If the Patriots would of made the playoffs in 2002

fnordcircle · Apr 10, 2016

Bartmac36 said:
L-o-l* ?

*SENTENCE INCOMPLETE*
*PROCESSING ERROR*
*SHUTTING DOWN....*

sb1 · Apr 10, 2016

BobDigital said:
Here is how I see every year.

2000 - No. Rebuilding.
2001 - In retrospect they had a very good team and by the end of the year deserved to be in the top 5 ranked. A clear over achievement though.
2002 - Talent wasn't there injuries aside.
2003 - Took care of business. Did what they should have.
2004 - Same as above. Clearly the best team that year.
2005 - They were the best team but a 3peat is hard to ask for
2006 - Not good enough on O. Too bad cause if they got past the Colts it be an easy win and were still one of the best teams
2007 - Should have won.
2008 - lost year
2009 - rebuild
2010 - rebuild but a very good team.
2011 - a very good team but not the clear top. Right up their with a few
2012 - Same as 2011
2013 - Same as 2012
2014 - The best team and they won
2015 - The best team and bad luck with injuries.
2016 - TBD

I don't think the 2005 Patriots belonged anywhere near the conversation of best team to be honest.

pazrul72 · Apr 10, 2016

sb1 said:
I don't think the 2005 Patriots belonged anywhere near the conversation of best team to be honest.

I agree with this only because I have a recurring nightmare of watching Monte biesal trying to tackle runners. The LB situation that year went from one of the best in the league to one of the worst. 2002 does not bother me as they had already massively overachieved and were not one of the top 5 most talented teams. I think the better question would have been what would have happened if Bruschi had not had a stroke? He had very quietly emmerged as a top 5 ILB with a nose for big plays at key moments and I have to ask could he have made that magic play or three we needed for the three-peat at full health. My answer is a definite maybe

DaBruinz · Apr 10, 2016

BobDigital said:
Here is how I see every year.

2000 - No. Rebuilding.
2001 - In retrospect they had a very good team and by the end of the year deserved to be in the top 5 ranked. A clear over achievement though.
2002 - Talent wasn't there injuries aside.
2003 - Took care of business. Did what they should have.
2004 - Same as above. Clearly the best team that year.
2005 - They were the best team but a 3peat is hard to ask for
2006 - Not good enough on O. Too bad cause if they got past the Colts it be an easy win and were still one of the best teams
2007 - Should have won.
2008 - lost year
2009 - rebuild
2010 - rebuild but a very good team.
2011 - a very good team but not the clear top. Right up their with a few
2012 - Same as 2011
2013 - Same as 2012
2014 - The best team and they won
2015 - The best team and bad luck with injuries.
2016 - TBD

2005 - They had no running game to speak of.. Not when they had to use 6 different RBs including Mike Cloud, Amos Zeroue, Patrick Pass and Heath Evans. Dillion missed 5 games.

This is also the year that Ted Johnson was forced to retire and Bruschi had the stroke. This forced them to try Monty Beisel and Chad Brown inside essentially leaving the Pats with no ILBs until they started using Vrabel there and Bruschi's return.. Sorry, but they weren't close to being the best team.

2012 - Replacement refs cost the Pats 2 games. Also, the year Ray Lewis would retire at the end of the season. NFL made sure that Ray left with a ring.

brdmaverick · Apr 11, 2016

I'm a huge fan, but even I have to admit that this team was NOT a good team. They would have gotten destroyed by someone in the playoffs.

Almost every season the team lays one egg during the season that surprises you but at the same time you think........oh, just a bad day (think Arizona in 2012, Browns in 2010, Dolphins in 2004, Bills in 2003, etc).

This year, it wasn't an anomally, they got trounced quite regularly.....and it wasn't just because they were having a bad day. No, they were a bad team. They were 9-7 and I can remember some pretty awful losses....at Miami, at San Diego, vs Green Bay, vs Denver, at Tennesse, at Oakland and vs NY. That's seven losses right there all in embarrassing fashion. Don't fool yourself into thinking they were just a play or two away in each game from winning.

brdmaverick · Apr 11, 2016

DaBruinz said:
2005 - They had no running game to speak of.. Not when they had to use 6 different RBs including Mike Cloud, Amos Zeroue, Patrick Pass and Heath Evans. Dillion missed 5 games.
.

I agree that the 2005 team was a far inferior team to the Championship one from the year before.

In fact, guys like Duane Stark and Michael Stone were running around in the secondary ('nuff said).

sb1 · Apr 11, 2016

brdmaverick said:
I agree that the 2005 team was a far inferior team to the Championship one from the year before.

In fact, guys like Duane Stark and Michael Stone were running around in the secondary ('nuff said).

Yup. The stats accurately reflected how wretched that team was at stopping the passing game.

I remember how tough it was to stomach watching Peyton Manning and the Colts completely embarrass this team in our own stadium.

sb1 · Apr 11, 2016

brdmaverick said:
I'm a huge fan, but even I have to admit that this team was NOT a good team. They would have gotten destroyed by someone in the playoffs.

Almost every season the team lays one egg during the season that surprises you but at the same time you think........oh, just a bad day (think Arizona in 2012, Browns in 2010, Dolphins in 2004, Bills in 2003, etc).

