It's 2-3, with one Super Bowl. You're making my point for me. That's not the long view, it's the short view.
If one engages statistical parsing as above, then they can make Brady look bad, yes. Same goes for any player. The more one lengthens their view, the more one can appreciate Brady's greatness.
What do experts like Peter King think about the long view? Few are more qualified than he. Just this season King stated that in the modern era of quarterbacks (post-Graham, Baugh, Unitas), Brady is second only to Montana, and that's pre- and post- "Spygate" considered.
God Im so sick of people nullifying What The Patriots AND Tom Brady have accomplished because of that spygate crap.
Blacklabelsociety, get with the program and understand that the Pats have won 3 SuperBowls and leave it at that, I mean if you were to say something more sensible like the Pats have not Won a SuperBowl since Giselle Bundchen came into town then I would say you have a strong point.
Stats and Titles dont lie, Keith is Spot on with his point.
<< <i>God Im so sick of people nullifying What The Patriots AND Tom Brady have accomplished because of that spygate crap.
Blacklabelsociety, get with the program and understand that the Pats have won 3 SuperBowls and leave it at that, I mean if you were to say something more sensible like the Pats have not Won a SuperBowl since Giselle Bundchen came into town then I would say you have a strong point.
Stats and Titles dont lie, Keith is Spot on with his point. >>
It's hard to ignore. They won their SBs by 3 points. That's a fine line. Before spygate, they always seemed to have the perfect alignment to defeat teams. Like Hines Ward said, 'it's like they knew which plays we were running'. Like the steroid era, I'm sorry to inform Pats fans that there will always be an asterisk in the minds of most FB fans when it comes to Patriot SB wins.
<< <i>God Im so sick of people nullifying What The Patriots AND Tom Brady have accomplished because of that spygate crap.
Blacklabelsociety, get with the program and understand that the Pats have won 3 SuperBowls . >>
While cheating.
The jets didnt have to cheat to beat them last sunday. >>
Thank God your opinion doesnt matter one bit, LMAO you are prolly the type of guy who thinks the Super Bowls should be nullified because of a missed penalty or a holding call that was not warranted.
<< <i>God Im so sick of people nullifying What The Patriots AND Tom Brady have accomplished because of that spygate crap.
Blacklabelsociety, get with the program and understand that the Pats have won 3 SuperBowls and leave it at that, I mean if you were to say something more sensible like the Pats have not Won a SuperBowl since Giselle Bundchen came into town then I would say you have a strong point.
Stats and Titles dont lie, Keith is Spot on with his point. >>
It's hard to ignore. They won their SBs by 3 points. That's a fine line. Before spygate, they always seemed to have the perfect alignment to defeat teams. Like Hines Ward said, 'it's like they knew which plays we were running'. Like the steroid era, I'm sorry to inform Pats fans that there will always be an asterisk in the minds of most FB fans when it comes to Patriot SB wins. >>
This Spygate and other junk is nothing more than ignorant fan talk. Im no Pats fan by any means, But I am a FOOTBALL fan. They won three trophies because they was the best team. Come to think of it They were the best team this year as well. They simply just found a way to loss agin. Their legacy is secure, anybody with any common football sense will not buy this stupid spygate stuff.
When more evidence is compiled pointing to the fact that the New England Patriots are the best team of this generation - "Spygate" notwithstanding - Patriot dissenters increasingly resort to replies consisting of either cute one-liners, or trying to pick apart one little ingredient amongst a large block of pro-Patriot criteria. It's funny how posters with poor grammar often correlate with posts that aren't substantive.
The Patriots are 53-16 since "Spygate" exposure (2007-2010), and that includes both the regular season and the playoffs. That's a .768 winning percentage. Just because a team like the 2007 Giants gets hot and narrowly wins the Super Bowl over the Patriots, it doesn't make them the better team. (The Giants earned it - and they were the hot team.) In fact, the Patriots were the best team in the NFL again this year. Anything can happen on one Sunday. I'd take the 2010 Patriots at home to beat the 2010 Jets eight or nine times out of ten, as would many.
