Brady's Bedtime Buddies

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by holmester

And when luck whens you 3 out of 4 superbowls let me know so i can shove a rabbits foot up leprechauns ass and then shove that leprechaun up Snyders ass.

Being the best team in the league in 2003 and 2004 certainly had a lot to do with that. Just because you are the best team doesn't make you a champion. Just ask 2005 Indy, and 2006 SD and Baltimore. If the Patriots had gotten the bounces those teams had (although for 2005 Indy, they just ran into Pittsburgh on the wrong day), we wouldn't be hearing much about them, would we?

Don't even get me started on the 2001 team. They were maybe the 11th or 12th best team in the regular season, only got into the playoffs playing a last place schedule, and as we all know, probably shouldn't have gotten by a much better Oakland team in the divisional round. Not to mention their path after than included a team Quarterbacked by Kordell Stewart, and a Rams team who certainly did not play their best game in the Super Bowl. 2001 NE was probably the luckiest season ever.

2002 NE was a much better football team than 2001 NE, and they didn't even make the playoffs. How's that for luck varience?

So if you can find THAT leprechaun, I will bend Danny Snyder over myself.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by holmester

And when luck whens you 3 out of 4 superbowls let me know so i can shove a rabbits foot up leprechauns ass and then shove that leprechaun up Snyders ass.

It cracks me up when people say NE is lucky. Not only have they won the 3 sb's, but they did something that you might not see again in this life time. They ran off 21 or 22 straight wins in a row. That is soooooooooooo hard to do in the NFL it's not even funny. They have had some turnover too. But what they have is Tom Brady and the guy is simply a great QB. He get a lot of pub. but he deserves all the praise he gets.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Being the best team in the league in 2003 and 2004 certainly had a lot to do with that. Just because you are the best team doesn't make you a champion. Just ask 2005 Indy, and 2006 SD and Baltimore. If the Patriots had gotten the bounces those teams had (although for 2005 Indy, they just ran into Pittsburgh on the wrong day), we wouldn't be hearing much about them, would we?

Don't even get me started on the 2001 team. They were maybe the 11th or 12th best team in the regular season, only got into the playoffs playing a last place schedule, and as we all know, probably shouldn't have gotten by a much better Oakland team in the divisional round. Not to mention their path after than included a team Quarterbacked by Kordell Stewart, and a Rams team who certainly did not play their best game in the Super Bowl. 2001 NE was probably the luckiest season ever.

2002 NE was a much better football team than 2001 NE, and they didn't even make the playoffs. How's that for luck varience?

So if you can find THAT leprechaun, I will bend Danny Snyder over myself.

Bend Danny over? AHHH What is next, rainbow avatars?

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Bend Danny over? AHHH What is next, rainbow avatars?

You are homophobic aren't you?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Great to me does not mean hall of famer for the record. I'm guessing it does to you, but let's not assume that because I'm calling a guy great, I'm stamping his ticket to Canton.

Brunell in his prime was certainly great, IMO. He would probably rank in the top 40 all time, part because good QBs were rare prior to the Young, Marino, Elway era. He's still capable of doing good things, and did a lot for this team last year, but you and I both know hes best suited to be a backup now.

I think the word great is thrown around way too much. Right now I would say the NFL has two great QB's. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. And then the 2nd tier is McNabb, Palmer, Brees and possibly Bulger. But all those 2nd tier guys have the chance to be great.

You are probably just too young to remember but in the 70's and early 80's the NFL had plenty of really good QB's. Dan Fouts and Ken Stabler were two of my old time favorites. And no one threw as nicer looking ball than Warren Moon in his prime. Do you realize that Warren Moon would hold almost every single passing record if the NFL didn't pass him over? But alot of the the stats of the old timers don't match up w/ today's Qb's becasue the passing game and the rules have changed so much. In the old days DB's could just kill wr's. Now they can't touch them. It's the Mel Blount rule.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Being the best team in the league in 2003 and 2004 certainly had a lot to do with that. Just because you are the best team doesn't make you a champion. Just ask 2005 Indy, and 2006 SD and Baltimore. If the Patriots had gotten the bounces those teams had (although for 2005 Indy, they just ran into Pittsburgh on the wrong day), we wouldn't be hearing much about them, would we?

