truth on hold

Errrr no, I'm saying TEAMS without elite QBs can win SBs too .... been saying that the whole thread. Sure hope that still applies as we aren't scoring an elite QB any time soon . Heres a link I think I can help you http://readingisfundamental.org/ Seriously why don't you take a breather? You ruin every thread you're in with your moronic, repetitive posts ...especially if its pats or Brady related

non start Game was 0-0 when cassell came in first quarter. Yeah I'd say he deserves some credit for that win ... certainly Brady doesnt

I agree with that over the long haul, but I'm just looking for a couple years where we have to get by them and have a title shot. Jets had their # a few years back, and giants took 2 super bowls from them over a 4 year period

And even used a 2nd round pick last year. The scary thing if I'm right that pats can play at a high level without Brady, is that when he's gone they may still dominate (most assume our problems are solved when he's gone). Garroppolo throws a beautiful ball and he's built like a tank. He seemed to have all the tools coming out, just raw from a 2nd tier program. I like the way they're bringing him along sitting and learning behind Brady. I think we could be looking at a Favre to Rodgers type situation.

The point since you haven't figured it out by now and we're 4 pages into the thread (reading isn't your thing either I can tell), is that teams with clearly non-elite QBs can win the super bowl too. So yeah thanks for providing some stats to back that up. You're so freaking lost you dont even know whose argument you're supporting.

U r mad bro, as in crazy. Search the thread bro, and you'll see I've said overall he's the GOAT. My question is to those whove responded we need him to win the super bowl. Think that's getting carried away no? Plenty of other QBs have won them (he's won 4 in 14 seasons). And oh yeah, Tommy the GOAT's offense mustered a meager 14 and 17 points in a pair of super bowl losses to giants. Fair point, get to their level at least for a year or two, or where we can consistently beat them

kind of different playing them in seattle, and with the secondary healthy .... no? last time he was in that spot he did lose, you know point again was brady the only QB that could have performed at that level sunday? seriously doubt it

i agree it wasn't all brady as some here are contending ... as I said there were other QBs that could have delivered comparable performances. But hes the QB so he gets the nod for the most part (like any winning team's QB). But Edelman certainly deserved consideration -- 9 catches, 4 1st downs, 109 yards, winning TD, went over the middle, didnt flinch, played hurt ... shot he took from chancellor was vicious

Trent dilfer and brad johnson

Note to self: no more math discussions with a poster can't do basic math Welker had 700 yards year before with Miami with joey harrington throwing to him, and 800 in 13 games with Denver year after he left (average gets 1,000 over 16 games). He could play just getting old now, pats were wise to let him walk

Super bowl: score was 28-24, not 14-0. By your logic if hawks had scored from the 1, they would have won game although being outscored 14-7 Jets: Hence the qualifier "nearly" TE's: Watson was a good players, and welker though not a TE was probably best short yardage WR all time. No one is saying Brady isn't good (heck, I've been saying he's goat for a while), however its not true that a) he's had no talent around him, and b) he's the only QB pats can win with.

but we cant have their QB so that answer doesnt work. Jets nearly swept them last year with inferior talent to ours, so at least "Head Coach" as an answer is one thing we may have addressed

sherman, thomas, cam all played with injuries -- sherman (surgery), thomas (surgery most likely), cam (possible) lane was KO'd of the game early after picking brady kind of a difference between 3 guys playing with injuries (all of whom may require surgery), and 1 guy out of the most of the game, versus entirely healthy ... no?

The 4th Q determined the outcome for NE yesterday. MATHEMATICALLY FALSE Matt Cassell, good point. Make sure you mention that to the HOF committee some day. They probably don't know any better. WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, TURN TO SARCASM

we'll know soon enough if it's 3 or 4 (2 are certain, another almost certain). How about name another team where 2 members of the secondary were certain to require surgery (sherman, lane), one was highly likely (thomas), and one was possible (chancellor) at the end of the season?

i watch the game as a whole, 1Q does not determine the outcome solely. Theres no way you can tell me hes the only QB that could have won the game yesterday ESPECIALLY since they were a play away from losing. We do have a test case for how Pats do when Brady isnt the starter in the Brady era --- Matt Cassell. Pats were 11-5, QBR 89.4, 2/1 TD/INT ratio (21/11), + 2 rushing TDs. ahem, no it's not all Brady

holy %@$# that is nasty

errrr settle down man, Ive been saying TB is the GOAT for a long time on this board, well before he got to 4. I am questioning if his contribution in the SB was so great that no one else could have done it. hes been a starter for 14 years, and won 4 ... so it's not like he wins every year. Surely there must be other teams and build constructs that can win it too. sure hope so because i dont see any chance theres an elite QB on the horizon soon we can get a hold of

A lof of that was dinky dunk stuff, and be did have 2 bad picks against a secondary that was seriously hurting. I just know we have to take the "elite qb" thing off the table because unless we're willing to do an irsay and tank the season we're not getting one. How about elite TE instead? Seems a lot more achievable and gronk is a big part of their success across the board on offense

He got one of Manuel on his ass

Was Brady really all the instrumental yeaterday? He threw 2 picks and LOB we're seriously depleted by injury...lane was out after the pick, sherman will require surgery, Thomas probably will, and chancellor may

I was going to write in OP odds are we're not going to have an elite QB any time soon. If that's the only option to get to their level, I'm afraid we won't. Have to other things we can start doing better

Agree, I understand hawks needed to call pass on that down if they wanted 4 attempts, but why THAT pass? That was their brain fart. It sounds like Carroll called pass but the OC specified that one in particular. Play action fake hand off to lynch, Wilson rolls right, if a guy is wide open in corner TD ... if not throw it away, clock stops, run lynch 3rd down, if no TD call TO. Go to 4th down, entire red zone playbook open at that point

We now know who the best team. We face them 2x/year and know how we match up. So what specifically do we need to do to consistently beat them? (That should be the goal). I'll start with: 1. Adjustments: both during the game and at half time. They do a better job here than others and pull away when it counts most.

He clearly and purposely did not call a TO. There was almost no chance Brady would get the ball back with enough time to do anything , no matter the outcome. Why do seahawks a favour and call TO so they can reset themselves? The goal line situation would determine the outcome. BB is very good at making calculations on the fly. A lesser coach may have called TO