Additionally, think of all the standout players the Patriots have lost - on defense alone - since around the time of Spygate exposure. Nearly every NFL team has a lot of player movement these days. But these defections are atypical and excessive in such a short period of time:
Defensive Linemen: Richard Seymour Tedy Bruschi Willie McGinest
Linebackers: Mike Vrabel Larry Izzo Junior Seau Adalius Thomas
Defensive Backs: Rodney Harrison Ty Law Eugene Wilson Asante Samuel Ellis Hobbs
Still a 53-16 record since many of these player defections. This has shown me that the Patriots and Tom Brady are even better than I thought. No wonder even expert Peter King already dubs Tom Brady the second-best modern-era quarterback (Montana). They're so overwhelmingly good that I don't think I need to address dissenting viewpoints on this topic any longer because those points are barely legitimate.
We'll all soon get a reminder of this when Brady wins his second MVP trophy. Yes, and both these trophies are post-Spygate ones. "Spygate"...sheesh.
Let me add that I'm not even a Patriots fan. I'm an Eagles fan from Pennsylvania. There's no partisan New England Region agenda here. The Patriots have simply been the best.
-Keith
P.S. I don't know where Tom Brady is at the moment. But no matter which room he is in, he is the best-looking guy in that room. Just one more thing to tick off baseless Patriots / Brady bashers.
Until the Pats at least win another playoff game after Spygate, there is always going to be some degree of skepticism, especially given how close those Super Bowl games were. If anything, the last two years, losing at home in the first round, have increased that level of doubt..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>When more evidence is compiled pointing to the fact that the New England Patriots are the best team of this generation - "Spygate" notwithstanding - Patriot dissenters increasingly resort to replies consisting of either cute one-liners, or trying to pick apart one little ingredient amongst a large block of pro-Patriot criteria. It's funny how posters with poor grammar often correlate with posts that aren't substantive.
The Patriots are 53-16 since "Spygate" exposure (2007-2010), and that includes both the regular season and the playoffs. That's a .768 winning percentage. Just because a team like the 2007 Giants gets hot and narrowly wins the Super Bowl over the Patriots, it doesn't make them the better team. (The Giants earned it - and they were the hot team.) In fact, the Patriots were the best team in the NFL again this year. Anything can happen on one Sunday. I'd take the 2010 Patriots at home to beat the 2010 Jets eight or nine times out of ten, as would many.
>>
If you took the pats to win 8 times over the jets you would lose lol. They beat them 2 out of 3 this year. The pats defense was ranked in the bottom half of the NFL. They were clearly not the best team. Atlanta had the best record in the NFC, and i dont think that many people thought they were the best team. Thats why you play the game. If the pats were better, than they wouldve won last sunday.
<< <i>If you took the pats to win 8 times over the jets you would lose lol. They beat them 2 out of 3 this year. The pats defense was ranked in the bottom half of the NFL. They were clearly not the best team. Atlanta had the best record in the NFC, and i dont think that many people thought they were the best team. Thats why you play the game. If the pats were better, than they wouldve won last sunday. >>
8 or 9 out of 10 at home. One of the two losses you mentioned was on the road.
The Patriots destroyed the Jets at home once and lost once, in large part to a number of uncharacteristic mental errors.
I don't know if I'd say 9 out of 10 but at least 7, probably 8, at home against the Jets. The Jets were the better team on Sunday but I don't think they're the better team overall.
this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close.
I don't know if I'd say 9 out of 10 but at least 7, probably 8, at home against the Jets. The Jets were the better team on Sunday but I don't think they're the better team overall.
Tabe >>
You're right. A team with 0 playoff wins the last 2 years, is better than the team that has made it to the conference championship 2 years straight. OOOOK
Ho Hum just another way of jealousy rearing its ugly head. The Pats are 3x Super Bowl Champs regardless of whatever stupid banter any of you guys come up with.
This year is no different than any other year the Pats lost- they were either outplayed or outcoached simple as just like the years they won when they outplayed or outcoached the opposing team. You whiners can talk spygate all you want and still bite your upper lip when you look up Super Bowl Winners and see The New England Patriots name there 3 times because there is no asterik or any other stipulation to their victories.
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
And you are 100% sure of this on what grounds? >>
They apparently cannot even hold them for the 2010 Jets either.
I wonder how many Superbowls the Patriots would have won if the Patriots had not received a break from the referee during the game with Oakland ['the tuck rule"] that avoided a fumble at a critical moment.
I am no fan of Oakland, but everytime a see a replay of that play, I come away scratching my head thinking "How can that not be a fumble?"