Don't even get me started on the 2001 team. They were maybe the 11th or 12th best team in the regular season, only got into the playoffs playing a last place schedule, and as we all know, probably shouldn't have gotten by a much better Oakland team in the divisional round. Not to mention their path after than included a team Quarterbacked by Kordell Stewart, and a Rams team who certainly did not play their best game in the Super Bowl. 2001 NE was probably the luckiest season ever.

2002 NE was a much better football team than 2001 NE, and they didn't even make the playoffs. How's that for luck varience?

So if you can find THAT leprechaun, I will bend Danny Snyder over myself.

01 Pats did not have the most talent. That is for damn sure. But they were the best team. Look at the 05 Redskins? We played some of the shitiest teams in the NFL on our playoff run. We got to play teams that were on their 2nd and 3rd qb's. But no one cares. A win is a win in the NFL.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I think the word great is thrown around way too much. Right now I would say the NFL has two great QB's. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. And then the 2nd tier is McNabb, Palmer, Brees and possibly Bulger. But all those 2nd tier guys have the chance to be great.

You are probably just too young to remember but in the 70's and early 80's the NFL had plenty of really good QB's. Dan Fouts and Ken Stabler were two of my old time favorites. And no one threw as nicer looking ball than Warren Moon in his prime. Do you realize that Warren Moon would hold almost every single passing record if the NFL didn't pass him over? But alot of the the stats don't match up w/ today's Qb's becasue the passing game and the rules have changed so much. In the old days DB's could just kill wr's. Now they can't touch them. It's the Mel Blount rule.

Duely noted and I think its a great point. But I also think that Brunell in his hey day was very comprable to those 2nd tier guys you named. So if that gave him a chance to be great, then he's guilty as charged.

Fouts, Stabler, and Moon were great QBs. You can run their era-adjusted numbers, or just watch the old NFL-films highlight reels, and you arrive at that conclusion. But then again, those guys are all hall of famers, so I don't think you are exactly going out on a limb here.

Throw Ken Anderson on that list too. This guy is easily one of the 15 best QBs ever to play.

But back then, the emphasis in the college game was not on the passing game. Thus, less kids became quarterbacks, and even fewer became NFL QBs. There just werent enough good QBs to go around 20-30 years ago because an NFL caliber talent came out once every 2-3 years.

Now, 3-4 QBs each year have NFL caliber skill with a ton more catching on as backups. With a certain percentage of these players becoming great, it isnt surprising that there are so many more HOF worthy QBs playing today when compared with yesteryear.

[Defensewins]

I am a Big fan of watching really well played football.
There are a few unknowns that has me interested to see how the Pat's will play:
1) In his entire career, Tom Brady has never thrown to as good a receivers as R. Moss & D.Stallworth and TE's Ben Watson and Kyle Brady.

2) Likewise, Randy Moss has never played with a Qb as good as Brady and never played on an offense as loaded as the Pat's.

3) Adding TE as Kyle Brady as a second TE gives the offense great flexibility and a good change of pace to be able to play two good TE's at same time.

4) Nobody talks about Laurence Maroney, but he may be the biggest beneficiary and have a break out year.

5) The defense is talented and deep. The last reamining weakness they had on defense was depth at safety. They addressed it in a big way with drafting U of Miami FS Brandon Meriweather. He was one the best safeties in college football in 2006. Versatile safety who stood out at safety and cornerback at Miami.

Anything can happen. It should be interesting to watch.

REDSKINS will still be my team. But I will also watch the Pats in 2007.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

01 Pats did not have the most talent. That is for damn sure. But they were the best team. Look at the 05 Redskins? We played some of the shitiest teams in the NFL on our playoff run. We got to play teams that were on their 2nd and 3rd qb's. But no one cares. A win is a win in the NFL.

There was the Rams game...and that was it right?

Yeah, a win as a win, and the goal of the game is to win, but not all wins are of equal difficulty, obviously. The 01 Pats didn't get a lot of quality wins, and you could make a case that there were teams more deserving of their playoff spot than they were. But due to the way scheduling is designed to help lesser teams win more games (thus, parity), NE just happened to win 11 games.

