Super Bowl Gameday Thread

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Why do you put words into my sentences that aren't there? Tom is one of the greatest regardless of whether they win that game or not. In fact, just listen to how stupid this is. You are judging Tom based on a sequence of plays he isn't involved with. However that play went last night shouldn't change Tom's status as one of the best. It's not like he "lost his clutch ability" if they lose it.



The difference between you and me is that I recognize BB as one of the top 2 coaches of all time and continues to put complete teams around Brady, whereas you think the Patriots would not be crap without him.

Not crap but not 4 time superbowl champions. Not even close. I think BB is a tremendous coach.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Not crap but not 4 time superbowl champions. Not even close. I think BB is a tremendous coach.

Yea I agree with this. They would probably be like what the Lions or Bengals are right now.

I don't think Bill has ever assembled a defense that was good enough to win it on its own. Like the 2001 Ravens or last year's Seattle.

He is great at both offense and defense. Some coaches just know how to assemble talent on both sides.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by donofriose

Yea I agree with this. They would probably be like what the Lions or Bengals are right now.

I don't think Bill has ever assembled a defense that was good enough to win it on its own. Like the 2001 Ravens or last year's Seattle.

He is great at both offense and defense. Some coaches just know how to assemble talent on both sides.

Thing is, Tom didn't play very good the first Super Bowl. I think he played like dog shit if I'm correct. (70-80 QBR) Those years in early 2000s were good to win with or without Tom. In fact, Drew Bledsoe had to get the win in Pittsburgh that year for them to even go to the Super Bowl.

Also, I"m going to compile the numbers and show you guys how good some of those defenses were early on. Those teams weren't flashy nor did they put a bunch of points, but they rode the defense, got turnovers, let Brady manage the game and finish it off with Vinateri's foot.


edit: changed two to first

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Thing is, Tom didn't play very good the first two Super Bowls. I think he played like dog shit if I'm correct. (70-80 QBR) Those years in early 2000s were good to win with or without Tom. In fact, Drew Bledsoe had to get the win in Pittsburgh that year for them to even go to the Super Bowl.



Also, I"m going to compile the numbers and show you guys how good some of those defenses were early on. Those teams weren't flashy nor did they put a bunch of points, but they rode the defense, got turnovers, let Brady manage the game and finish it off with Vinateri's foot.

So is he top five all time as you have said a couple times or is he just lucky and Would be nothing without his kicker? Lmao. Ive never seen anybody try to argue two sides of an argument in my life like you have over the last few pages of this thread. Lol. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP IT MAN - HE IS GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT. If not for him the Pats wouldnt have won a single god damn superbowl.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by punch it in

So is he top five all time as you have said a couple times or is he just lucky and Would be nothing without his kicker? Lmao. Ive never seen anybody try to argue two sides of an argument in my life like you have over the last few pages of this thread. Lol. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP IT MAN - HE IS GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT. If not for him the Pats wouldnt have won a single god damn superbowl.

I think you miss the point entirely. I play devils advocate when you gush over Tommy boy and point out that Tom would be nothing without his teammates. The same is true for the likes of Vinateri and the rest of the team. They wouldn't be as successful as they are with him. I happen to think that the earlier Patriots teams didn't need him as much as they do now. I don't know why I even bother responding to your ludicrous notions because they sound like most other short sighted fanboy out there. Joe Montana had help. Tom Brady had help. Peyton Manning had help. All three of these guys are in the top 5 and none of them would be who they are without their team. I'm not here to argue two sides of the coin, just to refute the crap you guys spew.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Thing is, Tom didn't play very good the first two Super Bowls. I think he played like dog shit if I'm correct. (70-80 QBR) Those years in early 2000s were good to win with or without Tom. In fact, Drew Bledsoe had to get the win in Pittsburgh that year for them to even go to the Super Bowl.

Also, I"m going to compile the numbers and show you guys how good some of those defenses were early on. Those teams weren't flashy nor did they put a bunch of points, but they rode the defense, got turnovers, let Brady manage the game and finish it off with Vinateri's foot.

1st one I would say they needed an Eli Manning type of QB. One who just needs to be clutch. I'll give you the first one that they didn't need elite play for that super bowl. They still needed a clutch QB but not an elite QB

Second one is definitely not true. They almost gave up 400 yards of offense and kept giving up big play after big play. They needed 32 points to win the game. Tom Brady had to throw the ball almost 50 times for 350 yards and 3 touchdowns.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by donofriose

1st one I would say they needed an Eli Manning type of QB. One who just needs to be clutch. I'll give you the first one that they didn't need elite play for that super bowl. They still needed a clutch QB but not an elite QB



Second one is definitely not true. They almost gave up 400 yards of offense and kept giving up big play after big play. They needed 32 points to win the game. Tom Brady had to throw the ball almost 50 times for 350 yards and 3 touchdowns.

Shhhh he is compiling numbers to show you how Brady had nothing to do with those superbowls. Also to show you he is top five all time and awful, great, lucky, unlucky, handsome, ugly, rich, poor, fat, skinny and bald with a head full of luscious hair.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by donofriose

1st one I would say they needed an Eli Manning type of QB. One who just needs to be clutch. I'll give you the first one that they didn't need elite play for that super bowl. They still needed a clutch QB but not an elite QB

Second one is definitely not true. They almost gave up 400 yards of offense and kept giving up big play after big play. They needed 32 points to win the game. Tom Brady had to throw the ball almost 50 times for 350 yards and 3 touchdowns.

You are correct. Maybe it was one of the other games leading up to the SB I was thinking about where he played like dog shit. I just know he's had some bad games and still got wins. I find it interesting looking at past and current QB ratings for the post-season.

NFL Career Playoffs Passer Rating Leaders | Pro-Football-Reference.com

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Thing is, Tom didn't play very good the first two Super Bowls. I think he played like dog shit if I'm correct. (70-80 QBR) Those years in early 2000s were good to win with or without Tom. In fact, Drew Bledsoe had to get the win in Pittsburgh that year for them to even go to the Super Bowl.

Also, I"m going to compile the numbers and show you guys how good some of those defenses were early on. Those teams weren't flashy nor did they put a bunch of points, but they rode the defense, got turnovers, let Brady manage the game and finish it off with Vinateri's foot.

What? Dude you're out of your mind. You're trying too hard to prove your point. In the 2nd SB he had 350 yards and 3 TD's. He hit Deion Brach numerous times with pinpoint throws.

The first SB he was average cause at that point of his career he was an average player. He's made himself into a great player the following years.

How many QB's throw the ball 50 + times and win the game? You have to realize that a coaching staff has to have a tremendous amount of trust in your QB to run an offense like that. Brady is one of the very few QB's that has that kind of trust because he's earned it.