worries me is that INDY is such a young team who can't count on BB giving us the same opportunity to get back into the game if we dig ourselves a deep hole early. BB won't allow INDY to come back. 

 

INDY can't afford to mistakes or we are dead. I don't know exactly what impact Deion Branch will have either, but I always respected the guy even when he played in NE. 

[James Harden]

If he wins another superbowl than it is final. He would go down in the history book as the greatest quarterback of all throughout time. Brady vs Manning debate would finally be over. No Joking

[southwest1]

Bummer. SW1 really wanted to hear from the Grey Hoodie about the Colts strengths & weaknesses today hopefully Friday. BB will shut down TY Hilton & disrupt TE Coby Fleener off the line of scrimmage. 

 

Patriots field reporter Jackie Brittain has a nice speaking voice BTW & she provides good information IMO. 

 

Whatever happens this weekend, win or lose SW1 will leave my overall impressions of the game. I can promise you that. I will be fair, honest, & accurate either way. 

 

P.S. My favorite Foxboro NE reporter was Wendi Nix now on ESPN. I liked her deep voice, excellent kernels of NFL info on game day, & she reminds me of 1 of my favorite singers Stevie Nicks from Fleetwood MAC, a great band that still holds up.

 

"Edge Of Seventeen" the song still  today too. LOL! 

[Shane Bond]

If he wins another superbowl than it is final. He would go down in the history book as the greatest quarterback of all throughout time. Brady vs Manning debate would finally be over. No Joking

 

I really don't think their legacies are in balance\line with SB rings. Its already been set.

 

Football is a team sport with 53 players and multiple coaches who contribute to win a game. I do realize QB is responsible for the majority percentage but there are still other factors which play a huge part.

 

We have several instances for this. Ex: Bradshaw Vs Marino. If you just want to pick a QB for his talent, i am sure 99 of 100 will go for Marino.

 

Brady is not the same player he was when he won the SBs. He is much better now. Yet, he won SBs when he was not better than now and havent won one since he got better. That explains everything.

[AntonMcG]

whatever floats your boat . . . the bottom line is the issue of whether or not 2001 was impressive or not as a body of work . . . and again I will remind you that this "TEAM" was 5-13 before he arrived . . . I am NOT SAYING that he was the MAIN reason why they went 11-5 overall, but he was a important factor and more so than what you want to give credit . . .

 

you must remember that we were a good team but not a great team, and the SB thingie was not a thought on pats fans minds back then, much less than when our franchise QB went down 0-2 for the season. . . my best football friend who is a pats fan didn't even want to hear it when I was talking to him week three after Mass of his thoughts on the pats and the Bledsoe situation, and he said they were done and really did not want to get into it . . . and it was the sentiment of a lot of people around here . . . now had this team been the great T-E-A-M that you claimed they were there would be less worries and more about gee if we can just go x and x till Bledsoe comes back we might make the playoffs . . . and so on . .. but there was not a lot of this at the time . . .

 

so yah revisionist history can change the dynamic of a season and or one who forget the status of a team and its fan base prior to success . . . but the bottom line the team had a change and coincided with the change at QB . . . if Brady was such is non issue why did BB keep him on the roster as a 4th QB in 2000?, why did BB not put Bledsoe back in at QB? If we had such a great team and any QB would have success why was the franchise QB on the bench?  after all he has to due it sit back and don't look stupid cant Bledsoe handle this? isn't that why you gave him the franchise money in the off season?

 

The answer to those questions are the very same answers to your question about those who think they know how to watch football . . . sometimes it is not what you do (mucho stats), is what you do not do (mistakes, TOs, etc.) and Brady falls in the later and more than Bledsoe . . . Bledsoe was great and glad he is in the Patriot HOF as he was instrumental and helping our team come up from the bottom of the NFL in the early 90s . . . but he was not as clean as Brady . . .  

 

Also, Brady and the team was not as bad as some may think . . . they ended up 6th in scoring only behind teams that had Manning, Young, Farve, Warner (MVP) and Gannon (MVP 2002), and this is true even though they only scored 20 points in the first two games . . . they inch up higher in a points per game under Brady (14 games as starter) . . . so not exactly chump change under Brady . . . btw this "TEAM" was 25th in this category the year prior under Bledsoe, BB and Weis . . . . and other than Troy Brown, we weren't the Greatest Show on Turf at the skilled positions btw . . .