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
And you are 100% sure of this on what grounds? >>
They apparently cannot even hold them for the 2010 Jets either. >>
Right but lets count how many Super Bowls the Jets have won in the past 8 or 9 years though...
I don't think there is any denying that everything that could go right for the Pats in the playoffs during those years...went right.
We don't know the impact of the spygate controversy, and I don't think it is right to completely dismiss its role in helping them win.
In relation to Brady, the favorable calls by the refs, the teammates(like their kicker) playing extremely well, and the other circumstances...certainly helped 'him' have three rings.
There is already considerable folly in judging individual players based on how many championships a team wins...no need to rehash all that. Judge him on HIS play, not how good his teammates are, or the favorable circumstances around him.
Why introduce fatal errors into the equation by using a criteria such as Team Titles for individual judgement? Is there not enough intelligent observers and analysts that cannot look at him, independent of luck or chance, independent of the play of others; that can utilize anecedotal and objective tools and be able to draw a sound conclusion...instead of just using the knee jerk-hype reaction of, "he won three titles, therefore he is better than so and so who only won one, or zero."
After all, if Brady truly were a 'winner', and had some intangible trait that Marino or Manning do not posesses, that allows him to call upon and win...then he should have been calling upon that the last several years. Is he dumb for not calling upon it? Or were the circumstances no longer in his favor as they were in the other years...circumstances that many other QB's did not have as often???
As for the judgement of the Patriots in relation to other all time great teams. Dominating teams like the 49ers and Cowboys do look stronger when all the evidence is taken into consideration.
This is not a knock on Brady, as there is enough evidence to elevate him extremely high among all-time QB's...no need to cheapen that ranking with the over hyped knee jerk 'title' argument.
I am also a Saints fan. I look at the Patriots and I see a team that has won three Super Bowls and lost one by a slim margin. They had an undefeated regular season. they've been to the playoffs almost every year. They lose all-pro players, they make all-pro replacements. The Cowboys of the 90's were full of big name stars. But do you really believe they were better than the Patriots? Each team won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. The Patriots also made it to another one. The Cowboys won a playoff game in 1996 and then didn't win another one until the end of the 2009 season. The Patriots have just kept on truckin'. I would say that the Patriots of the past decade are comparable to the 49ers of the 80's and the Cowboys of the 90's. Not worse, not better, but comparable. Forget spygate.
<< <i>I wonder how many Superbowls the Patriots would have won if the Patriots had not received a break from the referee during the game with Oakland ['the tuck rule"] that avoided a fumble at a critical moment.
I am no fan of Oakland, but everytime a see a replay of that play, I come away scratching my head thinking "How can that not be a fumble?" >>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER!
If Tom Brady (and I give him a lot props) and the Patriots were THAT good prior to losing all those players, why did they sneak by in the Super Bowl as well as many other postseason games. Contrast that with Joe Montana and the Niners (whom I HATE) who ripped apart the best teams in the league when they were playing. Not just squeaking by. >>
That's a valid question, thanks.
The NFL average margin of victory is very small. So it isn't that surprising that the New England Patriots' Super Bowl wins were too.
Joe Montana's Niners - whom were terrific and certainly dominated the competition more than the 2000s Patriots - benefitted from retaining players for longer durations. They already "jelled", they knew each other, and players could spend less time having to "learn the system". There is more player movement now. Belichick and Brady are smart enough and talented enough to keep adapting, making them the top team of the "'00s" decade.
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
The New England Patriots are the Best cheaters EVER! >>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
The New England Patriots are the Best cheaters EVER! >>
I certainly agree. >>
Ok Ok I get it! You live in your world and I will live in mine!
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
Is there anyone that disagrees with this and why? >>
Keith Thank You for your support, I will say that this was a tongue in cheek statement by myself HOWEVER there is absolutely ZERO question that the 00's Pats would crush the 60's Pack, 70's Steelers, anyone that thinks differently is not a smart Football fan IMO, the 80's 9'ers Im pretty confident they would hold the upper hand. The 90's Cowboys would match up well enough to win but that would need to be seen to make a positive determination.
Please someone like BlackLabel spout off that a Jim Brown led Browns 50's or 60's team would dominate though so I can laugh..
<<<I wonder how many Superbowls the Patriots would have won if the Patriots had not received a break from the referee during the game with Oakland ['the tuck rule"] that avoided a fumble at a critical moment.>>>
Yeah, I hate it when the refs enforce the rules of the game.....It's one thing to have a problem with the rule, but to say they got "a break" because the ref enforced the rule that is the rulebook is absurd.
