I'm starting to believe that only the Denver Broncos can stop the Patriots from AFC supremacy

[BloodyChamp]

Not the movie reference quotes, but the first quoted post of mine by her...and the post above that thag she didn't quote but was replying to.

[Shane Bond]

He won 10 in KC one year, just saying . . . So what does a year tell you?  It is not the be all end all.  Anymore than a back up QB who played for Johnny Unitas in 1968, won the MVP, went 13-1, won a NFL Championship and consider by some to be one of the greatest teams of all time, makes Unitas legacy that of just on the same level as a back up as the same took his colts team and won a championship, 13 games and an MVP.

 

Anymore that Matt H. winning two games for the colts makes Luck any the less either.   

As usual, you miss the point or choose to miss it.

 

Point is how unsuccessful he is after he left NE. He has played 7 seasons after NE with a very dismal record. If you want I can go year by year.

 

Whats impressive is how successful he was considering his FIRST year as a NFL starter in NE.

[Yehoodi]

I direct you to the first few posts of mine that were quoted for the answer to your first question. That makes no sense, like most of her posts don't.

Meanwhile Johnny U in 1968 is actually the same logic as Tom Brady in 2008 only the shoe is on the other foot, and you can choose how you want to shoot it down for heck's sake. I mean where do you want to take this? You can either list all of the backups who won games because the quarterback did 100x less back then, or put it all on Earl Morell and compare him to, say, Matt Cassell. Morell went 11-0 with the perfect season Dolphins a few years after the 1968 run. Cassell sat behind Brandon Weeden.

 

First off, Cassel is starting the next Dallas game for your information. 

 

Second, I am not taking it anywhere other than we really can not take Cassel's performance in 2008 with any great deference to Brady's performance or resume.  Surely its a factor on some level, but so was Brady coming in for Bledsoe (who was 5-13 from 2000-2001) and Brady then went 11-3 as a starter and won the SB.   One could say that Brady was the reason behind that turnaround, which partly he was, but we must look at other things in 2001 like some of the FAs, draft picks, and Bledsoe coming in the AFCCG (atho I think Brady would of won it away had he not been injured), etc.    

 

Bottom line good teams are good and the QB can help get a team a few wins in the regular season or over the hump in the playoffs.  And yes Matt Cassel is not different than Earl Morrall, both played well when they were on great teams and not so well when played on not so great teams.  

 

And even to your point of the 2013 Packers, Rodgers was 6-3 meanwhile Flynn was 2-2, so not great a difference and its a small sample size too.  And again the elite QB can give you a few more wins in the regular season than your backup, which Rodgers did but not really more in 2013.

 

Third, no one in this thread is claiming that the win in Dallas was all on Brady.  Indeed, in the post you quoted that started this side track, AM's post #132 she clearly states "Brady and the O made adjustments" not sure how you can take that as being "all" on Brady when AM mentioned the entire offense.   Yes AM is a Brady fan but she was not trying to say it was on all Brady but merely he is the QB and with the rest of the O made the appropriate changes and help win the game for the pats in the 2nd half.  Yes she mentioned earlier that Brady lit up the Cowboys, but everyone says that about QBs "he lit up X team"  But when she was asked to qualify herself she mentioned that it was Brady and the O that is credited with the points in the 2nd half.

 

Fourth, I think you are I agree on the whole back up thing and perhaps you and AM just got a little heated with the Dallas game and we got a little side tracked.

[Yehoodi]

As usual, you miss the point or choose to miss it.

 

Point is how unsuccessful he is after he left NE. He has played 7 seasons after NE with a very dismal record. If you want I can go year by year.

 

Whats impressive is how successful he was considering his FIRST year as a NFL starter in NE.

 

I will refer you to my post to BloodyChamp as I do not wish to retype any of what I have ready written on the matter. 

 

Bottom line, Cassel did what good backups do and that is win games with good teams and not win games with not so good teams, that is all.  And the same with Earl Morrall.   And just like Matt H. is 2-0 with the '15 colts.

