leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Speak for yourself. The Bills had every opportunity to win at Foxboro last year. The Pats*** win because they have an organization that long ago decided anything is acceptable to get the W. It doesn't matter that Belichick is a great coach (which he is) -- I'll never be envious of an organization that lives by the motto, "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin' it's odd to be at a time in sports history where a guy who clearly had his thumb on the scale, who hunkers down like a branch davidian and flatly denies EVERYthing and yet is somehow portrayed as the aggrieved party. I was speaking with a guy last night, born and raised in Ct, pats fan since pre-grogan, told me straight up there is ZERO evidence he did anything, that science has proven he was not involved, and that likely the balls disappearing into the bathroom likely never happened at all. that's all fine (crazy is as crazy do), but the really funny part was when he said the max penalty should have been a fine and/or a one game suspension. it's tough to balance all these moving parts I guess. off with his head.
Ronin Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Hoodie definitely has a coaching advantage over Rex... the Pats may be weaker the first 4 weeks, but I'm not going to go into our game with them expecting a win. For once we get to see how good the Pats are w/o Brady. The last time they didn't have Brady they missed the playoffs. I'm one of those that claims that 80% of the reason for their success is because of Brady and only 20% because of Belichick. Belichick was 5-13 on the Pats prior to Brady. Some will cite the 2008 season but that year they split with the Jets and Fins and didn't beat one other team that had 10+ wins. Their D isn't that good and neither is their O w/o Brady. I can easily see them going 2-2 or maybe even 1-3. Let's not forget that they finished last season 2-4 as Brady's passing games diminished. Arizona on the road, the Texans, and two division games, one that Ryan may be up for more than any other, 2-2 isn't out of the question and neither is 1-3.
Gugny Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 For once we get to see how good the Pats are w/o Brady. The last time they didn't have Brady they missed the playoffs. I'm one of those that claims that 80% of the reason for their success is because of Brady and only 20% because of Belichick. Belichick was 5-13 on the Pats prior to Brady. Some will cite the 2008 season but that year they split with the Jets and Fins and didn't beat one other team that had 10+ wins. Their D isn't that good and neither is their O w/o Brady. I can easily see them going 2-2 or maybe even 1-3. Let's not forget that they finished last season 2-4 as Brady's passing games diminished. Arizona on the road, the Texans, and two division games, one that Ryan may be up for more than any other, 2-2 isn't out of the question and neither is 1-3. They went 11-5 the last time. Missing the playoffs that year was a fluke.
YoloinOhio Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Trump is a huge Brady fan, Brady is a huge Trump supporter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg hates Trump. Sorry Tom.
K-9 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 @bylindsayhjones Official statement from @NFLPA re: Brady. Union considering further options. Then learn how to negotiate a better CBA next time, NFLPA. You agreed to the power structure afforded the commissioner, nobody else. Yes, you have a broken system. It's because you NEGOTIATED IT IN TO THE CBA. You want to review your options? Here they are: get a better CBA next time, you idiots. Not that you will, because you're still clearly stupid, given that you're choosing to take a stand on a known cheater and liar getting actually getting the punishment he deserves. 'Nuff said.
eball Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 For once we get to see how good the Pats are w/o Brady. The last time they didn't have Brady they missed the playoffs. I'm one of those that claims that 80% of the reason for their success is because of Brady and only 20% because of Belichick. Belichick was 5-13 on the Pats prior to Brady. Some will cite the 2008 season but that year they split with the Jets and Fins and didn't beat one other team that had 10+ wins. Their D isn't that good and neither is their O w/o Brady. I can easily see them going 2-2 or maybe even 1-3. Let's not forget that they finished last season 2-4 as Brady's passing games diminished. Arizona on the road, the Texans, and two division games, one that Ryan may be up for more than any other, 2-2 isn't out of the question and neither is 1-3. They went 11-5 the last time. Missing the playoffs that year was a fluke. Um, that would be the 2008 season noted in the first post. The 11-5 record was a mirage.
Jerry Jabber Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 They went 11-5 the last time. Missing the playoffs that year was a fluke. They were 16-0 the previous season and loaded with talent.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 They were 16-0 18-1 the previous season and loaded with talent.
Gugny Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Um, that would be the 2008 season noted in the first post. The 11-5 record was a mirage. So what's the point of comparing the team pre-Brady to the team with Brady being suspended whilst their starter? That's pointless, IMO. Pointing out that the Patriots were great with Brady as the starter ... then went 11-5 without him as the starter, is the only relevant comparison. And pointing out that they had an easy schedule is also pointless. See: 2015-16 Buffalo Bills, who had a ridiculously easy schedule, yet still sucked .. WITH their "starter," in most games. How difficult is it for people to just admit that the Patriots are a FAR better team than the Bills and everyone else in the division (unless Fitz signs with the Jets)? Furthermore, they're STILL a better team without Brady because they have better players and better coaches. You guys are acting like Red Sox fans with their "Yankees Suck," crap (while they Yankees were a dynasty). It's pathetic, really.
Doc Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 They were 16-0 the previous season and loaded with talent. This. If not for a miraculous David Tyree catch that team probably would have gone done as the best ever.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 So what's the point of comparing the team pre-Brady to the team with Brady being suspended whilst their starter? That's pointless, IMO. Pointing out that the Patriots were great with Brady as the starter ... then went 11-5 without him as the starter, is the only relevant comparison. And pointing out that they had an easy schedule is also pointless. See: 2015-16 Buffalo Bills, who had a ridiculously easy schedule, yet still sucked .. WITH their "starter," in most games. How difficult is it for people to just admit that the Patriots are a FAR better team than the Bills and everyone else in the division (unless Fitz signs with the Jets)? Furthermore, they're STILL a better team without Brady because they have better players and better coaches. You guys are acting like Red Sox fans with their "Yankees Suck," crap (while they Yankees were a dynasty). It's pathetic, really. Not sure how the jets with Fitz comes up here at all. They lost to us twice, and had an easier schedule than the 2015-2016 Buffalo Bills. They were really healthy last year and over achieved. As for the Pats, they were super bowl favorites last year before all of their injuries - and even with all the injuries still won 12 and got to the AFC championship game. Tough game either way - their defense has talent at all 3 levels.