 

We also went 11-3 under Brady which tied for a franchise win record, and given that Brady helped to do this in 14 games, Brady winning percentage for those 14 games was higher than any season we ever had in our 40 year history . . .

 

So bottom line, you can twist any way want to favor your argument but you can't ignore the facts and the production and the lack of mistakes, in the end you had a team and franchise that was down coming off a 5-11 season, some were tired of BB dry presser, some wanted him fired, and after a change in QB midway week two the team when on to set a record for franchise wins, #2 seed, and with a rookie QB that help lead his team to 11 wins and enough points to only be behind 3 HOF QBs, the Greatest Show on Turf and the following years MVP . . . and that my friend is impressive, regardless of how deep you want to stick your head in the sand . . .

 

Was the be all end all, no . . . but he did replace and supplant our starting franchise QB, and help his team be in the top tier of the teams in the NFL in record and scoring points . . . and that is something . . .

 

I didn't stick my head in the sand... I saw what I saw.

 

Perspective is a wonderful thing when you use it to your advantage... Bledsoe was not the player many made him out to be, he had a some good years around 94 to 97 but was very pedestrian thereafter. Why is it that people portray Bledsoe is an irreplaceable franchise Quarterback who was beyond benching, until Brady came along? He was an average QB.

 

Brady came in and was obviously talented, he helped a very good team win, but he was far from the catalyst.

 

And anybody could see that the Patriots were a talented team... again, I take it back the the Seattle Seahawks. Matt Flynn should have been the starter, he was a relatively safe veteran who was brought in to start. Wilson took his spot though, and showed he had talent to contribute. He was not (not last season anyway) the reason they were winning, he had incredible talent around him.

[Shane Bond]

Can any patriots fans answer the below. I am sure you have better insight to this.

 

"If Brady is a much better player now than earlier, why did he win 3 SBs before and none after?."

[IndyTrav]

Can any patriots fans answer the below. I am sure you have better insight to this.

 

"If Brady is a much better player now than earlier, why did he win 3 SBs before and none after?."

 

Probably because winning a SB is hard.

 

He only made it to 2 more, went 16-0, Broke the TD record, won 2 MVPs, a CPoY, and 2 OPoY. 

 

Brady won 3 SB with a fantastic TEAM, that the NFL clearly was not ready for. He has arguably the greatest coach of all time, but the constant attempt to diminsh his laundry list of achievements has gone beyond petty, and into the realm of absurd......Just accept the fact that he is one of, if not the greatest QB of all time, for every Manning argument there is a Brady counter point, and vice versa....

 

Colts fans will never admit Brady is better, and that is fine, but the constant attempt to try and discredit Brady in anyway embarrasses me as a Colts fan.....  

 

 

And admit it, his last 2 SB you rooted against Brady with every fiber of your being, desperately wanting him not to win....I know I did.....Do you know why most Colts fans did that? I do.....

[TAPLOOK]

Probably because winning a SB is hard.

 

He only made it to 2 more, went 16-0, Broke the TD record, won 2 MVPs, a CPoY, and 2 OPoY. 

 

Brady won 3 SB with a fantastic TEAM, that the NFL clearly was not ready for. He has arguably the greatest coach of all time, but the constant attempt to diminsh his laundry list of achievements has gone beyond petty, and into the realm of absurd......Just accept the fact that he is one of, if not the greatest QB of all time, for every Manning argument there is a Brady counter point, and vice versa....

 

Colts fans will never admit Brady is better, and that is fine, but the constant attempt to try and discredit Brady in anyway embarrasses me as a Colts fan.....  

 

 

And admit it, his last 2 SB you rooted against Brady with every fiber of your being, desperately wanting him not to win....I know I did.....Do you know why most Colts fans did that? I do.....

Shane on you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice post.

[Shane Bond]

Probably because winning a SB is hard.

 

He only made it to 2 more, went 16-0, Broke the TD record, won 2 MVPs, a CPoY, and 2 OPoY. 