[amfootball]

I will refer you to my post to BloodyChamp as I do not wish to retype any of what I have ready written on the matter. 

 

Bottom line, Cassel did what good backups do and that is win games with good teams and not win games with not so good teams, that is all.  And the same with Earl Morrall.   And just like Matt H. is 2-0 with the '15 colts.

Great points Yehoodi on this topic.

 

But I think it needs to be said that while one player is never responsible for a team's long term success, it remains that Brady has been the only constant on the Pats the last 15 years. And he is also the only QB to win multiple rings without the benefit of a mastermind offensive head coach or hall of fame receiver for the majority of his career.

 

All of us acutely know in NE that no Brady=no rings. It is that simple. He plays the one position in all of sports that influences the outcomes of games more than any other and of course his resume really does speak for itself as well as his leadership to take six different teams to the Super Bowl. This is in large part why multiple championship winning QBs go down in lore the way they do from Unitas to Bradshaw to Montana to now Brady. And the best part is he is not done yet.

[Gramz]

sorry editing because I  posted comment in wrong thread.

 

carry on...

[BloodyChamp]

First off, Cassel is starting the next Dallas game for your information.

Second, I am not taking it anywhere other than we really can not take Cassel's performance in 2008 with any great deference to Brady's performance or resume. Surely its a factor on some level, but so was Brady coming in for Bledsoe (who was 5-13 from 2000-2001) and Brady then went 11-3 as a starter and won the SB. One could say that Brady was the reason behind that turnaround, which partly he was, but we must look at other things in 2001 like some of the FAs, draft picks, and Bledsoe coming in the AFCCG (atho I think Brady would of won it away had he not been injured), etc.

Bottom line good teams are good and the QB can help get a team a few wins in the regular season or over the hump in the playoffs. And yes Matt Cassel is not different than Earl Morrall, both played well when they were on great teams and not so well when played on not so great teams.

And even to your point of the 2013 Packers, Rodgers was 6-3 meanwhile Flynn was 2-2, so not great a difference and its a small sample size too. And again the elite QB can give you a few more wins in the regular season than your backup, which Rodgers did but not really more in 2013.

Third, no one in this thread is claiming that the win in Dallas was all on Brady. Indeed, in the post you quoted that started this side track, AM's post #132 she clearly states "Brady and the O made adjustments" not sure how you can take that as being "all" on Brady when AM mentioned the entire offense. Yes AM is a Brady fan but she was not trying to say it was on all Brady but merely he is the QB and with the rest of the O made the appropriate changes and help win the game for the pats in the 2nd half. Yes she mentioned earlier that Brady lit up the Cowboys, but everyone says that about QBs "he lit up X team" But when she was asked to qualify herself she mentioned that it was Brady and the O that is credited with the points in the 2nd half.

Fourth, I think you are I agree on the whole back up thing and perhaps you and AM just got a little heated with the Dallas game and we got a little side tracked.

It's exactly what she was saying. She'll dance around saying it flat out, try subtle ways to justify it, etc but that's what she was saying as usual.

[craig50315]

i know that it is early, but the Patriots are blowing away with the AFC. The Colts look weak, unimpressive, and with the organizational rumors it doesn't look like they can make it far in the playoffs unless they go on a 2011 New York Giants Cinderella run. The Steelers? Without Roethlisberger, I don't know. The Ravens aren't so well this year. The Bengals, I don't trust them in January. I think that the Broncos can be the only team to be the AFC alternative to the Patriots in the Super Bowl. 

The Colts have to play their best game and not have any silly, mental mistakes to kill rallies, such offensive holding.  Colts and Pats alike have to protect their respective QB's and I like the fact that Luck will run with the ball and not hesitate to do so.  If the Colts' offensive line gives Luck throwing time and this game at home, it will be a Colts' win with the noise.  Colts must do something though to keep the crowd noise going!  By the way, all said above applies to the Pats too.  They are NOT unbeatable and it's time for them to lose in Indy!!

