MadBuffaloDisease Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 There's something wrong with playing by the rules. ESPN never exaggerates for emphasis. That game was as clean as any playoff game. Refs keep their flags in their pockets come January. http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20040118_IND@NE 3 != 10 You were a year late on that. I chalked that up to inevitability rather than you actually developing enough emotional maturity to admit that you were completely wrong about everything. Official NFL statistics credit Brady with that win, as does everyone but you and your straggling band of Bledsoe apologists. Bringing up the fact that Brady has missed the playoffs just once in 4 years and that he has won the Super Bowl in all the others does nothing to discredit him, believe me. Funny you should mention that. The Pats have won big games without just about everyone...except Brady. Wonder what that could mean... Sure seems that way sometimes, doesn't it? And it's killing you. Whatever you say, HD. You're about as simple as most of those who worship at the Brady altar. I realize you need to rationalize horrible officiating that propelled the Pats to 2 of their 3 SB's, and don't have the mental capacity to process that the reason the Pats started winning SB's was less about Brady being the only change, but the TEAM as a whole improving. You see, the point with bringing up the 2001 AFCCG against the Steelers was to SHOW that the Pats could win a big game without Brady, and WITH Bledsoe as it turned out, because the TEAM is what's more important than the individual. And missing the playoffs in 2002 also shows that without a dominating defense, Brady is nothing more than a good QB, again pointing to the TEAM concept. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Pats could have won the SB with any of a handful of starting QB's these past few years. That's because they had the best coaching staff in the NFL. That's why I think they're done winning SB's, despite the god-like status of Brady.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 You see, the point with bringing up the 2001 AFCCG against the Steelers was to SHOW that the Pats could win a big game without Brady, and WITH Bledsoe as it turned out, because the TEAM is what's more important than the individual. Except Brady won that game. Don't like that fact? Take it up with NFL record-keepers. And missing the playoffs in 2002 also shows that without a dominating defense, Brady is nothing more than a good QB, again pointing to the TEAM concept. You mean that even with a piss-poor defense, Brady can still lead his team to a tie for first place in the division, missing out only on one of the last tie-breakers, all while leading the NFL in TD passes? Man, he SUCKS! I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Pats could have won the SB with any of a handful of starting QB's these past few years. You've said a lot of things multiple times, and you've nearly always been wrong. Remember when you guaranteed that the Colts would beat the Pats in the playoffs last year, and then guaranteed that Pittsburgh would? Your laughable record of accuracy speaks for itself. That's because they had the best coaching staff in the NFL. That very same coaching staff went 5-13 without Brady in '00-'01 That's why I think they're done winning SB's... Thanks for the good luck, O Reverse Barometer. You're like the anti-Nostradamus. You're Nostra-dumbass!
MadBuffaloDisease Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Except Brady won that game. Don't like that fact? Take it up with NFL record-keepers. Brady didn't win that game, despite what the record-keepers say. He left with the score 7-3 thanks to a punt return for a TD. Bledsoe replaced him and they STILL won, thanks in large part to the 10 points he led the offense to (or it could have been any QB, which only further proves my point). Again the premise is that the Pats could win without Brady, and playing over half a game WITHOUT him and still winning means they DID win without him. Get it? You mean that even with a piss-poor defense, Brady can still lead his team to a tie for first place in the division, missing out only on one of the last tie-breakers, all while leading the NFL in TD passes? Man, he SUCKS! Missing the playoffs after winning the SB, demonstrates that he's not nearly the godlike being you fantasize about him being. Again the defense slipped from their lofty status and as a result they missed the playoffs. Doesn't mean Brady "SUCKS" (and I DID say he is a good QB, did I not?!), just that he's heavily reliant on a great defense. You've said a lot of things multiple times, and you've nearly always been wrong. Remember when you guaranteed that the Colts would beat the Pats in the playoffs last year, and then guaranteed that Pittsburgh would? Your laughable record of accuracy speaks for itself. I can no more predict the future than you can. But we'll see who's right with these latest set of predictions. That very same coaching staff went 5-13 without Brady in '00-'01 The Pats went 5-11 in 2000 when they had a crappy team. They added a shitload of THEIR kind of FA's after the off-season, drafted Seymour, and started off 0-2 thanks to the defense giving up 23 points to the Bengals in the season opener and losing a close one to the Jets, a hated division rival (god forbid, and not like Brady hasn't lost to the Jets over the years!). But again later-on that season, Bledsoe saves their bacon in the Pgh playoff game when Brady goes down. Thanks for the good luck, O Reverse Barometer. You're like the anti-Nostradamus. You're Nostra-dumbass! Get your own line. I coined that term awhile ago. But nothing surprising, from someone without an original thought since visions of Brady began dancing in your head.
