The Official OS New England Patriots Haterz Club

[BigDaddyHolmes]

I remember all through the 90's everyone said Emmitt Smith was better then Barry Sanders because the Cowboy SB hype train. Now read any poll and sanders gets 60% to 70% of all time best rb votes. Smith lucky to grab 10%

Brady easy top 5, but I'd still take Montana, Manning, Elway over Brady myself. Marino was prob top 5 too. Its funny all some people see is rings. Bradys in a organization that could reach a superbowl without him. They are well coached, and a complete team, as was Montanas 49ers to be fair. Nobody has ever thrown the ball over a carear like Manning IMO. Elways talent was incredible too. Elway made mediocre teams in the 80's look good with his one man skills

[Lerxt]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chip Douglass

New England's four Super Bowl wins were by a combined 13 points. Off the top of my head, the number of breaks the Patriots have had in their Super Bowl runs: 1. Tuck rule, followed by Vinateri making a long field goal in a blizzard with no time remaining. 2. Game-winning field goal in the 2002 Super Bowl against the Rams. 3. John Kasay's kickoff going out-of-bounds, setting up a last-second field goal by Vinateri to win their second Super Bowl. 4. Billy Cundiff missing a chip-shot FG in the 2012 AFC title game. The Patriots lost that Super Bowl, but it was still a super-lucky break to get there. 5. The interception at the 1 yard line in last Sunday's game. So yeah, the Patriots have had their luck in the Super Bowl (or during their first SB run, even getting there).

Greatest post of all time. #2 and #5 are just executed plays that were made by a Kicker and a DB. #1, while seen as "luck" by some was correctly called by the ref. Go do some research on it.

I know it the Haterz thread, but man, whatever makes you sleeo better at night, I guess...

[ehh]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigDaddyHolmes

Brady easy top 5, but I'd still take Montana, Manning, Elway over Brady myself. Marino was prob top 5 too. Its funny all some people see is rings. Bradys in a organisation that could reach a superbowl without him. They are well coached, and a complete team, as was Montanas 49ers to be fair. Nobody has ever thrown the ball over a carear like Manning IMO. Elways talent was incredible too. Elway made mediocre teams in the 80's look good with his one man skills

It's scary how similar Montana and Brady's careers and situations are. Steve Young more or less picked up where Montana left off, the team hardly missed a beat. Matt Cassel hadn't started a football game since he was in HS and came in and led the Patriots to an 11-5 record after Brady's injury.

Both had an amazing coaches and great defenses. Montana had world-class individual talent all around him.

Brady has the best coach in history at adjusting and maximizing talent. All week people have been talking about the low number of offensive Pro Bowlers Brady has had during his Super Bowl seasons. To me, that's a credit to Belichick, not Brady. Belichick is in full control of personnel, if he wanted to go out and pay for big name WR's he could do it. That's the genius of him, he knows you can pay peanuts for WR's and RB's and his system will still work. It's not like big offensive free agents were like "oooh, no! I don't want to go play with the great Brady & Belichick!". New England never pursued those guys.

During their dynasty a decade ago they featured the best pass-blocking OL I have ever seen. Brady had forever to throw the ball, and granted they still featured a lot of dink-and-dunk (I'd love to know how many times they called that late-release dump off over the middle to Kevin Faulk), they were able to throw downfield more. Later, they caught lightening in a bottle with Moss, then moved to the two-TE system. Now they're throwing everything under 10 yards because they have small, quick WRs and because Brady's downfield throwing ability has really regressed the last couple of years. Belichick made all of that happen. He constantly reinvents their offense/system based on personnel. I have never seen anything like it.

So yeah, to me, a huge part of Brady's success if Belichick, who's now probably the greatest coach in the history of American sport. He's probably ahead of Phil Jackson given the parity of the NFL. In general, both Brady & Montana were system QB's. I wouldn't fault anyone for saying Elway or Marino were better quarterbacks than Brady or Montana. That's also why Peyton vs Brady is kinda of dead IMO. Manning has had A LOT to work with over his career.

[dales]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chip Douglass

New England's four Super Bowl wins were by a combined 13 points. Off the top of my head, the number of breaks the Patriots have had in their Super Bowl runs: 1. Tuck rule, followed by Vinateri making a long field goal in a blizzard with no time remaining. 2. Game-winning field goal in the 2002 Super Bowl against the Rams. 3. John Kasay's kickoff going out-of-bounds, setting up a last-second field goal by Vinateri to win their second Super Bowl. 4. Billy Cundiff missing a chip-shot FG in the 2012 AFC title game. The Patriots lost that Super Bowl, but it was still a super-lucky break to get there. 5. The interception at the 1 yard line in last Sunday's game. So yeah, the Patriots have had their luck in the Super Bowl (or during their first SB run, even getting there).

There's a difference between "breaks" and making plays.
1. OAK still had a chance to stop NE and didn't. AV still had to make that kick. Were they helped by the enforcement of a rule? Sure. But they made all the plays after that and OAK didn't.