[Yehoodi]

It's exactly what she was saying. She'll dance around saying it flat out, try subtle ways to justify it, etc but that's what she was saying as usual.

 

Gees many fans act the way AM does.  How many times have you heard "Luck is carrying this team"   My guess is that many will not call those fans out telling "hey but Matt Hasselback went 2-0 with the same team."   Surely there are some who truly believe that Luck is the reason for the success of the colts and pretty much sole reason, but most fans when asked to discuss in depth will realize that it has a lot to do with his teammates, coaches, division, etc.

 

Yes AM is a fan of Tom Brady and does post favorable posts regarding him, but she does not think he is the sole reason for our success.  She, like most pats fans, realize that Tom Brady is an important part of our team, and helps us get over the hump in certain situations and does not think he is the sole reason. 

 

And yes sometimes great QBs do elevate teams, like Favre in Minn in 2009 or Manning in Denver and so on, and at times they can help teams get over the hump like Kurt Warner in Ariz.  And there are QBs among the elite pool that will make a few players that perhaps other elite QBs will not make to help the team in given games like Manning in 2006 AFCCG.

 

Also, the 4th Qtr of SB 49 where Brady played lights out and help the pats to a SB and yes did get help too like Edelmen's 3rd down catch when he got hit by Cam. C. (contrast Welker's drop SB 46 tough catch not made) and Butler, but it is very likely a high number of elite QBs likely could not have done what Brady did in that 4th qtr, so it is games like this that we pats will single out and say that Brady did something that help us win when another elite QB may not have done, and many of us feel he has done this more than most, and that is general point that AM makes more often than not, like the Dallas game in the second half.      

 

I hear where you are coming from BloodyChamp and AM is a big Brady fan and will post here a lot, but if she or anyone makes a quick "he is great" comment, I take it with a grain is salt especially when asked to clarify the poster understands football is a team game. 

[18Manning]

LOL my posts are biased? Okay man keep flip flopping. I can't wait till the Patriots play one of those " real teams" you mentioned so those oh so glaring weaknesses can be exploited.

 

The Pats really haven't beaten anyone good by a large margin. The game against both Pitts and Buffalo were close. Blowout Jacksonville (a given) and beat a Romo-less Dallas. However, a win is a win.

[Yehoodi]

Great points Yehoodi on this topic.

 

But I think it needs to be said that while one player is never responsible for a team's long term success, it remains that Brady has been the only constant on the Pats the last 15 years. And he is also the only QB to win multiple rings without the benefit of a mastermind offensive head coach or hall of fame receiver for the majority of his career.

 

All of us acutely know in NE that no Brady=no rings. It is that simple. He plays the one position in all of sports that influences the outcomes of games more than any other and of course his resume really does speak for itself as well as his leadership to take six different teams to the Super Bowl. This is in large part why multiple championship winning QBs go down in lore the way they do from Unitas to Bradshaw to Montana to now Brady. And the best part is he is not done yet.

 

Yes Brady has helped NE a great deal and has been the one constant for the past 15 years, and with BB has basically taken two different teams to a SB victory even though they wore the same uniform.

 

I am not so sure if we could not have won a SB with another QB tho, but very likely needed another elite QB to have won a SB (and basically the ones that have won SBs).  However, I do not think we win more than 1 SB without Brady or have the deep runs in the playoffs without Brady.

 

Brady, like his starting days at Michigan, has always played well and brought his team back when behind.  I am glad we have Brady and would not want another QB.  In addition, I am agreement with you that Brady helps the Pats win more games that elite QBs can effect than any elite QB in our generation.   Plain and simple.

 

Be nice to get his 5th this year.  .

 

All of this Brady love is making my coffee taste real good this morning. 

[Yehoodi]

The Pats really haven't beaten anyone good by a large margin. The game against both Pitts and Buffalo were close. Blowout Jacksonville (a given) and beat a Romo-less Dallas. However, a win is a win.

