- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 16,482
- Reaction score
- 1,343
Woody is dead to me ....
Might want to check with your doctor...there is Viagra you know
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Woody is dead to me ....
Might want to check with your doctor...there is Viagra you know
I know a guy that is on Viagra so he doesn't piss on his shoes.
Have to agree. THe 2001 Pat were not a talent laden team at any offensive position, and few defensive positions.That's a fairly accurate statement...
Have to agree. THe 2001 Pat were not a talent laden team at any offensive position, and few defensive positions.
Brady and Brown were pro-bowlers. Woody was solid. Patten had 51 catches. A Smith was a 1100 yd rusher w/ 12 TDs. Faulk was emerging.
You don't win SBs by having horse-poop offenses.
And if you take away the immaculate drive, Eli escaping a sack, Tyree Cirque du Soleiling a catch on his helmet and the bungled time keeping by the officials the Giants almost didn't win Superbowl 42.Yea 6th in points, albeit 19th in yards.
Let's also not kid ourselves into thinking the end result was due to the team definitely being the best in the NFL that year. The tuck rule, as much of a correct call as it is, is inches/miliseconds away from knocking us out of the playoffs. 2001 team was good, but people continue to underestimate outside factors when talking about championships.
Yea 6th in points, albeit 19th in yards.
Let's also not kid ourselves into thinking the end result was due to the team definitely being the best in the NFL that year.
The tuck rule, as much of a correct call as it is, is inches/miliseconds away from knocking us out of the playoffs. 2001 team was good, but people continue to underestimate outside factors when talking about championships.
Doesn't matter how much you win by, as long as you win.
Not kidding anyone. They were. In hindsight, that was a very talented team with a core of great players.
Doesn't matter how much you win by, as long as you win.
Yeah but they don't have Matt Walsh.
That's a fairly accurate statement...
I'm not saying they weren't, but similar to 2007, the end result doesn't prove that they were clearly the best team in 2001. Hey, don't get me wrong I'll never trade 2001 for anything. I still remember bursting out into the streets with our patriots jerseys flying with everyone just going wild. The stress leading up to the kick, and the kick... and everything, man it was just a perfect turn of events
That is what matters true, it's not the be-all end-all judge of objective analysis though. But anyway, I'm not putting any more negative thoughts into my brain or this thread with regards to 2001. 2001 patriots were the best team to ever play football!
I agree, talent is overrated. Getting the right players performing roles and doing their jobs effectively as a team is what counts.
If the jobs are done by 6th round picks, and out of favor players vets like Phifer and Antowain, so much the better. More money to build with. Brady was kept on a short leash that season, making very safe passes for the most part.
Wouldn't mind seeing a little more of that, to tell you the truth.
We managed to have a lot of players not do their jobs and some coaches not know what they were trying to accomplish this year with quite a few big bucks or high dtaft pick "talent".
They beat the Raiders, Steelers and Rams. How else do you decide the best team?
You don't win SBs by having horse-poop offenses.
But he still threw 12 INT in 14 games, compared to 13 this year.