OJ's Glove Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Am I correct in assuming that MBD thinks the Pats turnaround, which happened to coincide with a switch at QB, actually had nothing to do with the quarterback position? I guarantee you the Patriots don't beat the Rams with Bledsoe at QB. Not because Bledsoe is a humpty and Brady is Jesus Christ, but simply because the game plan against the high-powered Rams required a number of things - one of importance was forcing turnovers without committing any yourself. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Bledsoe would have turned it over at least once in that game, and in a game that close it would have probably made the difference. Brady wasn't God in 2001 based on his statistics, but don't pretend he was simply along for the ride and coming up big in clutch situations doesn't mean anything. You'd be wrong on both counts.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Brady didn't win that game, despite what the record-keepers say. So they're wrong, and you, of all people, are right? Missing the playoffs after winning the SB, demonstrates that he's not nearly the godlike being you fantasize about him being. Missing the playoff once in four years and winning the Super Bowl in all the other demonstrates just one thing - that Brady is the best QB in the NFL. I can no more predict the future than you can. But we'll see who's right with these latest set of predictions. You can bet it won't be you. There are these things called "track records," and yours is a joke. Get your own line. I coined that term awhile ago. Really? My apologies. Can I still call you the human reverse barometer? It suits you so well.
BuffOrange Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Am I correct in assuming that MBD thinks the Pats turnaround, which happened to coincide with a switch at QB, actually had nothing to do with the quarterback position? I guarantee you the Patriots don't beat the Rams with Bledsoe at QB. Not because Bledsoe is a humpty and Brady is Jesus Christ, but simply because the game plan against the high-powered Rams required a number of things - one of importance was forcing turnovers without committing any yourself. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Bledsoe would have turned it over at least once in that game, and in a game that close it would have probably made the difference. Brady wasn't God in 2001 based on his statistics, but don't pretend he was simply along for the ride and coming up big in clutch situations doesn't mean anything. You'd be wrong on both counts. 415422[/snapback] To be fair - he did choke on the biggest play of the game vs. Oakland, did nothing vs. Pittsburgh, and embarked on 1 TD drive vs. the Rams which was set up by a turnover. That's 2 TD drives throught the entire postseason if you're counting, so he was average at best in the playoffs that year. Of course, he's a much better QB now than he was then and NE probably doesn't make the playoffs with Drew that year and if they do they're playing 3 road games instead of getting a 1st round bye.
OJ's Glove Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 To be fair - he did choke on the biggest play of the game vs. Oakland, did nothing vs. Pittsburgh, and embarked on 1 TD drive vs. the Rams which was set up by a turnover. That's 2 TD drives throught the entire postseason if you're counting, so he was average at best in the playoffs that year. Of course, he's a much better QB now than he was then and NE probably doesn't make the playoffs with Drew that year and if they do they're playing 3 road games instead of getting a 1st round bye. 415527[/snapback] I agree that it was a miracle that the Patriots won it all while averaging one offensive touchdown per game in the playoffs. But Brady had an enormous clutch drive in the snow against Oakland where he was (I believe) 6 for 6 and ran for the score himself. The weather kept scoring low in that game, and then he gets hurt against the Steelers. The defense does a tremendous job in SB 36, and when they finally tire in the 4th quarter and they need a game winning drive, the kid delivered it. He was also extremely important to the six-game winning streak that ended the regular season and guaranteed the first-round bye. Patriots fans realized at the time that Brady had certain attributes as a player. Certain things that can't really be coached - things that he had and Bledsoe didn't have. The rest of his career so far has simply solidified those initial impressions people had, while seeing his overall stats improve measurably since that 2001 season. I just think pretending that it doesn't matter who Belichick's QB is happens to be beyond foolish.