 

hmm. . . lets not get too down on Buffalo.  It was an away game and they were fired up in Buffalo to play us.   

 

Pitt is no slough either and true they did not have Bell, but they still ran on us.  Kicker could of helped Pitt, but I think we win that game even if he was on.

 

I think that those two wins are solid wins.   The other two I agree with you were kind of push overs.

[18Manning]

hmm. . . lets not get too down on Buffalo.  It was an away game and they were fired up in Buffalo to play us.   

 

Pitt is no slough either and true they did not have Bell, but they still ran on us.  Kicker could of helped Pitt, but I think we win that game even if he was on.

 

I think that those two wins are solid wins.   The other two I agree with you were kind of push overs.

 

I agree, Buffalo and Pitt were good wins, just not blowouts. I did say haven't beaten a really good team by a large margin.

[Yehoodi]

I agree, Buffalo and Pitt were good wins, just not blowouts. I did say haven't beaten a really good team by a large margin.

 

Agreed, those two games were close at the end but we were in control.  But like you said we did not hold a good lead by the end of the game.

 

Time will tell as the season goes along.  Fortunately were have an easier schedule and has been made somewhat easier by key injuries to our opponents. 

 

Giants should be an interesting game and the Eagles too if they can get it together by the time we play them.  Also, that week 16 game against the Jets should be interesting too if the Jets are still playing solid by then.   

[BloodyChamp]

Gees many fans act the way AM does. How many times have you heard "Luck is carrying this team" My guess is that many will not call those fans out telling "hey but Matt Hasselback went 2-0 with the same team." Surely there are some who truly believe that Luck is the reason for the success of the colts and pretty much sole reason, but most fans when asked to discuss in depth will realize that it has a lot to do with his teammates, coaches, division, etc.

Yes AM is a fan of Tom Brady and does post favorable posts regarding him, but she does not think he is the sole reason for our success. She, like most pats fans, realize that Tom Brady is an important part of our team, and helps us get over the hump in certain situations and does not think he is the sole reason.

And yes sometimes great QBs do elevate teams, like Favre in Minn in 2009 or Manning in Denver and so on, and at times they can help teams get over the hump like Kurt Warner in Ariz. And there are QBs among the elite pool that will make a few players that perhaps other elite QBs will not make to help the team in given games like Manning in 2006 AFCCG.

Also, the 4th Qtr of SB 49 where Brady played lights out and help the pats to a SB and yes did get help too like Edelmen's 3rd down catch when he got hit by Cam. C. (contrast Welker's drop SB 46 tough catch not made) and Butler, but it is very likely a high number of elite QBs likely could not have done what Brady did in that 4th qtr, so it is games like this that we pats will single out and say that Brady did something that help us win when another elite QB may not have done, and many of us feel he has done this more than most, and that is general point that AM makes more often than not, like the Dallas game in the second half.

I hear where you are coming from BloodyChamp and AM is a big Brady fan and will post here a lot, but if she or anyone makes a quick "he is great" comment, I take it with a grain is salt especially when asked to clarify the poster understands football is a team game.

Nobody acts like AM does...ever.

[Yehoodi]

Nobody acts like AM does...ever.

 

Okay  . 

 

Well . . . in enjoy her posts.  .

[Shane Bond]

I will refer you to my post to BloodyChamp as I do not wish to retype any of what I have ready written on the matter.

Bottom line, Cassel did what good backups do and that is win games with good teams and not win games with not so good teams, that is all. And the same with Earl Morrall. And just like Matt H. is 2-0 with the '15 colts.

So we agree then. Pats are a good TEAM.

[King Colt]

I would bet my house the Pats cannot be stopped by anyone. Why was Brady the leading runner last week with `12-15 yards?! What kind of plan is that against a very stout defense. Only Hoody can come up with a game plan so out of the regular to win like that. Whatever team the pats go up against the Pats come up with a scheme to destroy them. Yes, it is frustrating and probably ever non-Pats fan in the country is pulling for Miami tonight.