2. How is this a break? Brady drove them down there with one timeout and AV had to make a 48 yard FG to win. STL got a "break" by having a fumble return for a TD called back on a holding call.

3. Yes, Kasay helped big time by kicking it OOB. That game was tied and Brady had no trouble, again, moving NE down field for the GW kick.

4. Cundiff's kick would have tied the game up. They would have gone to OT. Who's to say NE doesn't win in OT?

5. SEA got away with helmet to helmet hits twice (once by Bennett on Brady on the Lane INT, and another by Chancellor on Edelman). And let's not forget how lucky Kearse was to catch that ball to even put them in position to score. But again, Butler made a terrific play in the biggest spot.

Super Bowls are tough to win. NE could be 0-8 in them but they've made the plays to win them in 4 while barely losing two of them. How lucky were the NYG in 2007 for holding to not be called on the Tyree catch then to actually have that catch made? How lucky were they that Samuel didn't pick off the pass that was in his hands? How lucky were they in 2011 that Gronk was injured?

The point is, each game is more than just one play. The team that deserved to win in each of those, did.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lerxt

Aren't they 4 - 2?

Quote: Originally Posted by lhslancers

No they're 4-2. The Giants were decidedly inferior.

Yep, 4-2. Sorry for that mistype Pats fans.

Point still stands... they are exactly what they should be. Doesn't matter how inferior we believe one of the teams are, the game is played on the field. That "decidedly inferior" team sure looked like they had a defense that flustered one of the best offenses in recent years.

Quote: Originally Posted by Lerxt

Greatest post of all time. #2 and #5 are just executed plays that were made by a Kicker and a DB. #1, while seen as "luck" by some was correctly called by the ref. Go do some research on it. I know it the Haterz thread, but man, whatever makes you sleeo better at night, I guess...

Quote: Originally Posted by dales

There's a difference between "breaks" and making plays. 1. OAK still had a chance to stop NE and didn't. AV still had to make that kick. Were they helped by the enforcement of a rule? Sure. But they made all the plays after that and OAK didn't. 2. How is this a break? Brady drove them down there with one timeout and AV had to make a 48 yard FG to win. STL got a "break" by having a fumble return for a TD called back on a holding call. 3. Yes, Kasay helped big time by kicking it OOB. That game was tied and Brady had no trouble, again, moving NE down field for the GW kick. 4. Cundiff's kick would have tied the game up. They would have gone to OT. Who's to say NE doesn't win in OT? 5. SEA got away with helmet to helmet hits twice (once by Bennett on Brady on the Lane INT, and another by Chancellor on Edelman). And let's not forget how lucky Kearse was to catch that ball to even put them in position to score. But again, Butler made a terrific play in the biggest spot. Super Bowls are tough to win. NE could be 0-8 in them but they've made the plays to win them in 4 while barely losing two of them. How lucky were the NYG in 2007 for holding to not be called on the Tyree catch then to actually have that catch made? How lucky were they that Samuel didn't pick off the pass that was in his hands? How lucky were they in 2011 that Gronk was injured? The point is, each game is more than just one play. The team that deserved to win in each of those, did.

In reply to both of you, you're not saying anything against the point he's making. It's football... **** happens. Yes, some of these examples are "luck" and some are just plays the other team made... and there are an equal number of plays the Pats have made or got lucky with. It sounds like you 2 want to argue something different, but his post was about the idea that the Pats should be 6-0 (or 5-1) in the playoffs. That makes no sense.

[Chip Douglass]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lerxt

Greatest post of all time. #2 and #5 are just executed plays that were made by a Kicker and a DB. #1, while seen as "luck" by some was correctly called by the ref. Go do some research on it. I know it the Haterz thread, but man, whatever makes you sleeo better at night, I guess...

Ugh, my post got completely misinterpreted, probably because I have a Bills avatar on. Not an anti-Patriots ***** post in the least.

I was basically trying to say that the whole "Patriots could easily be 6-0 in Super Bowls" point is misleading because the Patriots needed some breaks to win 4 of those Super Bowls. I don't see how that's in any dispute at all. You're telling me it wasn't a MASSIVE break that Seattle didn't run the ball at the 1 yard line on 2nd and goal and instead threw an INT that sealed the game for New England? I think everyone understands that Butler made an incredible play on the ball, but New England was soooo lucky Butler was in a position to make that play in the first place.

The Patriots were unlucky to lose the 2 Super Bowls to the Giants because of some pretty incredible catches (Tyree in the 1st, Manningham in the 2nd) and they caught some breaks that helped them win 4 of them.