 

Brady won 3 SB with a fantastic TEAM, that the NFL clearly was not ready for. He has arguably the greatest coach of all time, but the constant attempt to diminsh his laundry list of achievements has gone beyond petty, and into the realm of absurd......Just accept the fact that he is one of, if not the greatest QB of all time, for every Manning argument there is a Brady counter point, and vice versa....

 

Colts fans will never admit Brady is better, and that is fine, but the constant attempt to try and discredit Brady in anyway embarrasses me as a Colts fan.....  

 

 

And admit it, his last 2 SB you rooted against Brady with every fiber of your being, desperately wanting him not to win....I know I did.....Do you know why most Colts fans did that? I do.....

Edgy this morning, arent you.

 

Who discredited Brady?. I asked a question based on the title of the thread.

 

Must feel better after all the rambling.

[Shane Bond]

Shane on you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice post.

Excuse me?.

[IndyTrav]

Edgy this morning, arent you.

 

Who discredited Brady?. I asked a question based on the title of the thread.

 

Must feel better after all the rambling.

 

 

"Why hasnt Brady won a SB in the last 5 yrs"......Your not attempting to discredit Brady AT ALL are you? Not in this thread or any other Patriot related thread are you? I must have just imagined you doing that repeatedly.

 

 

As for the topic of the thread. I would consider it Bradys best performance yes, due to the changing nature of his team, and over coming those. I would consider this the least talented Pats team he has worked with, and yet here they are in the playoffs yet again....But its a tough call. A new kid, coming out of nowhere to beat the big bad Rams, with a rag tag group, winning in the final seconds. Pretty cool in terms of 'story'.

[amfootball]

Probably because winning a SB is hard.

 

He only made it to 2 more, went 16-0, Broke the TD record, won 2 MVPs, a CPoY, and 2 OPoY. 

 

Brady won 3 SB with a fantastic TEAM, that the NFL clearly was not ready for. He has arguably the greatest coach of all time, but the constant attempt to diminsh his laundry list of achievements has gone beyond petty, and into the realm of absurd......Just accept the fact that he is one of, if not the greatest QB of all time, for every Manning argument there is a Brady counter point, and vice versa....

 

Colts fans will never admit Brady is better, and that is fine, but the constant attempt to try and discredit Brady in anyway embarrasses me as a Colts fan.....  

 

 

And admit it, his last 2 SB you rooted against Brady with every fiber of your being, desperately wanting him not to win....I know I did.....Do you know why most Colts fans did that? I do.....

Perhaps this post means even more coming from a Colts fan. Thank you for taking the time to post.

 

Saturday night begins phase 2 of Pats/Colts rivalry with Luck at the helm. Should be fantastic.

[Shane Bond]

"Why hasnt Brady won a SB in the last 5 yrs"......Your not attempting to discredit Brady AT ALL are you? Not in this thread or any other Patriot related thread are you? I must have just imagined you doing that repeatedly.

 

 

.

How is that discrediting?. Its a simple question. If you dont know or do not want to answer, dont stir the pot and talk something else. I will let you have the last word.

[Yehoodi]

I didn't stick my head in the sand... I saw what I saw.

 

Perspective is a wonderful thing when you use it to your advantage... Bledsoe was not the player many made him out to be, he had a some good years around 94 to 97 but was very pedestrian thereafter. Why is it that people portray Bledsoe is an irreplaceable franchise Quarterback who was beyond benching, until Brady came along? He was an average QB.

 

Brady came in and was obviously talented, he helped a very good team win, but he was far from the catalyst.

 

And anybody could see that the Patriots were a talented team... again, I take it back the the Seattle Seahawks. Matt Flynn should have been the starter, he was a relatively safe veteran who was brought in to start. Wilson took his spot though, and showed he had talent to contribute. He was not (not last season anyway) the reason they were winning, he had incredible talent around him.

 

Bledsoe did a great deal for our franchise and some do not give him credit . . . also too there are some who wish to give Brady credit for what happened in NE in the 2000s but that very likely would not have been possible had Bledsoe not came in and help the team through the lean years of the early 90s . . . perhaps the Pats are in STL, who knows . . . but part of the reason I mentioned Bledsoe was the fact that he help our franchise a great deal . . .  in the late 90s was he the top 5 QB probably not but he was not bottom 12 either . .  . 

 

twice you have mentioned that the pats where a "very good team", which in part dilutes Brady's contribution . . .