[Shane Bond]

I would bet my house the Pats cannot be stopped by anyone. Why was Brady the leading runner last week with `12-15 yards?! What kind of plan is that against a very stout defense. Only Hoody can come up with a game plan so out of the regular to win like that. Whatever team the pats go up against the Pats come up with a scheme to destroy them. Yes, it is frustrating and probably ever non-Pats fan in the country is pulling for Miami tonight.

Do you dream of being homeless?

[2006Coltsbestever]

Not only will Denver beat GB, they will beat NE as well. They are going to lose when they come here though

[Jules]

Oh no, someone brought this thread back again........

[chad72]

Oh no, someone brought this thread back again........

 

Where is JSkinnz's Dear God...when you need it?

[SteelCityColt]

[SteelCityColt]

Where is JSkinnz's Dear God...when you need it?

 

Copyrighted, PM him for a licensing agreement. 

[King Colt]

Do you dream of being homeless?

Not when I have the Pats!!

[King Colt]

Not only will Denver beat GB, they will beat NE as well. They are going to lose when they come here though

Did Peyton retire?

[2006Coltsbestever]

Oh no, someone brought this thread back again........

Blame me  Denver is the only team that has a chance of beating Tommy. I have already faced reality. Pats will go either 15-1 or 14-2 depending on if Denver does beat them.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Did Peyton retire?

No, when he beats GB and the Pats maybe they will then put in Brock just to take it easy on everyone .

[uljaz]

Do you dream of being homeless?

I am not a betting man but if I were, I would be willing to bet my house on the Pats too. If you were a betting man, which team would you bet your house on?

[2006Coltsbestever]

I am not a betting man but if I were, I would be willing to bet my house on the Pats too. If you were a betting man, which team would you bet your house on?

Denver and I will stick by that. A lot of Football left. If the Colts win Monday I still think they can be at least a threat too in the AFC. Cincy just has to prove it to me as the season goes on regarding them. In the NFC GB looks fantastic and very capable of beating the Patriots if they were to meet in the SB.

[jvan1973]

I am not a betting man but if I were, I would be willing to bet my house on the Pats too. If you were a betting man, which team would you bet your house on?

I don't think the bank would like it if I bet my house on it. But right now I would go green Bay.

[uljaz]

Denver and I will stick by that. A lot of Football left. If the Colts win Monday I still think they can be at least a threat too in the AFC. Cincy just has to prove it to me as the season goes on regarding them. In the NFC GB looks fantastic and very capable of beating the Patriots if they were to meet in the SB.

I don't think Denver's season will end up better this year than the last (unless Peyton is magically turned into an incarnation of Lee Majors (i.e., the six million dollar man). I agree with you that GB is the Pats biggest challenge (if it gets to that) unless of course they play like they did in the NFC championship game the way they did last season.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I don't think the bank would like it if I bet my house on it. But right now I would go green Bay.

I am not buying the Patriots either regarding being unbeatable. Yeah they look like a machine but they do this every year. GB and Denver both can beat them in a 1 game situation. Peyton isn't going to continue to play badly and Denver's Defense is stifling. I wouldn't actualy bet on any 1 team but if I had too I just have a feeling Denver will do it. They should be able to beat the Pats because it's in MileHigh then they would more than likely get HFA at that point. I can see the Pats losing 2 games this season, maybe even 3. At Giants, At Broncos, At Jets. Broncos will not lose more than 3 and just have to beat the Pats to control their destiny basically for HFA. Both teams are undefeated. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

I don't think Denver's season will end up better this year than the last (unless Peyton is magically turned into an incarnation of Lee Majors (i.e., the six million dollar man). I agree with you that GB is the Pats biggest challenge (if it gets to that) unless of course they play like they did in the NFC championship game the way they did last season.

I have a lot of faith in Peyton, I could be wrong though and he could fizzle out. That is what makes it fun, nobody knows yet what will happen.