smokinandjokin Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 I think you Pats fans are digging too deep to defend Brady. I could've written off 2 outta 3 as lucky, flukey, good d, etc., especially cause they missed the playoffs in between. But 3 outta 4 seems like the real deal, especially when you factor in a 20-something game winning streak in there somewhere. I am the biggest Brady hater out there but even I must admit that it is getting harder to trash him. He might not be a "great" QB (Marino, Elway, etc.) but whatever it is he's doing or not doing, it usually equals victories. We Bills fans are pissed because they have a good system, a good team, and they constantly get (or make) all the breaks. But even more so, we are pissed because they have what we want. Hopefully dumping Bledsoe is a common pre-cursor for winning titles. But you don't need to get all in depth defending Brady and calling him the best ever, blah, blah, blah. Letting his play and wins speak for themselves stings the worst. Let us Bills fans trash him on our board. It's fun for us. In the end, we know we have to beat him on the field, which has been MUCH easier said than done.
Puhonix Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 You're like the anti-Nostradamus. You're Nostra-dumbass! 415330[/snapback] I dont care who coined it, Hollywood used it, and used it well. Not that it matters to you, but the fins vote goes to Hollywood. Miami kept Brady mostly in check, forced him to make mistakes, kept the pressure on him, and won the game. Since Feely was in at QB, the Defense cant be that good.
LabattBlue Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 I don't like Brady as much as any other Bills fan, but the effort being made to show that he is just another average QB in the right "system" and that NE could have won the Super Bowls with any other QB is bordering on ridiculous. That being said, no need for a Pats troll to rub it in.
Doza Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Hollywood Donahoe you are doing a great job on this thread. Heck you didn't even need any help!
Puhonix Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 That being said, no need for a Pats troll to rub it in. 415643[/snapback] Probably not, but I understand the point of defending what is simple common sense.
patswhiponthebills Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 drew starts that raider playoff snow game, THEY LOSE. NUFF SAID. tom threw for over 300 yards that raider game including a rushing td in miserable conditions. when tom got injured in that pitt playoff game, he was just starting to get on a ROLL. you can see it happening.his last pass was a 24 yard STRIKE to brown for a first down on pitt 40 yard line. thats when drew came into the game in a wondeful situation(7-0 lead and the ball already at pits 40). again,right before toms injury,he was just getting into a groove. id bet anything if tom finishes that game,they would have won by 14-17 points(easily),and would not have to rely on defense/special teams as much. drew hit his first 3 passes on a VERY short field(thanks tom),and the went 7-18 the rest of the game,missing more then half his passes,INCLUDING two disgusting passes that should have been picked off and brought back for pitt defensive td's. pats ONLY won that pitt playoff game because pitt failed to capitalize on drews big time !@#$ ups.(and you know it,how can you not see this) il say it again,it tom plays that game from beginning to end,they win easily. and would have scored a few offensive td's in the second half,including finishing off the drive where tom got hurt(he already got them to the pitt 40. drew really lucked out that pitt playoff game because of the BUTTER FINGERS the pitt defensive players got by dropping 2 easy potential bledsoe pics for td's. brady would never put them in that situation to begin with. even a that point in there careers,tom's football iq was light years better then drew 3 and out bledsoe. pats 01 team was very similar to the 2000 team. a large majority of that team from 2000 also was on the 01 team. its not like they added big time play makers. some positions were slightly upgraded from the previous year.BUT,the biggest upgrade was replacing the huge pea-brain at qb known as 3 and out bledsoe. the guy who could not keep a fugging drive going to save his life.resulting in a very tired defense that rarely got a chance to rest because of drews big time NON-efficient play. it seemed like tom was having 4-5 minute drives of every quarter,giving that defense plenty of rest. nobody says football is a ONE man game. who actually thinks brady does it all? its 11 on 11 at all times.the pats were a very injured team in 02. but tom certainly did all he could to help the pats tie for first in the division .including leading the entire nfl in td passes on a team that featured no big time playmakers/difference makers at receiver(still dont really). and i hate playing that RETARDED game where ppl say-if that guy was the qb,or if that guy was the rb.they still would have won. it only takes one bad game to F-UP a season,since its one and done in the nfl playoffs(has not happened to tom yet),so you just cant say that.UNLESS THE QB IS DREW BLEDSOE.one of the all time worse big game qb's the nfl has ever seen. drews playoff qb rating speaks for itself.