Gugny Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Not sure how the jets with Fitz comes up here at all. They lost to us twice, and had an easier schedule than the 2015-2016 Buffalo Bills. They were really healthy last year and over achieved. As for the Pats, they were super bowl favorites last year before all of their injuries - and even with all the injuries still won 12 and got to the AFC championship game. Tough game either way - their defense has talent at all 3 levels. I mentioned the Jets with Fitz because if he comes back, they will be the 2nd best team in the division. If Brady is out for 4 games, that makes the Jets the best team in the division for those 4 weeks (with Fitz). Just because the Bills beat the Jets twice, doesn't make the Bills a better team (not by a long shot, really, as the Jets played a meaningful week 17 game). All that means is that our head coach put all of his eggs into the "revenge" basket, but forgot that there were 14 other games to prepare for. Hence the crap record at the end of the season.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 I work with a guy that spent 7 years with the Pats (he left there about 6 or 7 years ago). He is getting hell from me today (and he is in a "Patriots Alumni" shirt). This is a day to celebrate!!
26CornerBlitz Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 I mentioned the Jets with Fitz because if he comes back, they will be the 2nd best team in the division. If Brady is out for 4 games, that makes the Jets the best team in the division for those 4 weeks (with Fitz). Just because the Bills beat the Jets twice, doesn't make the Bills a better team (not by a long shot, really, as the Jets played a meaningful week 17 game). All that means is that our head coach put all of his eggs into the "revenge" basket, but forgot that there were 14 other games to prepare for. Hence the crap record at the end of the season. Not really.
Nanker Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) I wonder what the possibility is that he retires before the season starts if he doesn't get a SCOTUS review. Sorta the ultimate, hold-my-breath-till-I-turn-blue-and-faint kind of hissy fit. I think he might just hang it up instead of having his record tarnished any further. I'm thinking how Mickey Mantle hated the fact that he fell below .300 lifetime during his last season. It haunted him to the grave. Edited July 13, 2016 by Nanker
eball Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 So what's the point of comparing the team pre-Brady to the team with Brady being suspended whilst their starter? That's pointless, IMO. Pointing out that the Patriots were great with Brady as the starter ... then went 11-5 without him as the starter, is the only relevant comparison. And pointing out that they had an easy schedule is also pointless. See: 2015-16 Buffalo Bills, who had a ridiculously easy schedule, yet still sucked .. WITH their "starter," in most games. How difficult is it for people to just admit that the Patriots are a FAR better team than the Bills and everyone else in the division (unless Fitz signs with the Jets)? Furthermore, they're STILL a better team without Brady because they have better players and better coaches. You guys are acting like Red Sox fans with their "Yankees Suck," crap (while they Yankees were a dynasty). It's pathetic, really. It's amazing, I've really come to the point where I pretty much disagree with everything you write. It's not relevant to the discussion of whether Belichick or Brady* mean more to the team by mentioning that a 16-0 team dropped to 11-5 with a ridiculously easy schedule -- the only "real" difference being no Brady? The rest of your post is drivel. The Bills' roster -- outside of QB -- is just as talented as anyone else's roster in the division, and they have a pretty good stable of coaches as well.
Gugny Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 It's amazing, I've really come to the point where I pretty much disagree with everything you write. It's not relevant to the discussion of whether Belichick or Brady* mean more to the team by mentioning that a 16-0 team dropped to 11-5 with a ridiculously easy schedule -- the only "real" difference being no Brady? The rest of your post is drivel. The Bills' roster -- outside of QB -- is just as talented as anyone else's roster in the division, and they have a pretty good stable of coaches as well. Are you really trivializing the absence of (arguably) the best QB in the history of the NFL and what the impact of that absence was? Most rational people (I'll go ahead and count myself in) would say that going 11-5 - regardless of strength of schedule - in the NFL, with a backup, without the best QB in the NFL. Well, that's pretty damn good.
OhDozeBills Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 At worst they go 2-2 w/ Jimmy. I mean, how many games did they win with Cassel? Nothing phases them, as long as Belichick is there they will be favs to win the Bowl and nothing changes this year. Sure, I'm happy Brady will miss time but in the grand scheme we know the story remains the same.
H2o Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Are you really trivializing the absence of (arguably) the best QB in the history of the NFL and what the impact of that absence was? Most rational people (I'll go ahead and count myself in) would say that going 11-5 - regardless of strength of schedule - in the NFL, with a backup, without the best QB in the NFL. Well, that's pretty damn good. True, they indeed did and it was a great accomplishment for that team. The defense they have now and the offense is completely different. If Brady were to go down for the season they would be fortunate to reach 8-8. That being said, he is only missing the first 4 barring injury. Cardinals, Texans, Phins, and the Bills. I expect them to be 1-3 after 4 weeks if not 0-4.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 At worst they go 2-2 w/ Jimmy. I mean, how many games did they win with Cassel? Nothing phases them, as long as Belichick is there they will be favs to win the Bowl and nothing changes this year. Sure, I'm happy Brady will miss time but in the grand scheme we know the story remains the same. They have a pretty tough schedule to start. It isn't impossible to think that they are 1-3. Now can they recover? Sure, but that wouldn't be a hole that you would want to start in. It really cuts into your margin of error and almost certainly means that you don't have home field for more than a game.
Recommended Posts