[uljaz]

I don't think the bank would like it if I bet my house on it. But right now I would go green Bay.

LOL!!! Good onbe, javan1973. I have not watched any GB games this season (but I am eagerly waiting for this Sunday's game against the Broncos) but from what I have read, I agree with you in that at this point in the season GB would be the most likely team to stop NE.

 

We are only half way through the season so a lot can happen but barring major injuries, NE tends to play pretty good November through February so I would not bet against them. But like they say, games are not played on paper and anything can happen.

[jvan1973]

I am not buying the Patriots either regarding being unbeatable. Yeah they look like a machine but they do this every year. GB and Denver both can beat them in a 1 game situation. Peyton isn't going to continue to play badly and Denver's Defense is stifling. I wouldn't actualy bet on any 1 team but if I had too I just have a feeling Denver will do it. They should be able to beat the Pats because it's in MileHigh then they would more than likely get HFA at that point. I can see the Pats losing 2 games this season, maybe even 3. At Giants, At Broncos, At Jets. Broncos will not lose more than 3 and just have to beat the Pats to control their destiny basically for HFA. Both teams are undefeated.

The thing that worries me about Peyton is the late season weather. If he is having trouble with feeling in his fingers now, it will be worse in december. And im a huge peyton fan

[uljaz]

I have a lot of faith in Peyton, I could be wrong though and he could fizzle out. That is what makes it fun, nobody knows yet what will happen.

Peyton is a very smart football player and a great competitor. I have tremendous respect for him but his past postseason performances and obvious physical decline make me skeptical that he can go all the way. Having him face Brady in the AFC final would be wonderful though. I would love to see one more huge Peyton/Brady confrontation.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Peyton is a very smart football player and a great competitor. I have tremendous respect for him but his past postseason performances and obvious physical decline make me skeptical that he can go all the way. Having him face Brady in the AFC final would be wonderful though. I would love to see one more huge Peyton/Brady confrontation.

He was injured last year in that game but I loved the fact Indy won the game, having said a lot of it had to do with his leg being messed up. He couldn't throw well because of it. Still a nice win for Luck. That is the big question, what is Peyton going took like going into the playoffs?

[Phil]

I think Denver has a good chance because of that defense, but it's hard-- having been a Manning fan so long-- to say that Peyton won't be flustered by the Pats like he almost always was. 

 

I think the real Patriots killer, based on this season so far, is Cincinnati, the team no one seems to be giving a real chance. Their offense is super-scary when Dalton is on (great receivers, Eifert is quickly becoming a match-up nightmare, power runner and speed runner). Their defense is tough, too, particularly at the right spots (the line, their ballhawking safeties). 

 

This year, I think as of now I'd put my money on New England, but with their offensive line falling apart, it's hard to feel confident things won't change. We could be surprised come the end of this season who shakes out on top of the stack.

[-JJ-]

I think Denver has a good chance because of that defense, but it's hard-- having been a Manning fan so long-- to say that Peyton won't be flustered by the Pats like he almost always was. 

 

I think the real Patriots killer, based on this season so far, is Cincinnati, the team no one seems to be giving a real chance. Their offense is super-scary when Dalton is on (great receivers, Eifert is quickly becoming a match-up nightmare, power runner and speed runner). Their defense is tough, too, particularly at the right spots (the line, their ballhawking safeties). 

 

This year, I think as of now I'd put my money on New England, but with their offensive line falling apart, it's hard to feel confident things won't change. We could be surprised come the end of this season who shakes out on top of the stack.

I agree the Bengals are the ones to look out for. 

 

NE defense seems to be getting better each game so I like their chances vs Denver.

 

it's going to be hard stopping NE's offense not so much because they are awesome but because they don't even game plan anymore. It's a bunch of tactical plans or mini game plans that they just switch to based on what a defense is doing and what works and doesn't work in a given game. That's basically how tuned in Josh and Brady are. Kind of a thing of beauty looking at it from that perspective.