Good S.I. article on Brady's Legacy... Not What You'd Expect to Read

regardless of how people feel, people said the dynasty was over after 07......there is no doubt in my mind that in the next 3 years Brady will bring this team back to the Superbowl and possibly win it. hes to good for that to not happen!

ensoul said:

"True, Brady only led his team to 17 points. But New England had the worst field position I can ever remember for a Super Bowl team. The Pats started on their own 6, their 29, their 20, their 2, their 21, their 17, their 20, their 8 and their 20. The Patriots played the entire game uphill."

This part makes perfect sense. The defense could not get off the field quick enough to give the pats offense decent field position. I also heard on the radio that the ALL of the giants drives were at least nine plays. Now I am not going to blame the defense for this but it does put into prospective what the offense was dealt with all night.

Click to expand...

Exactly the reason why the whole "yards don't matter, it's all about points" argument is NOT valid.

When you don't give your offense enough T.O.P and make them march 90+ yards on 3 of your 9 possessions, you are at a severe disadvantage.

aurakilla said:

regardless of how people feel, people said the dynasty was over after 07......there is no doubt in my mind that in the next 3 years Brady will bring this team back to the Superbowl and possibly win it. hes to good for that to not happen!

Click to expand...

I agree that he will make it there at least one more time.(Providing the world doesn't end this December of course)

And I think BB has the "Lockeroom attitude" that he loves and, that he will keep it intact. The "never give up no matter bad things look" has been crucial this year and is such an admirable trait.

E1Downey said:

Exactly the reason why the whole "yards don't matter, it's all about points" argument is NOT valid.

When you don't give your offense enough T.O.P and make them march 90+ yards on 3 of your 9 possessions, you are at a severe disadvantage.

Click to expand...

The offense is also supposed to contribute more than just points. Possessions of 0:08, 1:27, 1:07, and 1:18 surely don't help to tilt TOP in the Pats favor. The other thing that isn't mentioned is that the Giants scored both their TDs on long drives just like the Pats and got a FG after a good kickoff return just like the Pats. The big difference is they got two points when TB took a safety and got a FG after a punt left them near midfield when the Pats went 3 and out moving the ball -2 yards from the 17. Shortcomings by the offense had just as much to do with the difference in TOP and score.

PatsFan24 said:

Thanks for the link. I do agree with the people who say Brady's legacy was hurt a bit by this loss.

Click to expand...

I don't. I agree with Rosenberg. It helped his legacy, I don't care what detractors say. Loved that article - finally, a voice of reason.

The Pats lost to the same team twice in the SB, and in both games they were favored.

Click to expand...

Some of us were stunned from the opening line that the Pats were favored in SB 46. They shouldn't have been. Clearly the Giants had a more complete team. That it came down to a couple plays is a huge testament to #12.

We always talk on here about how stats don't matter, only wins matter, as our argument about why Brady is better than Peyton Manning. So if you are going to use that argument, then it is the same argument even when it is not in our favor.

Click to expand...

People have to speak for themselves. While I can respect and take into account what the wins or passing numbers say, personally I prefer to put down the stat sheet at some point and watch the games in order to get a complete picture. Rosenberg actually did that, thank goodness. I'm not even what a person would call a huge Pats fan to be perfectly honest (much prefer the college game). It's pretty obvious to me what Brady had to work with and what he was up against Sunday. Hands down the best QB of this generation - with no apologies to either Manning, Brees, Rodgers, or anyone else - and right up there with Montana, Unitas, & Starr. Not a trace of doubt in my mind.

PatsSox363804 said:

By the letter of the rule yes it is the right call. I just cant believe they threw that flag, I've never seen them throw a flag for intentional grounding on a pass in the middle of the field when the QB wasnt actively being pulled down, especially one that game the Giants points. If the refs didnt throw the flag there I dont think people would have been complaining. By the letter of the rules they should have also thrown a flag for PI on the deep ball to Hernandez at the end of the game but no way in hell they'd ever throw that flag.

Click to expand...

Yeah.. also the LB who intercepted Brady pulled Gronk's arm.. If it was not the SB, the refs would have called offensive PI. I think the safety call was a little weird, but it was the right call. This was one situation they clearly didn't prepare for and this is something that even the great BB over-looked.

What to do ? The cards were stacked deep against us from the very start. We start 0-9 and play only for 3 quarters.

So.. a Pats team that plays only for 20 mins comes within one play of winning the game and that fact alone tells you who's better. If we had caught just ONE break, game over for the Giants. So, this is where Eli's lucky charm comes in.

E1Downey said:

Exactly the reason why the whole "yards don't matter, it's all about points" argument is NOT valid.

When you don't give your offense enough T.O.P and make them march 90+ yards on 3 of your 9 possessions, you are at a severe disadvantage.

Click to expand...

If you have a crappy offense, it's very valid, but if your offense is scoring heaps of points, it's not valid at all. I mean, if your D is keeping the other team to 18-19 points and your offense is averaging 27, who cares how many yards anyone gained?

Let's face it, the yardage stats in this Sunday's game were impacted mostly by the safety. Patriots basically gave an entire quarter away.

Brady's started 10 years in the league (injured in 2008 and didn't start in 2000) and taken this team to the SB 5 times. Playing in the SB 50% of the time is pretty damn good. No way does this tarnish his legacy. It only adds to it. And he's not done yet.

karran_s said:

Yeah.. also the LB who intercepted Brady pulled Gronk's arm.. If it was not the SB, the refs would have called offensive PI. I think the safety call was a little weird, but it was the right call. This was one situation they clearly didn't prepare for and this is something that even the great BB over-looked.

What to do ? The cards were stacked deep against us from the very start. We start 0-9 and play only for 3 quarters.

So.. a Pats team that plays only for 20 mins comes within one play of winning the game and that fact alone tells you who's better. If we had caught just ONE break, game over for the Giants. So, this is where Eli's lucky charm comes in.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That is why I am so proud of this team and give props to Brady. He barely even had the ball and still had 17 points and was close to even more. However, that just shows the defense needs to get better. No excuse for that discrepancy in TOP

Also, the defense's trouble with getting off the field didn't hurt so much from a points given up prespective but from a field position perspective it killed us.

Outside of New England, sadly he'll forever be known as Eli's whipping boy. If you disagree, you're simply in denial and I feel bad for you.