Jump to content

When the Patriot Dynasty Ends...


nj meadowlands
 Share

Recommended Posts

More like Gronk can catch anything remotely near him.  Brady's downfield threats for the past decade have essentially been the most athletically gifted WR in NFL history and the most athletically gifted TE in NFL history.  I think as long as he's got those, he can move the ball downfield.  Short of that, you're looking at a guy who's doing exactly what his strengths allow.

But they are also his only 2 legitimate downfield threats that I can remember, Moss's year with Brady in 2007 was not only probably his best, but basically a return to form after having poop at QB in Oakland. I'm not sure you can say that happens with a QB that can't get the ball downfield. That's what would've happened had he came here with weak armed sissy like Pennington for sure

As to why Belly seems to target small agile Wr's I do not know, but I'd assume Brady prefers them as well. having a preference for one thing doesn't make someone bad at the other though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and there's winning ultimately and for a long period of time. Which he has, and shouldn't need to prove otherwise at this point. You must of forgot how this whole "border war" started. The jets wanted BB and were  pist he left for NE. you are fixed on his early years coaching also realizing over time, you do get better, you do develop. You don't stay head coaching because you just have a great QB. There are so many more aspect to coaching, that you fail to realize.  You are in the minority that feels his success is otherwise. That just where the debate ends(you are entitled to your opinion though).

 

I remember exactly how it started and I don't blame Kraft at all for the way he brought BB back.  what does that have to do w/ BB being a failure of a HC w/o Brady?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember exactly how it started and I don't blame Kraft at all for the way he brought BB back.  what does that have to do w/ BB being a failure of a HC w/o Brady?

I miss took your abbreviation of Bill Parcell's name as BB. But really the question is what does it matter who cared where "BP" landed after or before NE. We all agree he was a great coach and turned the Jets franchise around and didn't do a bad job in dallas either. Really like I said before, we don't agree with the whole BB thing, and it's cool. It's all in respect.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss took your abbreviation of Bill Parcell's name as BB. But really the question is what does it matter who cared where "BP" landed after or before NE. We all agree he was a great coach and turned the Jets franchise around and didn't do a bad job in dallas either. Really like I said before, we don't agree with the whole BB thing, and it's cool. It's all in respect.

No problem, we are allowed to disagree.  My position is BB failed as a HC w/o Brady, Brady gave him time to develop into a great HC which he has done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be fair that Bronco D faced much weaker competition in an era where the rules didn't favor the Os as much so that skews #s.  that was the same D that allowed 35 pts in one qtr 2 years earlier in the SB and in 3 Sbs allowed 39, 42 and 55.

to be fair scoring 55 against a defense that could actually hit the QB and abuse the WR's without the benefit of stolen signals is more impressive than scoring 18 against a defense that can't hit the QB or touch WR's when you know what the defense is doing ?

cool

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be fair scoring 55 against a defense that could actually hit the QB and abuse the WR's without the benefit of stolen signals is more impressive than scoring 18 against a defense that can't hit the QB or touch WR's when you know what the defense is doing ?

cool

 

different era, the NFC was head and shoulders better, this was pre FA era where most SBs were blowouts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please prove "most"

I'm fascinated

 

in the 80s:

SB XV: 27-10

SB XVI 26-20

SB XVII 27-17

SB XVIII 38-9

SB XIX 38-16

SB XX 46-10

SB XXI 39-20

SB XXII 42-10

SB XXIII 20-16

SB XXIV 55-10

just 2 SBs in the 80s were decided by a TD or less.  avg. margin of victory for SB winners was 21 PPG.  I would classify that as "most", wouldn't you?  Until recently SBs were usually blowouts.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pre FA, teams could keep their teams together for 5+ years.

 

There has only been one post-FA dynasty.

 

 

 

I hate your team but what that have been able to do in this era has been amazing.  Not the greatest team but I believe the greatest dynasty in the SB era

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the 80s:

SB XV: 27-10

SB XVI 26-20

SB XVII 27-17

SB XVIII 38-9

SB XIX 38-16

SB XX 46-10

SB XXI 39-20

SB XXII 42-10

SB XXIII 20-16

SB XXIV 55-10

just 2 SBs in the 80s were decided by a TD or less.  avg. margin of victory for SB winners was 21 PPG.  I would classify that as "most", wouldn't you?  Until recently SBs were usually blowouts.