patswhiponthebills Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 LMAO! Yes "legit" is having your bacon saved by a rule as ridiculous as the "tuck" rule, that was incorrectly applied BTW, and then getting away with more stuff in the SB that year. And then getting away with mugging the Colts' WR's 14 times (as per ESPN) in a game the Pats won by 3 points. I can give credit where it's due, just as I gave you last year as being legit since the refs didn't rear their ugly heads, so take some solace in that. If I truly "hated" on the Pats, I wouldn't even give them credit for that, or wouldn't mention it, but I did. And again, lost in all the Brady hype is Bledsoe winning in the Pgh playoff game in 2001, the 2002 non-playoff season (because of a bad defense), and the fact that the Pats have won big games without Seymour, Law, and Bruschi. But hey, keep up the Brady worship. I'm sure he's the only QB who will ever win SB's in the future, by 3 points of course. 415058[/snapback] mbd and akc have less eye sight then stevie wonder.first of all,the tuck rule was called correctly BUT never should have been brought up in the first place because of the roughing thev passer call that should have been called on woodson after he b_i_t_c_h slapped brady on the head that play--pats got SCREWED out of an extra 15 yards and a auto first down(nice try though).. akc- the pats had about 50 pass completions for over 20+ yards,and about 10 completed over 40 yards or more. including afew more in the playoffs in terrible weather(pitt playoff game anybody). these stats are quite good considering the pats dont hae serious deep threat playmakers. can you imagine brdy with T.O or MOSS??? you need to do a littbe bit of homework before you come out looking like CORKEY. who ever watches brady throw,and then labels him a noodle arm, is blind as a bat,or just challenged, OR just upset because he does not play for your favorite team,so you decide to lash out like a little skirt on your period(most likely reason).
IDBillzFan Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 I begrudge no Bill's fan their right to lick troll butt, I just find it a bit distasteful for myself. Why don't you follow your worship of the troll with some support for his laughable contention that Brady is now a great deep threat passers in the league? 414791[/snapback] Dude, we're not licking troll butt. We just pick on them for things that are actually true. If you want to pick on Brady, don't pick on his accuracy. Pick on the times when the team has had to save his ass. It seems no one throws more endzone picks in critical times (championship games and Super Bowls) than Brady. If his defense didn't save him, he'd be toast by now.
smokinandjokin Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Why don't you go back and read my earlier post bro. Everyone on this board knows what the Pats have done with Brady. One of the most successful teams ever. Can't dispute 3 outta 4. But if a Bills board wants to rip on Brady, relax. Go talk about how sweet he is on a Pats board, cause nobody here gives a sh--.
Ramius Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 drew starts that raider playoff snow game, THEY LOSE. NUFF SAID. tom threw for over 300 yards that raider game including a rushing td in miserable conditions. when tom got injured in that pitt playoff game, he was just starting to get on a ROLL. you can see it happening.his last pass was a 24 yard STRIKE to brown for a first down on pitt 40 yard line. thats when drew came into the game in a wondeful situation(7-0 lead and the ball already at pits 40). again,right before toms injury,he was just getting into a groove. id bet anything if tom finishes that game,they would have won by 14-17 points(easily),and would not have to rely on defense/special teams as much. drew hit his first 3 passes on a VERY short field(thanks tom),and the went 7-18 the rest of the game,missing more then half his passes,INCLUDING two disgusting passes that should have been picked off and brought back for pitt defensive td's. pats ONLY won that pitt playoff game because pitt failed to capitalize on drews big time !@#$ ups.(and you know it,how can you not see this) il say it again,it tom plays that game from beginning to end,they win easily. and would have scored a few offensive td's in the second half,including finishing off the drive where tom got hurt(he already got them to the pitt 40. drew really lucked out that pitt playoff game because of the BUTTER FINGERS the pitt defensive players got by dropping 2 easy potential bledsoe pics for td's. brady would never put them in that situation to begin with. even a that point in there careers,tom's football iq was light years better then drew 3 and out bledsoe. pats 01 team was very similar to the 2000 team. a large majority of that team from 2000 also was on the 01 team. its not like they added big time play makers. some positions were slightly upgraded from the previous year.BUT,the biggest upgrade was replacing the huge pea-brain at qb known as 3 and out bledsoe. the guy who could not keep a fugging drive going to save his life.resulting