 

I have a question for you what is it in the Pats make up that makes you think there were a very good team?  Probowlers? a Randy Moss coming to the pats? and so . . .

 

in the years after our SB appearance and Brady taking over here are our records

 

1997 10-6

1998 9-7

1999 8-8

2000 5-11

2001 0-2

 

What is in the pats make up that you conclude that outside of Brady the team was a "very" good team . . .

 

Objectively speaking they look very middle of the road prior to Brady taking over . . . was Brady the sole reason for the turnaround no, but until you come up with support for your "very" good team beyond just a statement, you can't really say Brady was not an important factor in the turnaround . . . you need to give us reasons for the 11-3 season after the prior 5 years . . .   

[IndyTrav]

How is that discrediting?. Its a simple question. If you dont know or do not want to answer, dont stir the pot and talk something else. I will let you have the last word.

 

It was a question I answered. Your the one who has taken it upon himself to bring up any slight, past or present, in an attempt to discredit Brady and the Patriots. Taking the torch of spygate, brady hasn't won a SB since he's been good, BB is the best they only win bc of him, etc etc. 

 

Its embarrassing. Its like your trying to speak for any uneducated Colts fan by bringing up things that paint the Patriots in a bad light, while refusing to actual believe that maybe, just maybe, the Pats are a good team/well run franchise, with a HoF QB.....

 

And I did answer your question. Why hasnt Brady won a SB since he's been statistically more accomplished. Its because winning a SB is hard, and not something thats done year in and year out, even by Brady/Manning. But that fact that you, or Pat fans, pretty much EXPECT a SB from Brady, shows you how successful and dangerous, they/he are. 

[Yehoodi]

Can any patriots fans answer the below. I am sure you have better insight to this.

 

"If Brady is a much better player now than earlier, why did he win 3 SBs before and none after?."

 

don't have time to make a long post so will try to be brief . . .

 

First off, I am not so sure he is a "better" QB later in the 2000s than he was in the early 2000s . . . just different and the team ran things different . . . he may be more experienced . . .

 

As for winning SB, I have always viewed it as you need to do what is necessary to get your team to the table and then lady luck will decide of you will win . . . sometimes you are good enough to just win like the 2004 Pats, but any other SB winning team has some luck along the way and had a bounce that went their way to win the SB . . .

 

With this said for me, Brady's contribution to help get to the table has been a constant throughout his career . . . if we look at the Pats you will see that in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2011 there is a play in each year had it gone the pats way they will win the SB and in 2001 and 2003 a play that had it gone against them they lose . . . so they could have just one SB, 2004, or as many as six . . . and for me lady luck had a lot to do with deciding which of the other five would garner us a Lombardi . . .

 

but the bottom line Brady performance has helped them be at the table six years . . . had lady luck shined differently we could have wins in say 2004, 2007 and 2011, which would paint a different picture from your question . . . the picture is really not different when one looks at the contribution and effort by a player and see that it has been strong and consistent throughout his career and lady luck dictated the results . . .

[JerodMayo51]

Can any patriots fans answer the below. I am sure you have better insight to this.

 

"If Brady is a much better player now than earlier, why did he win 3 SBs before and none after?."

 

 

lol, you're a riot.  Hes been to FIVE Super Bowls and won 3 of them.  Hes in the playoffs yet again.

 

 

Thats like saying if Montana was so great, why didnt he win 10 Super Bowls then?

 

Ridiculous.

[TAPLOOK]

"Why hasnt Brady won a SB in the last 5 yrs"......Your not attempting to discredit Brady AT ALL are you? Not in this thread or any other Patriot related thread are you? I must have just imagined you doing that repeatedly.

 

 

As for the topic of the thread. I would consider it Bradys best performance yes, due to the changing nature of his team, and over coming those. I would consider this the least talented Pats team he has worked with, and yet here they are in the playoffs yet again....But its a tough call. A new kid, coming out of nowhere to beat the big bad Rams, with a rag tag group, winning in the final seconds. Pretty cool in terms of 'story'.

touché  

[TAPLOOK]

lol, you're a riot.  Hes been to FIVE Super Bowls and won 3 of them.  Hes in the playoffs yet again.

