pats-blue

Why does every thread you contribute to turn into a Culpepper love fest and the fish are SOOOO improved and the Pats reign is over and we need to get used to it?

Look at the title to the thread....There is no way that BB shouldn't be rated higher than Saban. The man has THREE SB's as a head coach (and we aren't talking Parcells ancient history here..this is recent) With the injuries the Pats had last year and the schedule guiding the Pats to the Denver game was a great achievement. You continually say how Brady is a "system QB" when comparing him to the great Culpepper but now don't want to give any credit to the person who created the system? Well just who on the Pats IS responsible for the Pats success? You continually flout Culpeppers great season a few years ago yet discount the Pats DOMINANCE of the AFC East and the NFL the last several years...again are we in the present or future you flip flop when it suits you.

It is a fact the Pats have been the class of the AFC the last several years, the fish have improved, but to beat the Pats they have to be BETTER than the Pats by IMPROVING by the amount they were BEHIND the Pats these last years. Have they closed the gap? Saban no question is a better coach than wanny, and Culpepper is a better QB than the previous QB's, but he has his own warts also and he STILL is a question mark on who shows up and how much he actually IMPROVES the fish.

If both these teams stay healthy, Pats win hands down...thier talent..including the COACH (what this tread is about) is still better than the fish even though they have closed the BIG gap that was there, but not enough to pass the Pats unless they are decimated by injuries..which BTW was the only reason the Pats had a BAD year for them at 10-6...they would have blown out the division with thier typical 14-2 record if they didn't miss over 100 games to thier starters.

desi-patsfan

Correct me if i am wrong but we were defeated in the SECOND playoff game. Also your whole quote is strange. What evidence do you have that you'll be better than the pats? None, your team won one less game last year and had ZERO playoff games. Everyone is 0-0 so deal with it.

dhamz

It is simply what the evidence of the last 2 years says. In 04 in 11 games with Moss, 30 TDs. In the 5 without him, 9. When Moss played the first 5 games the team was 4-1 and Culpepper threw for 242, 343, 360, 396, and 425. They lose moss for the next 5 and go 2-3 as he throws for 183, 231, 169, 363, and 233. Last year 6 games, 12 picks and if he doesn't get hurt he probably gets benched soon in favor of Brad Johnson. You don't think Moss made a huge difference in his performance?

Does that mean he won't be better than Gus? He likely will be IF he can keep his turnovers under control which he has struggled with at times.

SoonerPatriot

1. Never said it didn't happen. I did say 5 of the 6 came against some of the WORST teams in the league. Which is a stone cold fact. Care to dispute those teams as anything more than lousy? The sixth, was in fact a glorified scrimmage and you know it. Flutie was drop kicking extra points. I know it hurts that the win was completely meaningless, but sometimes the truth hurts.

2. Who cares what Culpepper did in 2004. When last we saw him in a real game he stunk on ice and writhing around on the ground clutching his knee.

Miami goes 9-7 this year, if they're lucky. Deal with it and move on. You'll be happy you did.

__________________
Celebrating the wonders of the ignore list.

PonyExpress

it's important to keep in mind that these ex-scouts working at ESPN for the "war room" or whatever they call it, are all angling to get back in the biz. So they butter up coaches in the league for their own reasons. For example, at draft time Keith Kidd, a former Pats scout fired by Pioli (I assume he was in charge of rds 2-7 of the '04 draft) had some ridiculous and inappropriate comments about Scott published. He had a transparent axe to grind. These NFL teams are like warring Fiefdoms in the middle ages and the ex-scouts are trying to hook on with one feudal lord or another.

SoonerPatriot

Scouts Inc. is total crap. I paid for that stuff for awhile and then concluded they had no real inside info and you could find just about everything else they wrote for free someplace else. It's sad because espn.com used to be great. It's been steadily going downhill ever since they made it a defacto pay-only site. CNNSI and PFT websites are infinately better sources of info.

__________________
Celebrating the wonders of the ignore list.

PonyExpress

I had a similar experience with ESPN "Insider". After a while I felt like I was buying a shiny turd. And then their godawful magazine started arriving at my house, pure embarrassment. The shame of it was, the pages were too slippery to wipe your ass with.