NorCal Aaron Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Great consolation. Patsies win 3 the last four SBs, but lose their coordinators. I could live with that trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Yep it was SO good that the Pats went out and replaced 6 starters on offense, pre-Brady. Replaced them with what? Guys off the street, other teams' garbage and ex-arena-leaguers, that's what. You see, the "genius" Belichick and Crennel couldn't make chicken salad out of chicken sh-- ... Belichick has proven that once his system is in place and his players have bought into it, they can win with ANYONE. Did you intentionally contradict yourself there? What's the deal? Neither do I. As evidenced by your crusade-like posts on this topic. Isn't it about time for you to guarantee an Eagles blowout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Replaced them with what? Guys off the street, other teams' garbage and ex-arena-leaguers, that's what. What difference does it matter WHO they replaced them with? That fact that they DID replace them means they weren't happy with the previous talent, hence it wasn't "basically the same team." In your quest to give Brady all the credit, you fail to realize, or choose to ignore, the amazing amount of turnover your team had in personnel between 2000 and 2001. On offense alone the starters added were Light, Compton, Smith, Edwards, Patten, and Wiggins, and Brown was moved up from 3rd WR to starter. Did you intentionally contradict yourself there? What's the deal?As evidenced by your crusade-like posts on this topic. Uh, re-read the "buying into the system" part, which implies having players amenable to "buying into the system," i.e. unlike Terry Glenn and the guys they got rid of. Belichick inherited players in 2000 thanks to a bad salary cap situation. Belichick also had a reputation as a dickhead while he was in Cleveland. It took him a year to implement his system and get his players and for them to buy into it. And again, why was the defense so lousy in 2000? Bledsoe? Isn't it about time for you to guarantee an Eagles blowout? 222140[/snapback] Nope. I'm expecting the Pats to win. That way if I'm wrong, I'll be happy. If I'm right, I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 It is THE joke of the NFL. Hands outside the shoulders and grasping the back of the defender's jersey. It makes the NFL laughable. Holding calls are the MOST SUBJECTIVE CALLS for an official and you will NEVER see it called on a Pat's player on an important play. It is the one surefire way for officials to control games, Once the oline understands that there will be no holding calls against them..... 221939[/snapback] Does anyone have some actual stats from this season to illustrate this??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 What difference does it matter WHO they replaced them with? That fact that they DID replace them means they weren't happy with the previous talent, hence it wasn't "basically the same team." I never said it was the same team, I said the talent levels were comparable. In your quest to give Brady all the credit, you fail to realize, or choose to ignore, the amazing amount of turnover your team had in personnel between 2000 and 2001. In your quest to deprive Brady of all credit, you fail to realize, or choose to ignore, that the super-terrific-awesomely-new-and-improved 2001 Patriots still looked like crap in the first two games of 2001. Yes, I now Antowain Smith didn't start those two games, but we now that Antowain Smith sucks. Hell, his numbers for that year weren't even that good! ...Brown was moved up from 3rd WR to starter. Brown started in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William The Conqueror Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Switching from Bledsoe to Brady was precisely the elixir the Patriots needed to get the franchise going in the right direction. The trade to Buffalo of Bledsoe reinvigorated interest in the Bills franchise. Both sides won in that trade., it's just that the Patriots winning just hasn't stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I never said it was the same team, I said the talent levels were comparable. Ding, thanks for playing again. So what you're saying is that master personell gurus Belichick and Pioli said "well Bledsoe sucks, but lets a) go along giving him a $100M contract and b) surround him with the same talent level as the year before?" Does anyone ELSE see the absurdity in that line of thinking? In your quest to deprive Brady of all credit, you fail to realize, or choose to ignore, that the super-terrific-awesomely-new-and-improved 2001 Patriots still looked like crap in the first two games of 2001. Yes, I now Antowain Smith didn't start those two games, but we now that Antowain Smith sucks. Hell, his numbers for that year weren't even that good! And yet they won the SB with him, with him getting 100 or close to 100 yards in each SB. Go figure? And again I've never said Brady doesn't deserve ANY credit, but again he's NOT the reason they win. He's a part. However the Pats proved they could win a big game in 2001 WITH Bledsoe, however it happened. Just like they proved they could win big games without Seymour. And as for