<< <i><<<I wonder how many Superbowls the Patriots would have won if the Patriots had not received a break from the referee during the game with Oakland ['the tuck rule"] that avoided a fumble at a critical moment.>>>
Yeah, I hate it when the refs enforce the rules of the game.....It's one thing to have a problem with the rule, but to say they got "a break" because the ref enforced the rule that is the rulebook is absurd. >>
And that play had sooooooooo much to do with those wins against Carolina and Philadelphia!
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
Is there anyone that disagrees with this and why? >>
Keith Thank You for your support, I will say that this was a tongue in cheek statement by myself HOWEVER there is absolutely ZERO question that the 00's Pats would crush the 60's Pack, 70's Steelers, anyone that thinks differently is not a smart Football fan IMO, the 80's 9'ers Im pretty confident they would hold the upper hand. .. >>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
Is there anyone that disagrees with this and why? >>
Keith Thank You for your support, I will say that this was a tongue in cheek statement by myself HOWEVER there is absolutely ZERO question that the 00's Pats would crush the 60's Pack, 70's Steelers, anyone that thinks differently is not a smart Football fan IMO, the 80's 9'ers Im pretty confident they would hold the upper hand. .. >>
We have a comedian on this site >>
Not as funny as you when you like to doctor quotes to your liking though!
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
Is there anyone that disagrees with this and why? >>
Keith Thank You for your support, I will say that this was a tongue in cheek statement by myself HOWEVER there is absolutely ZERO question that the 00's Pats would crush the 60's Pack, 70's Steelers, anyone that thinks differently is not a smart Football fan IMO, the 80's 9'ers Im pretty confident they would hold the upper hand. .. >>
We have a comedian on this site >>
The reason that I state the 2000s Patriots "Team Of The Decade" would beat any other "Team Of The Decade" ('40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.) is because every generation of NFL player and team is generally physically bigger, faster, and stronger. Each generation, there are also advancements realized in training methodology, coaching strategy and philosophy, play-drawing complexity, athletic specialization, and injury prevention that previous generations did not have access to.
Can you imagine the Packers' great Jerry Kramer trying to block and open holes for HOF Running Back Jim Taylor versus Patriots "Team Of The Decade" 2000s "bigs" like the Patriots' Vince Wilfork or Richard Seymour? No way. As late as the '60s, players were still playing both sides of the ball sometimes - offense and defense. Additionally, they might have spent the offseason working the offseason in car sales or concrete finishing. This even applies to Hall Of Fame players like Chuck Bednarik. That is why I state that the 2000s Patriots are the "Team Of The Decade" that would beat any other "Team Of The Decade".
Do I think the 2000s Patriots were more dominant in their peak era than the 1980s Niners were in theirs? No. The Joe Montana - Roger Craig - Jerry Rice - John Taylor - Charles Haley - Ronnie Lott Niners were more dominant relative to the competition at that time.
This generational succession most likely means that the self-projected "Team Of The Current Decade" 2010s New England Patriots will be even better than the "Team Of The Last Decade" 2000s New England Patriots. As mind-boggling as that is, there's also this: Tom Brady is projected to get even better-looking this decade.
"...Tom Brady has outdone even himself." I didn't say it. The Associated Press did.
_________________________________
January 25, 2011
NEW YORK (AP)—It’s unanimous. And Tom Brady has outdone even himself.
The record-setting Patriots quarterback is the leading vote-getter for The Associated Press 2010 NFL All-Pro Team, the seventh straight year at least one player has gotten every vote. Three years ago, when Brady set the league record for touchdown passes, he missed by a half-vote of being unanimous, sharing a ballot with Brett Favre.
As usual, Brady prefered to deflect praise to the rest of the Patriots, who went 14-2 this season before losing in the playoffs to the Jets.
“I’ve been here for a while, so I’ve seen our offense evolve,” Brady said. “We do some different things now than we’ve done in the past. Ultimately we’re still trying to do the same thing, which is be productive and win games.”
Brady won those 14 games as the league’s leading passer, and he went a record 335 attempts without an interception. Overall, he threw for 36 touchdowns and had just four picks.
Brady is one of three New England players selected to the squad by a nationwide panel of 50 media members who regularly cover the NFL. He is joined by guard Logan Mankins(notes) and inside linebacker Jerod Mayo.