in a very tired defense that rarely got a chance to rest because of drews big time NON-efficient play. it seemed like tom was having 4-5 minute drives of every quarter,giving that defense plenty of rest. nobody says football is a ONE man game. who actually thinks brady does it all? its 11 on 11 at all times.the pats were a very injured team in 02. but tom certainly did all he could to help the pats tie for first in the division .including leading the entire nfl in td passes on a team that featured no big time playmakers/difference makers at receiver(still dont really). and i hate playing that RETARDED game where ppl say-if that guy was the qb,or if that guy was the rb.they still would have won. it only takes one bad game to F-UP a season,since its one and done in the nfl playoffs(has not happened to tom yet),so you just cant say that.UNLESS THE QB IS DREW BLEDSOE.one of the all time worse big game qb's the nfl has ever seen. drews playoff qb rating speaks for itself. 415705[/snapback] mbd and akc have less eye sight then stevie wonder.first of all,the tuck rule was called correctly BUT never should have been brought up in the first place because of the roughing thev passer call that should have been called on woodson after he b_i_t_c_h slapped brady on the head that play--pats got SCREWED out of an extra 15 yards and a auto first down(nice try though).. akc- the pats had about 50 pass completions for over 20+ yards,and about 10 completed over 40 yards or more. including afew more in the playoffs in terrible weather(pitt playoff game anybody). these stats are quite good considering the pats dont hae serious deep threat playmakers. can you imagine brdy with T.O or MOSS??? you need to do a littbe bit of homework before you come out looking like CORKEY. who ever watches brady throw,and then labels him a noodle arm, is blind as a bat,or just challenged, OR just upset because he does not play for your favorite team,so you decide to lash out like a little skirt on your period(most likely reason). 415737[/snapback] Wipe off your chin and go get a life instead of trolling an opposing teams message board...
JinVA Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 mbd and akc have less eye sight then stevie wonder.first of all,the tuck rule was called correctly BUT never should have been brought up in the first place because of the roughing thev passer call that should have been called on woodson after he b_i_t_c_h slapped brady on the head that play--pats got SCREWED out of an extra 15 yards and a auto first down(nice try though).. akc- the pats had about 50 pass completions for over 20+ yards,and about 10 completed over 40 yards or more. including afew more in the playoffs in terrible weather(pitt playoff game anybody). these stats are quite good considering the pats dont hae serious deep threat playmakers. can you imagine brdy with T.O or MOSS??? you need to do a littbe bit of homework before you come out looking like CORKEY. who ever watches brady throw,and then labels him a noodle arm, is blind as a bat,or just challenged, OR just upset because he does not play for your favorite team,so you decide to lash out like a little skirt on your period(most likely reason). 415737[/snapback] You should be a sports writer. You're very good at it.
patswhiponthebills Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Thats how thin or desperate the Pats are at wideout. They cut then resigned Troy Brown (34 years old), David Givins was their top wr last season and only had 56 catches and lastly the signed Tim Dwight as a free agent. Not a real scary wide reciver group if you ask me. 414347[/snapback] even though the pats do not have a big time playmaker,they do have a solid group of receivers. if troy brown and deion branch played all 16 games last year, they would have easily caught atleast 60 passes eacH. that would of been branch,givens and brown with 50+ caches each--not bad-- now terrell is in pats land and he caught 40+ catches himself on a weak bears team with no real qb. id say this receiving core is quite solid. plus these receivers (brown,givens, and branch)do what is really important,they play big in big games,whether its a big regular season game,playoffs or SUPER BOWL.they got intangible/clutchness that can not be read on the back of a card (including the qb). and for the guy that says brady has all day to throw(ack?),--there is many times brady avoids a sack because he has some of the best foot work in the pocket in this league.he has great pocket movement an awareness. the way he steps up in the pocket and moves(side-steps) left to right is awesome to watch(very marino like).and by doing this,he buys himself an extra second or two.
Ramius Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/index Interesting poll on the bottom right... "which QB would you choose when building a franchise from scratch?" 1. Peyton Manning 2. Tom Brady After 28,000 plus votes, its 70% manning, 30% homo seems most people agree, brady is nothing more but a decent QB in a great system...because if he really was THAT good, everyone would want him as their QB...
Recommended Posts