 

 

Thats like saying if Montana was so great, why didnt he win 10 Super Bowls then?

 

Ridiculous.

Quiet Riot.

[Shane Bond]

don't have time to make a long post so will try to be brief . . .

 

First off, I am not so sure he is a "better" QB later in the 2000s than he was in the early 2000s . . . just different and the team ran things different . . . he may be more experienced . . .

 

As for winning SB, I have always viewed it as you need to do what is necessary to get your team to the table and then lady luck will decide of you will win . . . sometimes you are good enough to just win like the 2004 Pats, but any other SB winning team has some luck along the way and had a bounce that went their way to win the SB . . .

 

With this said for me, Brady's contribution to help get to the table has been a constant throughout his career . . . if we look at the Pats you will see that in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2011 there is a play in each year had it gone the pats way they will win the SB and in 2001 and 2003 a play that had it gone against them they lose . . . so they could have just one SB, 2004, or as many as six . . . and for me lady luck had a lot to do with deciding which of the other five would garner us a Lombardi . . .

 

but the bottom line Brady performance has helped them be at the table six years . . . had lady luck shined differently we could have wins in say 2004, 2007 and 2011, which would paint a different picture from your question . . . the picture is really not different when one looks at the contribution and effort by a player and see that it has been strong and consistent throughout his career and lady luck dictated the results . . .

 

Now this is why i like your posts. Well put.

[Shane Bond]

It was a question I answered. Your the one who has taken it upon himself to bring up any slight, past or present, in an attempt to discredit Brady and the Patriots. Taking the torch of spygate, brady hasn't won a SB since he's been good, BB is the best they only win bc of him, etc etc. 

 

Its embarrassing. Its like your trying to speak for any uneducated Colts fan by bringing up things that paint the Patriots in a bad light, while refusing to actual believe that maybe, just maybe, the Pats are a good team/well run franchise, with a HoF QB.....

 

And I did answer your question. Why hasnt Brady won a SB since he's been statistically more accomplished. Its because winning a SB is hard, and not something thats done year in and year out, even by Brady/Manning. But that fact that you, or Pat fans, pretty much EXPECT a SB from Brady, shows you how successful and dangerous, they/he are. 

My appreciation for Bill Belichick is well documented in this forum.

 

Its ok, how about i say , you are one classiest Colts fan who appreciates everything and i am an *. Happy?.

[Shane Bond]

lol, you're a riot.  Hes been to FIVE Super Bowls and won 3 of them.  Hes in the playoffs yet again.

 

 

Thats like saying if Montana was so great, why didnt he win 10 Super Bowls then?

 

Ridiculous.

Anytime, you post less than 100 lines, you bring a smile . Kidding.

[AntonMcG]

Bledsoe did a great deal for our franchise and some do not give him credit . . . also too there are some who wish to give Brady credit for what happened in NE in the 2000s but that very likely would not have been possible had Bledsoe not came in and help the team through the lean years of the early 90s . . . perhaps the Pats are in STL, who knows . . . but part of the reason I mentioned Bledsoe was the fact that he help our franchise a great deal . . .  in the late 90s was he the top 5 QB probably not but he was not bottom 12 either . .  . 

 

twice you have mentioned that the pats where a "very good team", which in part dilutes Brady's contribution . . .

 

I have a question for you what is it in the Pats make up that makes you think there were a very good team?  Probowlers? a Randy Moss coming to the pats? and so . . .

 

in the years after our SB appearance and Brady taking over here are our records

 

1997 10-6

1998 9-7

1999 8-8

2000 5-11

2001 0-2

 

What is in the pats make up that you conclude that outside of Brady the team was a "very" good team . . .

 

Objectively speaking they look very middle of the road prior to Brady taking over . . . was Brady the sole reason for the turnaround no, but until you come up with support for your "very" good team beyond just a statement, you can't really say Brady was not an important factor in the turnaround . . . you need to give us reasons for the 11-3 season after the prior 5 years . . .   

 

From a mental standpoint, did he rejuvenate the team? Sure I can buy into that, but he didn't play defense, he didn't  run the ball, he didn't coach nor did he call plays at the line... and he didn't kick.

 

He played well, managed the game beyond his years, but would a win this year be more impressive... yes, because he carries the team now, he didn't then.