Comments
It's 2-3, with one Super Bowl. You're making my point for me. That's not the long view, it's the short view.
If one engages statistical parsing as above, then they can make Brady look bad, yes. Same goes for any player. The more one lengthens their view, the more one can appreciate Brady's greatness.
What do experts like Peter King think about the long view? Few are more qualified than he. Just this season King stated that in the modern era of quarterbacks (post-Graham, Baugh, Unitas), Brady is second only to Montana, and that's pre- and post- "Spygate" considered.
<< <i>Whats his playoff record since spygate?
It's 2-3, with one Super Bowl. You're making my point for me. That's not the long view, it's the short view.
. >>
sub-500 record and hasnt won anything since they got caught. No playoff wins last two years. spygate will hurt his legacy. Thanks for making my point.
That's your point. I've got mine - that the Patriots and Brady have been terrific over the long term.
Blacklabelsociety, get with the program and understand that the Pats have won 3 SuperBowls and leave it at that, I mean if you were to say something more sensible like the Pats have not Won a SuperBowl since Giselle Bundchen came into town then I would say you have a strong point.
Stats and Titles dont lie, Keith is Spot on with his point.
<< <i>God Im so sick of people nullifying What The Patriots AND Tom Brady have accomplished because of that spygate crap.
Blacklabelsociety, get with the program and understand that the Pats have won 3 SuperBowls . >>
While cheating.
The jets didnt have to cheat to beat them last sunday.
<< <i>God Im so sick of people nullifying What The Patriots AND Tom Brady have accomplished because of that spygate crap.
Blacklabelsociety, get with the program and understand that the Pats have won 3 SuperBowls and leave it at that, I mean if you were to say something more sensible like the Pats have not Won a SuperBowl since Giselle Bundchen came into town then I would say you have a strong point.
Stats and Titles dont lie, Keith is Spot on with his point. >>
It's hard to ignore. They won their SBs by 3 points. That's a fine line. Before spygate, they always seemed to have the perfect alignment to defeat teams. Like Hines Ward said, 'it's like they knew which plays we were running'. Like the steroid era, I'm sorry to inform Pats fans that there will always be an asterisk in the minds of most FB fans when it comes to Patriot SB wins.
<< <i>
<< <i>God Im so sick of people nullifying What The Patriots AND Tom Brady have accomplished because of that spygate crap.
Blacklabelsociety, get with the program and understand that the Pats have won 3 SuperBowls . >>
While cheating.
The jets didnt have to cheat to beat them last sunday. >>
Thank God your opinion doesnt matter one bit, LMAO you are prolly the type of guy who thinks the Super Bowls should be nullified because of a missed penalty or a holding call that was not warranted.
<< <i>
<< <i>God Im so sick of people nullifying What The Patriots AND Tom Brady have accomplished because of that spygate crap.
Blacklabelsociety, get with the program and understand that the Pats have won 3 SuperBowls and leave it at that, I mean if you were to say something more sensible like the Pats have not Won a SuperBowl since Giselle Bundchen came into town then I would say you have a strong point.
Stats and Titles dont lie, Keith is Spot on with his point. >>
It's hard to ignore. They won their SBs by 3 points. That's a fine line. Before spygate, they always seemed to have the perfect alignment to defeat teams. Like Hines Ward said, 'it's like they knew which plays we were running'. Like the steroid era, I'm sorry to inform Pats fans that there will always be an asterisk in the minds of most FB fans when it comes to Patriot SB wins. >>
Yep
They won three trophies because they was the best team. Come to think of it They were the best team this year as well. They simply just found a way to loss agin. Their legacy is secure, anybody with any common football sense will not buy this stupid spygate stuff.
GO COWBOYS!
<< <i> Come to think of it They were the best team this year as well.
The Jets beat them twice, and one was when it counted. So the pats were clearly not the best team this year.
They simply just found a way to loss agin.
No. The jets found a way to beat them.
Their legacy is secure, anybody with any common football sense will not buy this stupid spygate stuff.
Cheating is cheating.
GO COWBOYS! >>
Nice stadium. Not much else.