I mean, obviously the biggest function of luck was Bledsoe getting injured...the only time he missed games in his career. Thats not going to be an 11 win team with Bledsoe, not even close.

Even with Brady, they lacked a lot of talent. I mean, they were among the better half of teams that year, but I mean shouldn't have been able to run with Oakland or Pittsburgh, much less the Rams.

The tuck rule received a lot of publicity, but what sometimes goes unnoticed is that had the weather not been such a big factor in that game, the score wouldn't have even been close.

Oakland lost the last three games of their season after starting 10-3 and clinching their division in Week 14. They lost to Tennessee, Denver, and someone else that year to end the season, all three on the last play of the game. Crazy finishes, too. But thats how close they came to securing the No. 2 seed, and being able to blow out an inferior New England team in the divisional round, assuming they even made it that far.

But that's the role that luck plays in football. Makes legends out of players who aren't necessarily deserving (and Brady would become deserving within 2 years, but we didn't know that).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I am a Big fan of watching really well played football.
There are a few unknowns that has me interested to see how the Pat's will play:
1) In his entire career, Tom Brady has never thrown to as good a receivers as R. Moss & D.Stallworth and TE's Ben Watson and Kyle Brady.

2) Likewise, Randy Moss has never played with a Qb as good as Brady and never played on an offense as loaded as the Pat's.

3) Adding TE as Kyle Brady as a second TE gives the offense great flexibility and a good change of pace to be able to play two good TE's at same time.

4) Nobody talks about Laurence Maroney, but he may be the biggest beneficiary and have a break out year.

5) The defense is talented and deep. The last reamining weakness they had on defense was depth at safety. They addressed it in a big way with drafting U of Miami FS Brandon Meriweather. He was one the best safeties in college football in 2006. Versatile safety who stood out at safety and cornerback at Miami.

Anything can happen. It should be interesting to watch.

REDSKINS will still be my team. But I will also watch the Pats in 2007.

Their back 7 is still pretty problematic. Rodney Harrison was a great player, but who knows what they are getting now? If Merriweather has to contribute as a rookie, things could get brutal. Samuel is good, but probably a bit overrated. Ellis Hobbs?

Their LBs are old too. Colvin is getting up there. Bruschi and Vrabel are getting up there. Adailus Thomas was a 30 year old last year, and they invested a lot in him.

The Pats are certainly a solid SB pick, but like every team, they have their holes.

[bigm29]

I agree with everything except for moss. No reciever, and i mean no reciever could have had a great season with the raiders the last two years. Randy did not want to play there and was not trying. People are gonna see this season why he is indeed THE BEST RECEIVER IN THE NFL. thats right i said it

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by bigm29

I agree with everything except for moss. No reciever, and i mean no reciever could have had a great season with the raiders the last two years. Randy did not want to play there and was not trying. People are gonna see this season why he is indeed THE BEST RECEIVER IN THE NFL. thats right i said it

The best receiver in the NFL doesn't "play when he wants to play" or play only when hes happy, while sucking the rest of the time. Inconsistency does not equal greatness no matter how talented you are.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

It cracks me up when people say NE is lucky. Not only have they won the 3 sb's, but they did something that you might not see again in this life time. They ran off 21 or 22 straight wins in a row. That is soooooooooooo hard to do in the NFL it's not even funny. They have had some turnover too. But what they have is Tom Brady and the guy is simply a great QB. He get a lot of pub. but he deserves all the praise he gets.

But do you not realize that winning 3 sbs and reeling off 21-22 straight wins in a row are A-list examples of exactly how lucky this team has been over the years.

They are good. They were the best football team in the league in 2003 and 2004 which is very tough to do. But they were lucky to play 21 games without running into a bad matchup at least once.

Great luck combined with great skill is a deadly combination.

[bigm29]

Ill restate that: Best reciever when he wants to be

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by bigm29

Ill restate that: Best reciever when he wants to be

Probably. I've never seen anyone with more physical skill, but that doesn't get one far at all without a work ethic.