Quote: Originally Posted by dales

There's a difference between "breaks" and making plays. 1. OAK still had a chance to stop NE and didn't. AV still had to make that kick. Were they helped by the enforcement of a rule? Sure. But they made all the plays after that and OAK didn't. 2. How is this a break? Brady drove them down there with one timeout and AV had to make a 48 yard FG to win. STL got a "break" by having a fumble return for a TD called back on a holding call. 3. Yes, Kasay helped big time by kicking it OOB. That game was tied and Brady had no trouble, again, moving NE down field for the GW kick. 4. Cundiff's kick would have tied the game up. They would have gone to OT. Who's to say NE doesn't win in OT? 5. SEA got away with helmet to helmet hits twice (once by Bennett on Brady on the Lane INT, and another by Chancellor on Edelman). And let's not forget how lucky Kearse was to catch that ball to even put them in position to score. But again, Butler made a terrific play in the biggest spot. Super Bowls are tough to win. NE could be 0-8 in them but they've made the plays to win them in 4 while barely losing two of them. How lucky were the NYG in 2007 for holding to not be called on the Tyree catch then to actually have that catch made? How lucky were they that Samuel didn't pick off the pass that was in his hands? How lucky were they in 2011 that Gronk was injured? The point is, each game is more than just one play. The team that deserved to win in each of those, did.

Without breaking down each individual play that I mentioned, I'll just say that there's not necessarily a contradiction between making a great play and catching a break.

The Vinateri kick in the blizzard against Oakland was a great kick, but I'm pretty sure the percentages of made FGs in blizzards aren't high. The Tuck Rule was probably the correct call, but it's still a break that a potential game-ending turnover was wiped out by an obscure rule. Again, not a contradiction.

Winning close games in and of themselves are breaks because of how one play can change a game.

Quote:

Super Bowls are tough to win. NE could be 0-8 in them but they've made the plays to win them in 4 while barely losing two of them. How lucky were the NYG in 2007 for holding to not be called on the Tyree catch then to actually have that catch made? How lucky were they that Samuel didn't pick off the pass that was in his hands? How lucky were they in 2011 that Gronk was injured? The point is, each game is more than just one play. The team that deserved to win in each of those, did.

Well, this is basically my point. Luck works both ways. When you play 6 close Super Bowls, a 4-2 record seems about right considering how many fluke plays can turn a game.

We're basically on the same side of this.

[Cardot]

Looking at the past several SB Champs, it is interesting that most of them had some narrow escapes along the way.

2014 - NE with the late INT to beat SEA. But SEA needed an Onside Kick and a few other things against GB to even be there.

2013 - SEA blows out Denver, but might not had been there if Kaepernick makes a different late game decision in the NFCCG.

2012 - Bal over SF with the 49'ers coming up 5 yards short late. Bal also survived double OT in Denver in the divisional round, while SF had to sweat out a late Atlanta drive in the NFCCG

2011 - NE/NYG II: Manningham and Welker. And both teams barely made it past the Conference Championship: Evans/Cundiff for the Pats, OT and a fumbled punt in SF for the Giants.

2009 - NO/Indy: An ill advised Favre INT late in the NFCCG.

2008 - Pit/Arz - Dubious INT return by Harrison and then Holmes toe touch TD at the end.

2007 - NE/NYG I - Tyree/Assante Samuel. NYG also survived OT in the NFCCG and was another recepient of a Favre INT.

2006 - Indy/Chi - Colts win a tight game in the AFCCG vs. NE. Trailed 21-3. Took the lead with 1 minute left and held off a late Brady drive.

2005 Pit/Sea - In the Divisional Round, Roethlisberger makes a shoe string tackle on a fumble recovery return to save the game.

[Lerxt]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chip Douglass

Ugh, my post got completely misinterpreted, probably because I have a Bills avatar on. Not an anti-Patriots ***** post in the least. I was basically trying to say that the whole "Patriots could easily be 6-0 in Super Bowls" point is misleading because the Patriots needed some breaks to win 4 of those Super Bowls. I don't see how that's in any dispute at all. You're telling me it wasn't a MASSIVE break that Seattle didn't run the ball at the 1 yard line on 2nd and goal and instead threw an INT that sealed the game for New England? I think everyone understands that Butler made an incredible play on the ball, but New England was soooo lucky Butler was in a position to make that play in the first place. The Patriots were unlucky to lose the 2 Super Bowls to the Giants because of some pretty incredible catches (Tyree in the 1st, Manningham in the 2nd) and they caught some breaks that helped them win 4 of them. Without breaking down each individual play that I mentioned, I'll just say that there's not necessarily a contradiction between making a great play and catching a break. The Vinateri kick in the blizzard against Oakland was a great kick, but I'm pretty sure the percentages of made FGs in blizzards aren't high. The Tuck Rule was probably the correct call, but it's still a break that a potential game-ending turnover was wiped out by an obscure rule. Again, not a contradiction. Winning close games in and of themselves are breaks because of how one play can change a game. Well, this is basically my point. Luck works both ways. When you play 6 close Super Bowls, a 4-2 record seems about right considering how many fluke plays can turn a game. We're basically on the same side of this.

Ah, my bad. I got my Pats sensitivity panic button out without reason. I get your point, the fact that they won 4 shouldn't be taken as a "given" because the 4 wins were close games. So, to say they should be 6-0 is kind of factoring in that the four wins are in the bag.

I agree with your point completely.