those 1st 2 games in 2001, yes the TEAM looked like crap against the Bengals, with the defense surrendering 23 points to the mighty Bengals' offense. Yes Bledsoe had a bad game against the Jets the following week, but it's not like he threw 4 INT's. Brown started in 2000. You're right. Fine it was 6 new starters who were better than the players they replaced. And that was just on offense alone. On defense...oh wait. It was the same talent level as well. Suffice it to say, the Pats have an amazing coaching staff. Just when I think that they can't lose any more key players and still win, they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Ding, thanks for playing again. So what you're saying is that master personell gurus Belichick and Pioli said "well Bledsoe sucks, but lets a) go along giving him a $100M contract and b) surround him with the same talent level as the year before?" Does anyone ELSE see the absurdity in that line of thinking? There's this thing called the "salary cap," you know. Or are you arguing that Antowain Smith and Bert Emanuel are top-shelf FAs? I've never said Brady doesn't deserve ANY credit, but again he's NOT the reason they win. He's a part. You're certainly right there, from a semantical standpoint. No player in the history of the NFL has been the only reason his team wins. That said, you don't give Brady nearly enough credit, given the dramatic shift in the team's record from the very game he stepped in. However the Pats proved they could win a big game in 2001 WITH Bledsoe, however it happened. Pats were 0-2 in '01 with Bledsoe. Not sure what you're referencing. And as for those 1st 2 games in 2001, yes the TEAM looked like crap against the Bengals, with the defense surrendering 23 points to the mighty Bengals' offense. Yes Bledsoe had a bad game against the Jets the following week, but it's not like he threw 4 INT's. Those two games were not isolated incidents. They were merely an end to a pitiful 7-19 run that the Pats endured with Bledsoe at the helm. Suffice it to say, the Pats have an amazing coaching staff. Indeed. But they were still 5-13 without Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 There's this thing called the "salary cap," you know. Or are you arguing that Antowain Smith and Bert Emanuel are top-shelf FAs? Who did Smith replace? How did he perform in the playoffs and SB? Also notice the number of carries he got in the first 2 games, versus the remaining 14. And Emanuel is a nobody. I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about the 6 new starters I mentioned. You're certainly right there, from a semantical standpoint. No player in the history of the NFL has been the only reason his team wins. That said, you don't give Brady nearly enough credit, given the dramatic shift in the team's record from the very game he stepped in. Ah yes, the first game against the Colts. The Pats' defense won that game with their 3 INT's, 2 of which were returned for TD's (and considering the Colts only scored 13 points, with their first points coming at the end of the 3rd quarter, that right there was enough to win the game). Oh yeah and Smith's 94 yards and 2 TD's didn't hurt either. It wasn't Brady's 13 for 23 and 168 yards and a TD that did it, in case you were wondering. Pats were 0-2 in '01 with Bledsoe. Not sure what you're referencing. I'm referencing the AFCCG that year. Those two games were not isolated incidents. They were merely an end to a pitiful 7-19 run that the Pats endured with Bledsoe at the helm. Your team was pitiful for most of those games during that run, including the defense. And it was the defense that carried the team in 2001, and they started to put it together in the Jets game, seeing as how they allowed only 9 points, versus 23 against the Bengals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 I'm referencing the AFCCG that year. We won't get into that again. Look this is a circular argument. I keep trying to tell you the facts, and you keep trying to tell me why they don't matter. I think I'll just let your laughable record (Colts will beat Pats in blowout, Steelers will beat pats in blowout, backing Bledsoe) speak for itself on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 We won't get into that again. Of course you won't. I'm sure you wished that pesky little game never happened. Look this is a circular argument. I keep trying to tell you the facts, and you keep trying to tell me why they don't matter. I think I'll just let your laughable record (Colts will beat Pats in blowout, Steelers will beat pats in blowout, backing Bledsoe) speak for itself on this matter. Refresh my memory where I said "blowout." And sorry that I can't predict the future. I thought that without Walt Coleman being in the picture and the performances of those teams against the Pats earler in the season, they had a good chance of winning, considering the only argument FOR the Pats winning those game was past history. But as I said, I'm picking the Pats to win the SB. I hope that's laughable as well when all is said and done, but it looks like the Pats have finally figured out how to beat teams coinvincingly and without ridiculous officiating. Good day to you sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts