- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 49,609
- Reaction score
- 28,303
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.Here:As someone asked on the Whiner Line, "where the hell was that damn camera last January?"
If anyone wants to play the "Superbowl years are tainted" angle, they should look at the games played those years. I looked at 2003 and 2004 for instances where the Pats played a team twice within a year's time and the second time resulted in a significant offensive gain for the Pats.
In 34 victories, there were only only 5 games that qualified as having the potential for the Pats gaining some kind of unfair advantage...and 3 are easily explained:
2003 BUF 31-0 (lost 0-31 earlier that year)
No explanation needed for anyone who saw the games. The teams were mirror images of each other from the start to the end of the year.
2004 at CLE 42-15 (won 9-3 the year before)
The 2003 game was the fluke (God it was awful to watch) and the Browns had already begun circling the drain by that time in 2004.
2004 AFCC at PIT 41-27 (lost 20-34 earlier that year)
I had to tape the game since it was on Halloween night and I have young kids. Never got around to watch the tape but gathered that the game wasn't pretty. Regardless, the Pats' defense forced a boatload of turnovers in the AFCC game to account for the scoring (and winning) difference.
Here are the two games that I don't have a ready explanation available for the scoring difference:
2003 TEN 38-30 (lost 7-24 the year before)
2003 at DEN 30-26 (lost 16-24 the year before)
I could just say the 2003 team was dramatically better than the 2002 team (and I would be correct) but that is too easy. If I get a chance I'll see if I power up the wayback machine and see if anything jumps out at me.
The point is that in those 2 superbowl years (34-4), there were exactly 2 games out of 38 that a reasonable person could suspect that "cheating" was involved. So the "tainted" superbowl argument just doesn't wash when exposed to the facts.
2004 AFCC at PIT 41-27 (lost 20-34 earlier that year)
I had to tape the game since it was on Halloween night and I have young kids. Never got around to watch the tape but gathered that the game wasn't pretty. Regardless, the Pats' defense forced a boatload of turnovers in the AFCC game to account for the scoring (and winning) difference.
The 2002 team couldn't stop the run to save it's life! And in 2002 we played the Titans and Eddie George, and Denver's "insert RB here" run offense.
Plus, in 2003, Denver's starter(plummer) and back-up QBs were out with injury. The 3rd string QB played that game.
Adding Rodney Harrison drastically improved the run defense.
All true, but doesn't necessarily explain the jump in offensive output (what "cheating" would supposedly allow the Pats to do). It could if the defense scored or gave the offense short field opportunities...my memory is not good enough to recall enough details to say for sure.
Corey Dillon's absence doesn't explain why the Patriots had a poor offense that day?
I distinctly remember that game when the Pats had to abandon the run completely without Dillon, and Brady was shellacked by Pittsburgh blitzers.
It's worth noting that in the first game in Pittsburgh, the Patriots were without: Daniel Graham, Matt Light, Ty Law, Deion Branch, Corey Dillon and, I believe, others. The second time they played, only Ty Law was unable to suit up. Think THAT made a difference? I won $100 based on that difference from a stupid Pitt fan who didn't buy my prediction.
What goes around comes around, my brotha!
Corey Dillon's absence doesn't explain why the Patriots had a poor offense that day?
I distinctly remember that game when the Pats had to abandon the run completely without Dillon, and Brady was shellacked by Pittsburgh blitzers.
"where the hell was that damn camera last January?"