2005 Playoffs

[QuantumMechanic]

Those losses in between have nothing to do with losses at Denver. That's one of the most absurd things I've seen posted on this forum.

As for the losses in Denver, let's take a look at 6 of them:

2001: Brady's first year as a starter
2005: two losses; the team wasn't very good
2013: missing multiple top players on both sides of the ball
2015: two losses; NE had among the most man games lost due to injury

None of the aforementioned had anything specifically to do with venue.

The NE center wouldn't have been tipping the snap count if the AFCCG game was in Foxboro.

 

[mosslost]

We weren't as good as the previous teams. Plus, l think the Steelers weren't going to be stopped that postseason. Everything ( Roethlisberger tackle on Harper preventing TD stands out) aligned.

We would have smoked the Steelers at home. Probably would have won that Super Bowl too. We gave away the last game of the year, we would have been 11-5 as good as 2001 regular season.

 

[mosslost]

We lost because we didn't have a very good team that year. It has nothing to do with where the game was being played.

But by all means, continue putting out this imbecilic narrative.

actually Pats should have beat Denver that game.

 

[mosslost]

The narrative that TB12 and the Pats struggle in Denver (unless Tim Tebow is playing).

Brady was undefeated in the playoffs until that game...and then came the heartbreaks:
2006 Indy choke (still hurts)
2007 Giants
2008 ACL
2009 blowout vs B'More
2010 home loss to Jets
2011 Giants
2012 AFCCG loss vs Ravens
2013 loss @Denver
2014 we came full circle

The playoff losses and SB drought was bookended by losses @Denver.
The narrative is fact.

the Denver factor is totally real for the Pats. It is only imbecilic to deny it.

 

[mosslost]

The Brady era Patriots are 9-12 against the Steelers - pwnage.

9-2?

 

[mosslost]

Ty Law cut in the offseason, Harrison out with his knee getting shredded, Bruschi after a stroke, Seau not there yet. Yeah, they just lacked talent.

still had Vrable, McGinnest, Bruschi, Sey, Colvin, Wilfork.. they were loaded. Easily would have crushed the Steelers and should not have lost the Denver game.

 

[mosslost]

2006

I have no problem acknowledging to anyone that the 2001 Patriots team was probably one of the worst Super Bowl winning teams in the past 20 years (tougher to compare teams of different eras). Furthrmore, there have been MANY teams that have been better than the 2001 Pats that did NOT win the Super Bowl.

I don't mean any disrespect to the team but it's the truth. In fact in a weird way I think that is backwards complement to the team for getting the most out of the least (and isn't the true genius of Belichick?)

2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 (except for injury) 2015 Pats all teams that did not win the SB that were better than the 2001 team.

 

[PF_SU]

9-2?

Probably meant as 9-of-12

 

[mosslost]

Probably meant as 9-of-12

ahh

 

[brdmaverick]

I'm not going to get into a debate if the 01 team was better than the 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers. I hate those and it's irreverent to me. I do take exception to those who say that the 01 team was a low-end SB champion because its not true. The talent level disputes that premise..

Wow, now I'm going to sound like a hater but I'm sorry there is so much wrong with your overall response (I didn't quote the whole thing b/c it's too long, but...)

You take exception with those who say the 01 was a low-end SB champion yet you are unwilling or unable to provide what teams are the low end SB champions.....but are still calling me incorrect. The easiest way to providing a logical disagreement would be to tell me who the low end SB teams. Instead, you talk about the good players they had. Guess what, the argument is "is the 2001 Pats team a good team?". Of course they are good team, they won the FRIGGIN Super Bowl. The argument is how they compare to other SUPER BOWL WINNING TEAMS. All Super Bowl winning teams should have many above average players. I'm sorry, when I read your post I had to do a double take because the fact that you highlighted players such as Lonnie Paxton, Charles Johnson, Matt Stevens, Tebucky Jones, Marc Edwards, and Jermaine Wiggins to help make your point for what sets this team apart from other Super Bowl winning teams is downright laughable.
you really don't think other Super Bowl winning teams had players that were better than them or at least provide equal production to those guys.

That Pats team won the Super Bowl, we should be happy and thankful for that. If people say the team wasn't up to par with other Super Bowl contenders we shouldn't get mad. Just except it and be happy we won. After all, there are many teams that have been better in recent history that didn't win. Again, this whole back and forth got started with you calling me wrong but have yet to actually tell me how I'm wrong. I really want to know, of those 20 teams listed, where does the 2001 Pats team fall? Oh sorry, that's not important to you to figure out (even though that's the very basis of your disagreement).