The Patriots are 53-16 since "Spygate" exposure (2007-2010), and that includes both the regular season and the playoffs. That's a .768 winning percentage. Just because a team like the 2007 Giants gets hot and narrowly wins the Super Bowl over the Patriots, it doesn't make them the better team. (The Giants earned it - and they were the hot team.) In fact, the Patriots were the best team in the NFL again this year. Anything can happen on one Sunday. I'd take the 2010 Patriots at home to beat the 2010 Jets eight or nine times out of ten, as would many.
Additionally, think of all the standout players the Patriots have lost - on defense alone - since around the time of Spygate exposure. Nearly every NFL team has a lot of player movement these days. But these defections are atypical and excessive in such a short period of time:
Defensive Linemen:
Richard Seymour
Tedy Bruschi
Willie McGinest
Linebackers:
Mike Vrabel
Larry Izzo
Junior Seau
Adalius Thomas
Defensive Backs:
Rodney Harrison
Ty Law
Eugene Wilson
Asante Samuel
Ellis Hobbs
Still a 53-16 record since many of these player defections. This has shown me that the Patriots and Tom Brady are even better than I thought. No wonder even expert Peter King already dubs Tom Brady the second-best modern-era quarterback (Montana). They're so overwhelmingly good that I don't think I need to address dissenting viewpoints on this topic any longer because those points are barely legitimate.
We'll all soon get a reminder of this when Brady wins his second MVP trophy. Yes, and both these trophies are post-Spygate ones. "Spygate"...sheesh.
Let me add that I'm not even a Patriots fan. I'm an Eagles fan from Pennsylvania. There's no partisan New England Region agenda here. The Patriots have simply been the best.
-Keith
P.S. I don't know where Tom Brady is at the moment. But no matter which room he is in, he is the best-looking guy in that room. Just one more thing to tick off baseless Patriots / Brady bashers.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>When more evidence is compiled pointing to the fact that the New England Patriots are the best team of this generation - "Spygate" notwithstanding - Patriot dissenters increasingly resort to replies consisting of either cute one-liners, or trying to pick apart one little ingredient amongst a large block of pro-Patriot criteria. It's funny how posters with poor grammar often correlate with posts that aren't substantive.
The Patriots are 53-16 since "Spygate" exposure (2007-2010), and that includes both the regular season and the playoffs. That's a .768 winning percentage. Just because a team like the 2007 Giants gets hot and narrowly wins the Super Bowl over the Patriots, it doesn't make them the better team. (The Giants earned it - and they were the hot team.) In fact, the Patriots were the best team in the NFL again this year. Anything can happen on one Sunday. I'd take the 2010 Patriots at home to beat the 2010 Jets eight or nine times out of ten, as would many.
If you took the pats to win 8 times over the jets you would lose lol. They beat them 2 out of 3 this year. The pats defense was ranked in the bottom half of the NFL. They were clearly not the best team. Atlanta had the best record in the NFC, and i dont think that many people thought they were the best team. Thats why you play the game. If the pats were better, than they wouldve won last sunday.
<< <i>If you took the pats to win 8 times over the jets you would lose lol. They beat them 2 out of 3 this year. The pats defense was ranked in the bottom half of the NFL. They were clearly not the best team. Atlanta had the best record in the NFC, and i dont think that many people thought they were the best team. Thats why you play the game. If the pats were better, than they wouldve won last sunday. >>
8 or 9 out of 10 at home. One of the two losses you mentioned was on the road.
The Patriots destroyed the Jets at home once and lost once, in large part to a number of uncharacteristic mental errors.
I don't know if I'd say 9 out of 10 but at least 7, probably 8, at home against the Jets. The Jets were the better team on Sunday but I don't think they're the better team overall.
Tabe
Any given team can beat any other given team on any given day. No team is perfect!
<< <i>
<< <i>
I don't know if I'd say 9 out of 10 but at least 7, probably 8, at home against the Jets. The Jets were the better team on Sunday but I don't think they're the better team overall.
Tabe >>
You're right. A team with 0 playoff wins the last 2 years, is better than the team that has made it to the conference championship 2 years straight. OOOOK
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
This year is no different than any other year the Pats lost- they were either outplayed or outcoached simple as just like the years they won when they outplayed or outcoached the opposing team. You whiners can talk spygate all you want and still bite your upper lip when you look up Super Bowl Winners and see The New England Patriots name there 3 times because there is no asterik or any other stipulation to their victories.
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
And you are 100% sure of this on what grounds?
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
And you are 100% sure of this on what grounds? >>
They apparently cannot even hold them for the 2010 Jets either.
