AKC Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Brady - Screen pass = Holcomb why doesn't somebody stop that stupid screen pass the pats love so much? 497891[/snapback] Actually the Indy D played plenty of attention to the screen past night on most downs, they had three guysont he side for the Watson screen/TD but NE got an extra blocker over there on that play. Around the league DCs are realizing that Brady has made a career of puffed up stats and QB rating throwing passes behind the LOS to the 10 yard line. With all the lovefest media garbage regarding him "throwing long" this season, he still is completing less than 30% of his passes over 20 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Keep polishing those, uh...trophies, HD. You're making my point. No top 5 defense and your boy Brady falls back to earth. The only reason he won't be exposed even further this season for the slightly above average QB he really is, is because your schedule is pretty damn soft from here on out. But keep padding those stats and trotting out excuses while you gaze longingly at those Lombardis. Better get some binoculars, though, because they are getting farther and farther away. On the bright side, I'm told there's a few Shockey jerseys left. Better catch that Giants bandwagon like the rest of NE. Don't want to miss out. So your point is that winning only three out of five Super Bowls makes one a "slightly above average" quarterback? I must say, I disagree with your assessment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 The guy who's "carried" them to a .500 record? 61-18 != .500 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 So your point is that winning only three out of five Super Bowls makes one a "slightly above average" quarterback? I must say, I disagree with your assessment 497907[/snapback] By your criteria, then, every player on those superbowl winning teams would be HOF material simply because they had the uniform on. Sorry. It's a bogus argument. The single-most valuable player on those superbowl teams was Vinatieri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 61-18 != .500 497910[/snapback] So far, his record without the benefit of a running game and a strong defense is 13-11, a record that is slightly better than average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 So far, his record without the benefit of a running game and a strong defense is 13-11, a record that is slightly better than average. So the defense switched itself on in '01, of in '02, on again in '03 and '04, and off again in '05? I love how every element of team gets credit but Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 By your criteria, then, every player on those superbowl winning teams would be HOF material simply because they had the uniform on. Sorry. It's a bogus argument. The single-most valuable player on those superbowl teams was Vinatieri. Kickers, whatever their skill level, simply aren't the most valuable players on any team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I hate to admit it also....but I thought the same thing last night.... Brady is tough, smart and good.... I'll give credit where its deserved....... I'm also putting Manning up there also.... Man I'm glad the Colts aren't in our division anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 61-18 != .500 497910[/snapback] It's Official! 4 and 4 = .500, unless of course you're a moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Brady went 9-7 in '02 with a crap defense and no running game. It happens. Doesn't take away from the THREE times he won the Super Bowl. 497800[/snapback] So the defense switched itself on in '01, of in '02, on again in '03 and '04, and off again in '05? I love how every element of team gets credit but Brady. 497922[/snapback] No top 5 defense = 13-11. No Weis = 4-4. The issue is Pats fans giving credit to Brady when they win, but making excuses for him when they lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 It's Official! 4 and 4 = .500, unless of course you're a moron It's official! Eight games is a small sample size, unless of course you're AKC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 It's official! Eight games is a small sample size, unless of course you're AKC. 497936[/snapback] I'm guessing you're VERY familiar with "small sample sizes" ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 It's official! Eight games is a small sample size, unless of course you're AKC. 497936[/snapback] Yeah, it's a small sample size if they played 100 games. But they only play 16, and after half a season the Pats are a 0.500 team, and if the zebras didn't bail them out last Sunday they'd be 3-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Yeah, it's a small sample size if they played 100 games. But they only play 16, and after half a season the Pats are a 0.500 team, and if the zebras didn't bail them out last Sunday they'd be 3-5. I thought we were arguing about the course of the entire '01-'04 Dynasty, and Brady's relation to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I thought we were arguing about the course of the entire '01-'04 Dynasty, and Brady's relation to it. 497967[/snapback] Your post It's official! Eight games is a small sample size, unless of course you're AKC. I was responding to that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I thought we were arguing about the course of the entire '01-'04 Dynasty, and Brady's relation to it. 497967[/snapback] You Pat's fans LOVE to talk about the past! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh yeah, I've corrected your misuse of the word Dynasty before, perhaps you've already fogotten: The average margin of score for the Patriot's Super Bowls is MINUS 8 points- the 2nd worst among all NFL champions since the first Super Bowl. This supports the conclusion that the Pats are among the least convincing championship teams in the history of the sport, and no respectable student of the game would ever accept those anemic numbers as an indication of a "dynasty" when they in fact indicate just the opposite. The Pats have eked out these timid victories at a time when their NFC opponents are at their weakest in over 25 years Weak NFC. The fact is there is a tremendous chasm between being "barely good enough by your kicker's foot" and the huge leap from there to being an actual "Dynasty". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Oh yeah, I've corrected your misuse of the word Dynasty before, perhaps you've already fogotten: The average margin of score for the Patriot's Super Bowls is MINUS 8 points- the 2nd worst among all NFL champions since the first Super Bowl. This supports the conclusion that the Pats are among the least convincing championship teams in the history of the sport, and no respectable student of the game would ever accept those anemic numbers as an indication of a "dynasty" when they in fact indicate just the opposite. The Pats have eked out these timid victories at a time when their NFC opponents are at their weakest in over 25 years Weak NFC. The fact is there is a tremendous chasm between being "barely good enough by your kicker's foot" and the huge leap from there to being an actual "Dynasty". That seems to include the '85-'86 Super Bowl against the Bears, and the '96-'97 Super Bowl against the Packers, which were not part of the Patriots' ongoing (as of yet) Dynasty era. You might consider editing that paragraph for intellectual honesty, because as of now, it heavily distorts reality in order to make its flawed point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Where are Warner's two other Lombardi trophies? 497423[/snapback] The same place all three of Brady's would have been had it not been for the defense. At least Warner CARRIED his team to a SB win, he didnt ride the coattails of a great defense. Saying brady won those SB's for New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) and discrediting the defense is like saying France won WWII, just because they were on the Americans side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 The same place all three of Brady's would have been had it not been for the defense. The defense that allowed an average of over 22 points a game in the three Super Bowls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 You might consider editing that paragraph for intellectual honesty497984[/snapback] Like that Donovan McNabb lie you've been spreading over this forum for 2 months now? You'll see I exposed that lie in another string and proved you would continue lying even after given plenty of notice that you were being dishonest. You seem to prefer "Kicker's Dynastys" of 3 points or less. Anyway you cut it, only a fool calls 3 point wins "Dynastic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts