Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

it's hard to say anything negative about the pats simply because they've been so consistantly good. i feel that they have definately upgrade their wrs and i would say they should be seen as the favorites to win the superbowl. the colts lost a few key players and the bolts lost a few key coaches, the pats on the other hand, gained a few key players.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=gabe1984;305495]Yes, I left out the players who were on the team last year on purpose, I was talking about the new additions. And I'll make this point again... You can say that the Pats were one 1st down away from playing in the Superbowl, but I say they were one Charger fumble, a fluke charger fumble at that, from not even playing in the AFC championship.[/quote]Don't forget the 4 other fumbles, all recovered by NE...somehow.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

Funny, when I first read this thread I thought about Giselle and Moynehan.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=wolfeskins;305530]it's hard to say anything negative about the pats simply because they've been so consistantly good. i feel that they have definately upgrade their wrs and i would say they should be seen as the favorites to win the superbowl. the colts lost a few key players and the bolts lost a few key coaches, the pats on the other hand, gained a few key players.[/quote]Well, they've definately done a great job in March and April for about 6 consecutive seasons now. They have strong, intelligent management.

But that's all that seperates teams like NE, Philly, and SD from the rest of the league. They aren't any more likely to luck into wins than any other team.

Some article I was reading made a great point. The Eagles are just the NE Patriots without the lucky bounces. Both teams have done an excellent job building their franchises, but when it comes to clutch situations, Philly gets hosed and the Pats pull a rabbit out of a hat.

And as a confirmed Eagle hater, I'm glad. But eventually, NE's luck will run out on them.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=wolfeskins;305530]it's hard to say anything negative about the pats simply because they've been so consistantly good. i feel that they have definately upgrade their wrs and i would say they should be seen as the favorites to win the superbowl. the colts lost a few key players and the bolts lost a few key coaches, the pats on the other hand, gained a few key players.[/quote]

You obviously did not read points 1-4 :laughing-

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

hopefully when that luck does run out, it runs straight to the washington redskins

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

The Patriots will be....excuse me.....are stacked. They added Thomas, a beast and will create mayhem in that defense. then they add two receivers who can make plays down field, along with the guys they had when they were a couple of plays from probably a 4th superbowl. I hate the Pats, but they are the team to beat right now. Randy Moss will be the Moss he was 5 years ago in Minnesota. Brady and Bilichek(spelling??) will have him playing at his best, and he will be dominant again. Plus Maroney being full time, I dont know how they wouldn't be the favorites to go all the way

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Manusky91;305539]You obviously did not read points 1-4 :laughing-[/quote]

you will eat your words manusky

In addition, at no point did I ever say that the Patriots are not going to be a good team next year. All I'm saying is that I hate how they're always hyped up, and these are my "weak at best" reasons as to why I believe so. But we'll see what happens.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=gabe1984;305548]you will eat your words manusky[/quote]

I hope so, because I'm sick of the Pats always being good. I'd also like to have more fun when I go to the game at Foxboro this year.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

i see know other team in the afc north posing a serious threat to the patriots.

they remain the only team in that division wth the luxury of absolute security at the qb position (pennington is an arguable exception but let's see 2 consecutive injury free seasons 1st).

the dolphins are undertaking yet another regime change. who knows who they'll really have under center this season. and that defense aint gettin any younger. i don't see them being any better than last year.

the bills should show improvement. they've had a good offseason thus far. their success depends heavily on the development of losman which is sketchy. marshawn lynch should be a big help.

IMO the 2nd best team is the jets. with an upright and able bodied pennington they could definitely push for a wild card spot. they also will need thomas jones to pan out. who knows what will happen there...

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=J. Spanky;305557]i see know other team in the afc north posing a serious threat to the patriots.

they remain the only team in that division wth the luxury of absolute security at the qb position (pennington is an arguable exception but let's see 2 consecutive injury free seasons 1st).

the dolphins are undertaking yet another regime change. who knows who they'll really have under center this season. and that defense aint gettin any younger. i don't see them being any better than last year.

[B][I] the bills should show improvement. they've had a good offseason thus far. their success depends heavily on the development of losman which is sketchy. marshawn lynch should be a big help.[/I][/B]

IMO the 2nd best team is the jets. with an upright and able bodied pennington they could definitely push for a wild card spot. they also will need thomas jones to pan out. who knows what will happen there...[/quote]

Offensively maybe, but they also lost their best CB and LBs in Fletcher and Spikes.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

Since when did the Pats, Dolphins, Bills, and Jets join the AFC North?

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;305560]Since when did the Pats, Dolphins, Bills, and Jets join the AFC North?[/QUOTE]

east.. u know what i mean dude.


[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;305560]Offensively maybe, but they also lost their best CB and LBs in Fletcher and Spikes.[/QUOTE]

valid point. i was tryin not to get TOO in depth in my 1st ever post lol

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

AH! LOL I didn't realize. Welcome!

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

tom brady makes all of them better. tom brady is the reason that they will go to the superbowl

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=jdlea;305493]Yeah, 7th in the NFL in passing yards isn't very good considering his targets...yes, I'd say he was ripping it up.[/quote]

What Brady did last year was simply amazing if you ask me. Who is more valuable to their team other than Manning? NE takes away his two starting wr's and brings in cast offs. Plus Chad Jackson didn't do anything. So all the guy does is throw for 24td's 12ints and 3500yards. I remember the Mon, night game where he just put on a passing clinic against Minnesota's defense. The guy is simply a great quarterback.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Manusky91;305468]swallowing displays true love.[/quote]

stay on topic!!!! ...

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;305525]7th=ripping it up?

I thought you were in the "Brunell isn't getting it done" corner because top 10-12 wasn't good enough. Brady was better than 10-12 (at least by pass yardage), but if 7th is ripping it up, and 9th or 12th or whatever Brunell was when he got benched isn't, where's the line?

I thought Brady had a sub par year by his ohttp://www.thewarpath.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=305525
Redskins Warpath - Reply to Topicwn standards. I don't think Caldwell and Gaffney are world beaters of course, but Brady had done much better with mediocre-to-good guys like Branch and Troy Brown, so I don't think having slightly different mediocre receivers changed very much.[/QUOTE]

Caldwell and Gaffney suck. They're not good football players, that's why they were available. Given his targets, 7th in the league is ripping it up. And the difference wasn't the passing yardage, it was wins and losses with Brunell. Last time I checked, that wasn't much of a problem for the New England Patriots last season. And 1789 in 9 games with 8 td's isn't in the same realm as 2052 with 15 touchdowns. Especially not when Mark Brunell had a top 5 wide out and a top 10 TE and that doesn't even mention Randle El or Lloyd (both of whom were better than everyone on the Pats last season).

So yeah, Brunell wasn't playing well enough, but Tom was. I'd agree he had a down year, but I'm saying that all things considered, Tom had a pretty good season. Take away anybody's top 4 targets and then have him go out and have a good season, show me someone who could.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;305580]What Brady did last year was simply amazing if you ask me. Who is more valuable to their team other than Manning? NE takes away his two starting wr's and brings in cast offs. Plus Chad Jackson didn't do anything. So all the guy does is throw for 24td's 12ints and 3500yards. I remember the Mon, night game where he just put on a passing clinic against Minnesota's defense. The guy is simply a great quarterback.[/QUOTE]

That's the point I'm trying to make. And I think he's more valuable than Peyton. Take away Manning's 4 favorite targets over one offseason and then show me how successful he is.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

God willing, the Patriots won't make the SB this season. Just because they stocked up on talent doesn't mean squat. Just look at us and the Danny's history of trying to buy a SB. Tired of the Patriots to be honest and any game they are in is a nice tight battle usually, but very boring in the process as the last several SBs have been sloppy and the refs have taken over the game too often. I miss the Redskins, 49ers, Cowboy ass kickings in the 80's and 90's to be honest. At least you saw one team display excellence.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=hesscl34;305590]stay on topic!!!! ...[/quote]

she knows its true..

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=jdlea;305636]Caldwell and Gaffney suck. They're not good football players, that's why they were available. Given his targets, 7th in the league is ripping it up. And the difference wasn't the passing yardage, it was wins and losses with Brunell. Last time I checked, that wasn't much of a problem for the New England Patriots last season. And 1789 in 9 games with 8 td's isn't in the same realm as 2052 with 15 touchdowns. Especially not when Mark Brunell had a top 5 wide out and a top 10 TE and that doesn't even mention Randle El or Lloyd (both of whom were better than everyone on the Pats last season).

So yeah, Brunell wasn't playing well enough, but Tom was. I'd agree he had a down year, but I'm saying that all things considered, Tom had a pretty good season. Take away anybody's top 4 targets and then have him go out and have a good season, show me someone who could.[/quote]

No need to even compare the two at this point. They are not even in the same ballpark. Yes we all know Brunell was a top ten passer. But when it's 3rd & 8 and you complete a 6 yard pass it doesn't do shit as far as helping the team win. It doesn't keep drives alive. Yes, it looks good in the stat sheet but that's about it.

I mean at one point the guy had Jabbar Gaffney, Doug Gabriel, Troy Brown and Caldwell. And they were one first down from making the SB. Yes they got some breaks in the SD game but let's give credit where credit is due. If firmly believe that good teams make find a way to get breaks. You don't win 3 SB's by being lucky all the time.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=jdlea;305636]Caldwell and Gaffney suck. They're not good football players, that's why they were available. Given his targets, 7th in the league is ripping it up. And the difference wasn't the passing yardage, it was wins and losses with Brunell. Last time I checked, that wasn't much of a problem for the New England Patriots last season. And 1789 in 9 games with 8 td's isn't in the same realm as 2052 with 15 touchdowns. Especially not when Mark Brunell had a top 5 wide out and a top 10 TE and that doesn't even mention Randle El or Lloyd (both of whom were better than everyone on the Pats last season).

So yeah, Brunell wasn't playing well enough, but Tom was. I'd agree he had a down year, but I'm saying that all things considered, Tom had a pretty good season. Take away anybody's top 4 targets and then have him go out and have a good season, show me someone who could.[/quote]2006 Patriots with Brunell are still WAY better than the 2006 Redskins with Brady. I mean, its hard to dispute that, isn't it.

He had a pretty good season, no arguments here, I'm just asking where the line is drawn between "get him out of there" and "tearin it up", because it seems like there is little middle ground in your argument.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;305535]Funny, when I first read this thread I thought about Giselle and Moynehan.[/quote]
hey, great minds think alike. man, brady cant lose no matter how hard he tries:)

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=gabe1984;305415]we have the best Moss in the NFL[/quote]

If you are planning to drive please let me know where you are so I can warn everyone I know.

You cannot honestly say that Santana Moss is better than Randy Moss.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Mattyk72;305420]Reasons why I think Moss will be motivated:

-New England was the only team he wanted to go to, let's face it Oakland was a hole. That doesn't excuse how he played, but he obviously was miserable out there.

-He's basically playing on a one year deal in New England. He's playing for one last shot at a big payday and one last shot at winning a Super Bowl.

-He's got one of the best QBs in the game throwing him the ball.

-I don't think that locker room will let him be a distraction.

-Belichick is a master motivator, if Moss can't rebound in New England he's not going to rebound anywhere.[/quote]

Matty, you don't even have to spell this out. He is going to dominate the league next year. He has never had a QB as good as Brady.

I remember when Moss and Carter made Jeff George look like Marino.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;305741]If you are planning to drive please let me know where you are so I can warn everyone I know.

You cannot honestly say that Santana Moss is better than Randy Moss.[/quote]

They are two different types of receiver. There are things that you get from Santanna that you don't get from Randy and vise versa. But with that being said Steve Smith is better than Santanna (Same type of receiver).

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=angryssg;305744]They are two different types of receiver. There are things that you get from Santanna that you don't get from Randy and vise versa. But with that being said Steve Smith is better than Santanna (Same type of receiver).[/quote]

How are they different except that Randy is taller can jump higher and is faster?

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;305749]How are they different except that Randy is taller can jump higher and is faster?[/quote]

They have different skill sets. Randy is more possession, Santanna is more RAC. Granted they both do both. Randy may be a tad faster, but Santanna is quicker. And yes it is due to body type.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

I love Santana but he's not Randy Moss. Let's try and keep it real around here.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GTripp0012;305688]2006 Patriots with Brunell are still WAY better than the 2006 Redskins with Brady. I mean, its hard to dispute that, isn't it.

He had a pretty good season, no arguments here, I'm just asking where the line is drawn between "get him out of there" and "tearin it up", because it seems like there is little middle ground in your argument.[/quote]

If we put Brady on our team the whole offense is different. It would go from a don't make any mistakes, shotgun only on 3rd and long, short passing game to probably a spread out the field more with 3-4-5 wr sets, more aggressive playcalling, shotgun on first down type of offense. Not sure if that would translate into more wins w/ our defense but I know our offense would be MUCH better.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=skinsfan69;305755]I love Santana but he's not Randy Moss. Let's try and keep it real around here.[/quote]

Read the whole conversation. I am not doubting Randy. I merely said that they are two compleetly different types of receivers. I am probably more of a Randy advocate than either of you. If you don't believe me then look at the arguement that I had with Jsarno last night on the "Patriots' passing game: great or not?" thread.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=angryssg;305753]They have different skill sets. Randy is more possession, Santanna is more RAC. Granted they both do both. Randy may be a tad faster, but Santanna is quicker. And yes it is due to body type.[/quote]

Randy Moss is not a posession receiver. He is the best deep threat in the history of the league. Bar none.

Come on now.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

Talent is not an issue with this team but the only thing I worry about is this: they are entering the season as such overwhelming favorites they are going to face pressure which they have not in previous seasons. They have always excelled as the scrappy underdogs who don't get enough respect, whether improbably beating the Rams, dominating an Indy team who got all the regular season attention, or going into Pittsburgh and knocking off a 15 win team. Even last year was in many ways a rebuilding year for them. Certainly no one gave them a shot against the Chargers in the playoffs.

Let's see how they do.

But the one guy I wouldn't worry about is Moss. He is going do some special things this season.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;305769]Randy Moss is not a posession receiver. He is the best deep threat in the history of the league. Bar none.

Come on now.[/quote]

Whatever.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=angryssg;305774]Whatever.[/quote]

Whatever? So who is a better deep threat? You can have any other wideout in the history of the NFL.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=skinsfan69;305756]If we put Brady on our team the whole offense is different. It would go from a don't make any mistakes, shotgun only on 3rd and long, short passing game to probably a spread out the field more with 3-4-5 wr sets, more aggressive playcalling, shotgun on first down type of offense. Not sure if that would translate into more wins w/ our defense but I know our offense would be MUCH better.[/quote]If Brady was the Tom Brady from NE...not a whole lot would be different. Brady still plays a really conservative game. I mean, certainly you've realized this. Why do you think his INT totals are so low? He plays it safe.

If we asked him to open it up, inevitably we'd get more mistakes.

Of course Brady>Brunell. He's considerably younger and a bit more efficient. No one is arguing the contrary. But its a reasonable comparision because they approach offense fairly similarly.

Aggressive does not always equal better. Aggressive is one thing. Better is something else.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

Look at their stats since 2003 Santanna has a higher ypc AVG and more rececptions for more than 20 and 40 yards. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Once again I am not saying that Santanna is better, but that he has a different skill set.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=angryssg;305780]Look at their stats since 2003 Santanna has a higher ypc AVG and more rececptions for more than 20 and 40 yards. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Once again I am not saying that Santanna is better, but that he has a different skill set.[/quote]

You are 1000% wrong. Once again someone misuses stats to argue a bogus point.

Have you ever seen Randy Moss play when he is healthy? I ask a stupid question because the only way you can continue to argue this is if you say, "No".

Did John Madden say "just chuck it up there dog" to describe Santana Moss?

If you really believe what you are spewing, God help you.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;305785]You are 1000% wrong. Once again someone misuses stats to argue a bogus point.

Have you ever seen Randy Moss play when he is healthy? I ask a stupid question because the only way you can continue to argue this is if you say, "No".[/quote]

It's not a bogus point. Let me keep it simple for you.

Randy Moss= Go deep and jump for ball, catch ball.

Santanna Moss= Short route, catch ball, then run with ball.

Two different types of player!