This year, it wasn't an anomally, they got trounced quite regularly.....and it wasn't just because they were having a bad day. No, they were a bad team. They were 9-7 and I can remember some pretty awful losses....at Miami, at San Diego, vs Green Bay, vs Denver, at Tennesse, at Oakland and vs NY. That's seven losses right there all in embarrassing fashion. Don't fool yourself into thinking they were just a play or two away in each game from winning.

Agreed. While 9-7 isn't a "bad" record against a first place schedule it was obvious they were miles downhill from the great AFC teams like the Raiders and Titans, and the regular season games against those two teams accurately reflected the gap.

The Chiefs and Priest Holmes exposed this defense's flaws and it was all downhill from there. Brady of course still had the reins on him and wasn't quite TFB just yet.

letekro · Apr 11, 2016

BobDigital said:
There are years that I think "they should have won" but 2002 is not one.

Do you think of 2001, 2003, and 2014 as years that they "should not of" won? Doesn't the theory that they "should of" won because they lost a close game go the other way too?

Galeb · Apr 11, 2016

fnordcircle said:
*SENTENCE INCOMPLETE*
*PROCESSING ERROR*
*SHUTTING DOWN....*

10 minutes after this post you should have replied with:

SLGDEV · Apr 11, 2016

Wax Frog said:
Sure, go ahead and rob the thread of all the Spelling Police drama!

No. Grammar police.

SLGDEV · Apr 11, 2016

Jackson 2 said:
Yes, seriously. Honestly, not trying to bust your balls. I generally enjoy your posts. We all make errors, typos, etc., It's just that most of us have our "things" that bug us and "of" instead of "have" is one of mine. No insult intended.

This has been fun. I must say that I cringed when I read the title of this thread, but left it for others to comment upon. It took on a life of its own and it was funny.

Now here is a tiny English quiz: What word and its negation mean exactly the same thing? For those that don't want the answer right away, please on to the next post as I am including a lot of blank lines here before the answer.

flammable and inflammable.

glm · Apr 11, 2016

Patriot Missile said:
Oh the trifecta that season of Ricky Williams, Priest Homes and Ladanian Tomlinson. Back to back to back. After those 3 consecutive games of giving up 700+ yards on the ground it didn't take a rocket scientist like MP to figure out that team wasn't going far.

Still amazed they lost the division in a 3 way tie. Not much bragging rights there. Wouldn't really call it convincing fashion.

Don't forget that after that trifecta that the next two games had Ahmad Greene and Clinton Portis running for about 250 yards and scoring 4 TD's.

BobDigital · Apr 11, 2016

letekro said:
Do you think of 2001, 2003, and 2014 as years that they "should not of" won? Doesn't the theory that they "should of" won because they lost a close game go the other way too?

I think in 2003 and 2004 they should have won. Not in 2001.

In retrospect looking back they were a very good team in 2001. A young Brady is still Brady. That D was legit good and Troy Brown was sick good that year. They had other good skill players like Patton, and Smith as well of course but Brown was a top 5 skill position player that year imo.

I think they probably were worse overall then a few teams. I think Oakland was probably a bit better as was St Louis to be totally honest. So i think the Pats were fortunate things turned out in their favor and they beat the odds.

Wax Frog · Apr 11, 2016

SLGDEV said:
No. Grammar police.

@Tunescribe beat you to the punch!

I am pleading mental exhaustion. Karma, it seems, can have an instant turnaround time...

letekro · Apr 11, 2016

BobDigital said:
I think in 2003 and 2004 they should have won. Not in 2001.

In retrospect looking back they were a very good team in 2001. A young Brady is still Brady. That D was legit good and Troy Brown was sick good that year. They had other good skill players like Patton, and Smith as well of course but Brown was a top 5 skill position player that year imo.

I think they probably were worse overall then a few teams. I think Oakland was probably a bit better as was St Louis to be totally honest. So i think the Pats were fortunate things turned out in their favor and they beat the odds.

Agree. I didn't mean to single you out. I just think people want to have it both ways with the "should have" game.

BobDigital · Apr 11, 2016

letekro said:
Agree. I didn't mean to single you out. I just think people want to have it both ways with the "should have" game.

Its fine i don't feel singled out and am never shy about giving my opinion. all that being said the Patriots are do a break in the Brady/BB era before it all evens out. If all goes to plan they should not need said break next year to win it.

fair catch fryar · Apr 11, 2016

One-Be-Lo said:
No offense, but you're totally missing Jackson's original joke..

To my defense I didn't realize the OP changed his original post to fix it grammatically. Had I known that beforehand, I would not of missed the joke.

Wax Frog · Apr 11, 2016

BobDigital said:
In retrospect looking back

BobDigital · Apr 11, 2016

Wax Frog said:

Officer I swear she told me she was a proper English statement!

If the Patriots would of made the playoffs in 2002

The poster who James White said inspires him.

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Pats, B's, Sox

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Practice Squad Player

Practice Squad Player

In the Starting Line-Up

Pro Bowl Player

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Pro Bowl Player

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Pro Bowl Player

Similar threads