I am no fan of Oakland, but everytime a see a replay of that play, I come away scratching my head thinking "How can that not be a fumble?"
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
And you are 100% sure of this on what grounds? >>
They apparently cannot even hold them for the 2010 Jets either. >>
Right but lets count how many Super Bowls the Jets have won in the past 8 or 9 years though...
Excuse Me but Zero.
We don't know the impact of the spygate controversy, and I don't think it is right to completely dismiss its role in helping them win.
In relation to Brady, the favorable calls by the refs, the teammates(like their kicker) playing extremely well, and the other circumstances...certainly helped 'him' have three rings.
There is already considerable folly in judging individual players based on how many championships a team wins...no need to rehash all that. Judge him on HIS play, not how good his teammates are, or the favorable circumstances around him.
Why introduce fatal errors into the equation by using a criteria such as Team Titles for individual judgement? Is there not enough intelligent observers and analysts that cannot look at him, independent of luck or chance, independent of the play of others; that can utilize anecedotal and objective tools and be able to draw a sound conclusion...instead of just using the knee jerk-hype reaction of, "he won three titles, therefore he is better than so and so who only won one, or zero."
After all, if Brady truly were a 'winner', and had some intangible trait that Marino or Manning do not posesses, that allows him to call upon and win...then he should have been calling upon that the last several years. Is he dumb for not calling upon it? Or were the circumstances no longer in his favor as they were in the other years...circumstances that many other QB's did not have as often???
As for the judgement of the Patriots in relation to other all time great teams. Dominating teams like the 49ers and Cowboys do look stronger when all the evidence is taken into consideration.
This is not a knock on Brady, as there is enough evidence to elevate him extremely high among all-time QB's...no need to cheapen that ranking with the over hyped knee jerk 'title' argument.
<< <i>I wonder how many Superbowls the Patriots would have won if the Patriots had not received a break from the referee during the game with Oakland ['the tuck rule"] that avoided a fumble at a critical moment.
I am no fan of Oakland, but everytime a see a replay of that play, I come away scratching my head thinking "How can that not be a fumble?" >>
It still looks like a fumble
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers.
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER!
<< <i>weinhold,
If Tom Brady (and I give him a lot props) and the Patriots were THAT good prior to losing all those players, why did they sneak by in the Super Bowl as well as many other postseason games. Contrast that with Joe Montana and the Niners (whom I HATE) who ripped apart the best teams in the league when they were playing. Not just squeaking by. >>
That's a valid question, thanks.
The NFL average margin of victory is very small. So it isn't that surprising that the New England Patriots' Super Bowl wins were too.
Joe Montana's Niners - whom were terrific and certainly dominated the competition more than the 2000s Patriots - benefitted from retaining players for longer durations. They already "jelled", they knew each other, and players could spend less time having to "learn the system". There is more player movement now. Belichick and Brady are smart enough and talented enough to keep adapting, making them the top team of the "'00s" decade.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
The New England Patriots are the Best cheaters EVER! >>
I certainly agree.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
The New England Patriots are the Best cheaters EVER! >>
I certainly agree.
Ok Ok I get it! You live in your world and I will live in mine!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
Is there anyone that disagrees with this and why?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
Is there anyone that disagrees with this and why? >>
Keith Thank You for your support, I will say that this was a tongue in cheek statement by myself HOWEVER there is absolutely ZERO question that the 00's Pats would crush the 60's Pack, 70's Steelers, anyone that thinks differently is not a smart Football fan IMO, the 80's 9'ers Im pretty confident they would hold the upper hand. The 90's Cowboys would match up well enough to win but that would need to be seen to make a positive determination.
Please someone like BlackLabel spout off that a Jim Brown led Browns 50's or 60's team would dominate though so I can laugh..
Yeah, I hate it when the refs enforce the rules of the game.....It's one thing to have a problem with the rule, but to say they got "a break" because the ref enforced the rule that is the rulebook is absurd.
<< <i><<<I wonder how many Superbowls the Patriots would have won if the Patriots had not received a break from the referee during the game with Oakland ['the tuck rule"] that avoided a fumble at a critical moment.>>>
Yeah, I hate it when the refs enforce the rules of the game.....It's one thing to have a problem with the rule, but to say they got "a break" because the ref enforced the rule that is the rulebook is absurd. >>
And that play had sooooooooo much to do with those wins against Carolina and Philadelphia!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
Is there anyone that disagrees with this and why? >>
Keith Thank You for your support, I will say that this was a tongue in cheek statement by myself HOWEVER there is absolutely ZERO question that the 00's Pats would crush the 60's Pack, 70's Steelers, anyone that thinks differently is not a smart Football fan IMO, the 80's 9'ers Im pretty confident they would hold the upper hand.