 

 

 

so scoring 18 puts you on the losers side ?

txs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The misconception is that its all brady.  Bellichek is the guy who runs the ship.  They will replace brady and roll along just fine.  They did it for 1 season with an absolute scrub in cassel.

I wouldnt be expecting the dynasty to fall anytime soon.  Bellichek will coach for another 10 years. 

I wonder about that.  It would be interesting if Belichick does stay.  I'm sure he can keep them very competitive (a la the Bulls during Jordan's mid-career baseball absence).  My gut feeling is that Belichick and Brady retire together though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the 80s:

SB XV: 27-10

SB XVI 26-20

SB XVII 27-17

SB XVIII 38-9

SB XIX 38-16

SB XX 46-10

SB XXI 39-20

SB XXII 42-10

SB XXIII 20-16

SB XXIV 55-10

just 2 SBs in the 80s were decided by a TD or less.  avg. margin of victory for SB winners was 21 PPG.  I would classify that as "most", wouldn't you?  Until recently SBs were usually blowouts.

 

It's funny that I know (just about) instantly who played in each one of those superbowls just by the score.  The AFC went 2-8 in that decade and the Raiders won both for the AFC. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Larz, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

 

you know

when I challenged you and you chickened out ?

 

its simple.  you seem to think the pats titles are legit and not tainted.  I disagree.  most chowds fall back on the jealous/bitter jets fan theory. I disagree with that as well

my challenge to is to simply take the temperature of the average NFL fan by way of message boards.  Take a sample from at least 3 teams. You get to pick the teams, I would avoid teams the pats cheated out of a superbowl or playoff spot.  that doesn't leave you with many, but you can handle it !

start an account on the biggest board for that team, (try not let them know you are a delusional troll) and ask a simple poll question;

"Are the patriots titles tainted or legit?"

then link it here so we can see it

please spare me the excuse that you don't have the time, you have wasted probably over 3,000 hours posting on message boards :-)

so do you have the guts ?

 

 

Edited by Larz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fair to say that the Pats dynasty ended in 2005. If they had won this Super Bowl, it might have created a second dynasty. The Yankees dynasty ended in 2001. The 2009 win and the 2014 win for the Pats are outliers for the moment 

Pats have won 10+ games for the last 13 years in a row.

The dynasty continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha, tx is still a gutless turd, but now he's a liar for saying he doesn't know what my challenge is.

the challenge stands TX, as does your cowardice

That is a crappy challenge.

Not to cast aspersions of a populace I am a member of, but I would not go to a football message board in order to get an unbiased opinion on a subject.  Especially one where a team has probably kicked them in the teeth more than once over the past fifteen years.

Go look at this board on any range of subjects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing lasts forever, as we know. For all the talk about how ancient Peyton Manning is, Tom Brady will be 39 at the start of next season. Sure, he says he's going to play well into his 40's, but I'm sure getting pulverized by the Broncos D-Line gives him pause.

So, what will it be like when their dynasty ends?

Will the AFC see more than the same 3-4 teams go to the Super Bowl every single year?

Will the empty bench look of Foxboro Stadium return to Patsy land?

Will this message board be far less populated with Patsy slime? (or will they double down?)

I'm giddy at the thought, and hopeful that with the Jets seemingly ascending, it could finally finally finally finally finally be in sight.

Is there an assumption that Belidick will retire when Tommy Boy does? I hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is smart, but he also has a big ego; I think he may try and prove that it was him and not just Brady bringing the Dynasty.

his career w/ and w/o Brady tells us otherwise.  he'd be wise to quit and people can keep foolishly pointing out how he went 11-5 when Brady went down in 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

his career w/ and w/o Brady tells us otherwise.  he'd be wise to quit and people can keep foolishly pointing out how he went 11-5 when Brady went down in 2008.

He is not going quit when Brady retires, he has been around football all his life. One of very few coaches who have coached without playing. despite how you feel about his success being a big part of Brady. He has been doing this long enough to go on without Brady. It would be foolish if he honestly thought like you thought..his success is heavily based on Brady and should retire so people some how do not see the real truth about his coaching. Na..not the case.

 

 

I think you should seriously watch It's a football life: Bill Belichick if you hadn't seen it. If you watched it, you would know Bill Belichick is no Barry Switzer. and no, you aren't calling him that. But your whole tone is basically his success is based off of one player. And respectfully you are so wrong.

Edited by ghost_in_pads02
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...