 

[RobertWeathers]

Wow, now I'm going to sound like a hater but I'm sorry there is so much wrong with your overall response (I didn't quote the whole thing b/c it's too long, but...)

You take exception with those who say the 01 was a low-end SB champion yet you are unwilling or unable to provide what teams are the low end SB champions.....but are still calling me incorrect. The easiest way to providing a logical disagreement would be to tell me who the low end SB teams. Instead, you talk about the good players they had. Guess what, the argument is "is the 2001 Pats team a good team?". Of course they are good team, they won the FRIGGIN Super Bowl. The argument is how they compare to other SUPER BOWL WINNING TEAMS. All Super Bowl winning teams should have many above average players. I'm sorry, when I read your post I had to do a double take because the fact that you highlighted players such as Lonnie Paxton, Charles Johnson, Matt Stevens, Tebucky Jones, Marc Edwards, and Jermaine Wiggins to help make your point for what sets this team apart from other Super Bowl winning teams is downright laughable.
you really don't think other Super Bowl winning teams had players that were better than them or at least provide equal production to those guys.

That Pats team won the Super Bowl, we should be happy and thankful for that. If people say the team wasn't up to par with other Super Bowl contenders we shouldn't get mad. Just except it and be happy we won. After all, there are many teams that have been better in recent history that didn't win. Again, this whole back and forth got started with you calling me wrong but have yet to actually tell me how I'm wrong. I really want to know, of those 20 teams listed, where does the 2001 Pats team fall? Oh sorry, that's not important to you to figure out (even though that's the very basis of your disagreement).

It's not laughable. They had great players.

The issue is that I dont agree with the very foundation of you argument. If you truly want to stack rank how good they were you need to look at track record and talent of core of those teams and the players.

That is how you measure greatness. For example, were the 1974 Steelers better than the 1977 Cowboys? Yes. Were the 1989 49ers better than the 87 Skins. Yes. Etc. etc.

So when asked if the 2001 NEP are better than the 2005 Steelers, yes they were.

If it helps you my list of the last 20 SB champions? ...fine.

All bolded teams were not as good as the 2001 Patriots. They were part of a dominant dynasty . Only exceptional teams were better than that one.

SB31 Packers
32 Broncos
33 Broncos
34 Rams
35 Ravens
36 Pats
37 Buccaneers
38 Pats
39 Pats
40 Steelers
41 Colts
42 Giatns
43 Steelers
44 Saints
45 Packers
46 Giants
47 Ravens
48 Seahawks
49 Patriots
50 Broncos

 

[brdmaverick]

34 Rams
35 Ravens
37 Buccaneers
40 Steelers
41 Colts
42 Giants
43 Steelers
44 Saints
45 Packers
46 Giants
47 Ravens
50 Broncos

I disagree with at least half of your choices above, but that's fine...we're not all going to agree and are entitled to our own opinions. At least now I see the substance for why you think the '01 Pats aren't on a lower tier. After all, if they aren't on the lower tier, someone has to be (and at least you provided those someones). So while I still disagree I at least understand your counterpoint. It's like when people talk about Pro Bowl snubs but don't talk about who should be taken off the team to make room for an individual. I hate that.

.
talent of core of those teams and the players.

I'm analyzing the talent of the players during that year. For instance, I don't think the SB36 Brady was anywhere close to the 'SB49 Brady. Likewise I also don't look at the SB50 Manning as the Hall of Fame caliber Manning....I still put the SB50 Broncos ahead of the SB36 Pats because their defense was THAT good (after all, they beat our 2015 team and they are light years ahead of the 2001 team imo).
I think it's possible we're analyzing it the same way but just happen to have very different opinions on the subject.

 

[brdmaverick]

2006

2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 (except for injury) 2015 Pats all teams that did not win the SB that were better than the 2001 team.

Exactly, and that's just naming other Pat's teams. There are many more.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I disagree with at least half of your choices above, but that's fine...we're not all going to agree and are entitled to our own opinions. At least now I see the substance for why you think the '01 Pats aren't on a lower tier. After all, if they aren't on the lower tier, someone has to be (and at least you provided those someones). So while I still disagree I at least understand your counterpoint. It's like when people talk about Pro Bowl snubs but don't talk about who should be taken off the team to make room for an individual. I hate that.