.. >>
We have a comedian on this site
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
Is there anyone that disagrees with this and why? >>
Keith Thank You for your support, I will say that this was a tongue in cheek statement by myself HOWEVER there is absolutely ZERO question that the 00's Pats would crush the 60's Pack, 70's Steelers, anyone that thinks differently is not a smart Football fan IMO, the 80's 9'ers Im pretty confident they would hold the upper hand.
.. >>
We have a comedian on this site
Not as funny as you when you like to doctor quotes to your liking though!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>this is a completely unbiased statement given by a lifelong Saints fan. the Patriots of the last 8 or so years could not hold the 80s 9ers or the early 90s Cowboys jocks. Not even close. >>
Or the 60's packers, and 70's Steelers. >>
Sure they can, they would completely crush any of those teams. The New England Patriots are the Best EVER! >>
Paul (Perkdog) is basically right here. As far as the "Teams Of The Decade", I believe that the mighty '00s Patriots would beat any others such as the '40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.
Is there anyone that disagrees with this and why? >>
Keith Thank You for your support, I will say that this was a tongue in cheek statement by myself HOWEVER there is absolutely ZERO question that the 00's Pats would crush the 60's Pack, 70's Steelers, anyone that thinks differently is not a smart Football fan IMO, the 80's 9'ers Im pretty confident they would hold the upper hand.
.. >>
We have a comedian on this site >>
The reason that I state the 2000s Patriots "Team Of The Decade" would beat any other "Team Of The Decade" ('40s Packers, '60s Packers, '80s Niners, etc.) is because every generation of NFL player and team is generally physically bigger, faster, and stronger. Each generation, there are also advancements realized in training methodology, coaching strategy and philosophy, play-drawing complexity, athletic specialization, and injury prevention that previous generations did not have access to.
Can you imagine the Packers' great Jerry Kramer trying to block and open holes for HOF Running Back Jim Taylor versus Patriots "Team Of The Decade" 2000s "bigs" like the Patriots' Vince Wilfork or Richard Seymour? No way. As late as the '60s, players were still playing both sides of the ball sometimes - offense and defense. Additionally, they might have spent the offseason working the offseason in car sales or concrete finishing. This even applies to Hall Of Fame players like Chuck Bednarik. That is why I state that the 2000s Patriots are the "Team Of The Decade" that would beat any other "Team Of The Decade".
Do I think the 2000s Patriots were more dominant in their peak era than the 1980s Niners were in theirs? No. The Joe Montana - Roger Craig - Jerry Rice - John Taylor - Charles Haley - Ronnie Lott Niners were more dominant relative to the competition at that time.
This generational succession most likely means that the self-projected "Team Of The Current Decade" 2010s New England Patriots will be even better than the "Team Of The Last Decade" 2000s New England Patriots. As mind-boggling as that is, there's also this: Tom Brady is projected to get even better-looking this decade.
_________________________________
January 25, 2011
NEW YORK (AP)—It’s unanimous. And Tom Brady has outdone even himself.
The record-setting Patriots quarterback is the leading vote-getter for The Associated Press 2010 NFL All-Pro Team, the seventh straight year at least one player has gotten every vote. Three years ago, when Brady set the league record for touchdown passes, he missed by a half-vote of being unanimous, sharing a ballot with Brett Favre.
As usual, Brady prefered to deflect praise to the rest of the Patriots, who went 14-2 this season before losing in the playoffs to the Jets.
“I’ve been here for a while, so I’ve seen our offense evolve,” Brady said. “We do some different things now than we’ve done in the past. Ultimately we’re still trying to do the same thing, which is be productive and win games.”
Brady won those 14 games as the league’s leading passer, and he went a record 335 attempts without an interception. Overall, he threw for 36 touchdowns and had just four picks.
Brady is one of three New England players selected to the squad by a nationwide panel of 50 media members who regularly cover the NFL. He is joined by guard Logan Mankins(notes) and inside linebacker Jerod Mayo.