Right. I have zero issue with disagreement. I'm sure you can come up with excellent reasons why the 1999 Rams are better than the 2001 Patriots. I could as well and it's pointless. Just as it's great to say the Patriots dynasty is better than the 1970s Steelers' dynasty or the 2004 Pats beat the 85 Bears. I've posted that stuff before but in all seriousness its all in good fun.

Thats why I try to look at the track record of the coaches, core and players on the team to get a real sense for how good a team really is which is why I think the 01 Pats are incredibly underestimated.

I'm analyzing the talent of the players during that year. For instance, I don't think the SB36 Brady was anywhere close to the 'SB49 Brady.

I agree completely with that and my ranking reflects that. With that said, I think 01 Brady - even though he was still learning and BB protected him was so freaking good when he had to, hes better than 90% of the QBs that won SBs from 96-2015. The dude just rises to the occasion. Incredible.

Likewise I also don't look at the SB50 Manning as the Hall of Fame caliber Manning....I still put the SB50 Broncos ahead of the SB36 Pats because their defense was THAT good (after all, they beat our 2015 team and they are light years ahead of the 2001 team imo).

Well so here is my logic....as twisted as it may be.

The "core" Patriots are better than the "core" SB50 Broncos. Better coach. Better QB. The 01 Pats D was playing lights out and I'll say just as good at the end of the year as that DEN team was.

2015 Pats had problems on o-line and vs that 01 defense..... I dunna know. Plus if they lost to a noodle armed Manning, what would a spry 23 year old TB12 do?

I think it's possible we're analyzing it the same way but just happen to have very different opinions on the subject.

Maybe. Thats why I look at the individual players and their track records to at least formulate an opinion.

 

[PittPatriot]

Those losses in between have nothing to do with losses at Denver. That's one of the most absurd things I've seen posted on this forum.

As for the losses in Denver, let's take a look at 6 of them:

2001: Brady's first year as a starter
2005: two losses; the team wasn't very good
2013: missing multiple top players on both sides of the ball
2015: two losses; NE had among the most man games lost due to injury

None of the aforementioned had anything specifically to do with venue.

I never said the losses in between correlated with the losses at Denver. It was simply stated to show the dramatic lack of success the Patriots have @Denver.
You have excuses for all 5 losses...what about the measly 2 wins?
2003: one of the great Patriots teams of all time pulled out a fluke/lucky win vs. Danny Kannel???
2011: Tim Tebow, enough said.
The 2005 losses were almost blowouts. The Pats trailed 28-3 and 24-3 in both games. Don't let the final score fool you. It is no coincidence why Denver is the only NFL team that boasts a winning record vs. TB12.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

If the ball bounced our way, we'd he 6-0 in the Superbowl under Brady...

Imagine if we did 3peat, won the 42nd Superbowl, and 46th Superbowl? Would we of been known as the greatest sports team in history? 7 rings lol

 

[mosslost]

Right. I have zero issue with disagreement. I'm sure you can come up with excellent reasons why the 1999 Rams are better than the 2001 Patriots. I could as well and it's pointless. Just as it's great to say the Patriots dynasty is better than the 1970s Steelers' dynasty or the 2004 Pats beat the 85 Bears. I've posted that stuff before but in all seriousness its all in good fun.

Thats why I try to look at the track record of the coaches, core and players on the team to get a real sense for how good a team really is which is why I think the 01 Pats are incredibly underestimated.



I agree completely with that and my ranking reflects that. With that said, I think 01 Brady - even though he was still learning and BB protected him was so freaking good when he had to, hes better than 90% of the QBs that won SBs from 96-2015. The dude just rises to the occasion. Incredible.



Well so here is my logic....as twisted as it may be.

The "core" Patriots are better than the "core" SB50 Broncos. Better coach. Better QB. The 01 Pats D was playing lights out and I'll say just as good at the end of the year as that DEN team was.

2015 Pats had problems on o-line and vs that 01 defense..... I dunna know. Plus if they lost to a noodle armed Manning, what would a spry 23 year old TB12 do?



Maybe. Thats why I look at the individual players and their track records to at least formulate an opinion.

healthy 2015 Pats smoke the 2001 Pats

 

[Gronk]

healthy 2015 Pats smoke the 2001 Pats

Agreed, but also 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Pats would beat the 2001 Pats at least 9 times out of 10. Most of those 'healthy' or not. Beauty of football.

 

[TheFlyingWedge]

9-2?

9 wins out of 12 games - pretty solid

 

[TennisBallHead]

The 2001 team would have rolled the 05, 06, 08, 09-13 teams.