BB dragged Jones out of the field with him at the end of the game

[Pats1971]

The defense was clearly the main reason the Pats won. That isn't in dispute. The defense shut down the Greatest Show on Turf. The defensive playbook for that game is in the Hall of Fame. The defense carried the team that year.

Brady was a big piece, but the defense and the special teams won the AFCCG. The defense shut down Martz's offensive juggernaut in the Super Bowl. Ty Law had as many TDs in the Super Bowl as the Patriots offense.

It is controversial because it isn't true. And it is disrespectful to the defense.

The Pats defense game plan is not in the hall of fame. You are thinking of the giants D gameplan.

 

[Pats1971]

You seem to want to put blinders on with the AFCCG where the Pats' offense only scored ten points and only after Brady went out. Or where the Patriots held the high powered Raiders' offense to 13 points in the division round while offense scored 16 (although Brady played great at the end of that game despite the fumble that wasn't a fumble).. Or how from the first of November on, the Pats only had one game where they gave up more than 17 points (the high powered Rams) and while the Patriots offense scored 17 points or less six times over that stretch.

Are you talking about in the blizzard? Do you know what makes a team not give up a lot of points? Keeping the ball on offense. They played keep away. Thats the difference Brady made, he could do that. The entire team changed after he took over. But trying to credit a defense for holding a team to 13 points in a blizzard. lol yeah not sure that flies.

 

[Tottie]

Are you talking about in the blizzard? Do you know what makes a team not give up a lot of points? Keeping the ball on offense. They played keep away. Thats the difference Brady made, he could do that. The entire team changed after he took over. But trying to credit a defense for holding a team to 13 points in a blizzard. lol yeah not sure that flies.

No point dude. Next he'll come out here and say the WFT should of won the superbowl last year if only they had decent QB play. Then Brady would go there and he would deem it a superteam.

 

[203Pat]

You seem to want to put blinders on with the AFCCG where the Pats' offense only scored ten points and only after Brady went out. Or where the Patriots held the high powered Raiders' offense to 13 points in the division round while offense scored 16 (although Brady played great at the end of that game despite the fumble that wasn't a fumble).. Or how from the first of November on, the Pats only had one game where they gave up more than 17 points (the high powered Rams) and while the Patriots offense scored 17 points or less six times over that stretch.

They were a good defense in 2001 but you're acting like they were the 85 Bears (and ignoring the fact that there was a blizzard that may have helped slow down the Raiders as well. The league average for ppg in 2001 20.2 and the Patriots were 6th in the league at 17 ppg. They played well that year and great in the super bowl but to act like there is a laundry list of guys who could come in and do what Brady did is just bitterness at him leaving.

Manning wasn't a HOF caliber QB in 2001. And I said 3-5 other QBs that year. So including Manning and Favre, there were between five to seven QBs in the NFL in 2001 who are or will be in the Hall of Fame? Please name them.

I don't know what you're talking about. You said that a bunch of QB's could do what Brady did then named off two hall of famers like that somehow makes your argument. I don't see a single post saying "Tom Brady is literally the only person on the planet who would have won a super bowl with the New England Patriots in 2001" yet you seem to be pretending that is what people are saying.

 

[Rob0729]

And what makes you think other QB's would've been a good fit? The supporting cast on offense was dog sh*t. The $100M man couldn't get it done but a 6th round no namer could? And you're assuming the Pats have the luxury of just plucking another "good QB" off of another team during that season. Come on.

They were playing in a storm. They get a beat down with clear skies as they did a year later. Brady and the Pats Cinderella season ends that night.

In 2001, I think the following QBs could have won the Super Bowl with the Patriots' team:
Manning
Kurt Warner
Rich Gannon
Jeff Garcia (who was very good in 2001 and second in the league in TDs and ninth in passing yards)

Maybe one or two other.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Rob is a ****ing neaderthal who doesnt realize a concept as simple as this:

-The Patriots defense from 2001-04 had Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Richard Seymour, Ty Warren, Mike Vrabel, Rodney Harrison, Ted Washington. All of their money and draft picks went into this unit to bring in and retain talent.

-The Patriots offense from 2001-04 had a bunch of castoff/role type players, besides Troy Brown, Deion Branch in 2003/04 and Corey Dillon in 04. In 2003, they had an abysmal running game but still finished around 10th in total offense.

-Ergo, the Patriots defense was the better unit, for obvious reasons since they were stacked, whereas the Patriots offense was the weaker unit, for obvious reasons, since they had only one all-time great player and very little beyond that.

-Ergo, Tom Brady was easily the most important individual player from 2001-04, even if the offense wasn't as strong overall as the defense (though the offense was damn good because of Brady)

Everything Rob tries is some kind of smoke and mirrors garbage with dishonest semantics games. I've taken the bait too many times. It starts with "Brady wasn't so great back then" and then moves to "the defense was the reason they won." He does this like 30 times a year because he's a weird, obsessed loser.

 

[TheRainMaker]

In 2001, I think the following QBs could have won the Super Bowl with the Patriots' team:
Manning
Kurt Warner
Rich Gannon
Jeff Garcia (who was very good in 2001 and second in the league in TDs and ninth in passing yards)

Maybe one or two other.

Not the point as they don't have the luxury to pluck your selected guys. The 2000's Ravens wish they could use your logic. The 2017 Jaguars or the recent Bears teams.

You also admitted they need a good QB to win the Super Bowl. You just argued against your "defense" argument. It's the trap you keep walking into.

 

[203Pat]

Not the point as they don't have the luxury to pluck your selected guys.

You are also admitted they need a good QB to win the Super Bowl.

At this point he's so far behind in the race he thinks he's leading.

 

[Rob0729]

Are you talking about in the blizzard? Do you know what makes a team not give up a lot of points? Keeping the ball on offense. They played keep away. Thats the difference Brady made, he could do that. The entire team changed after he took over. But trying to credit a defense for holding a team to 13 points in a blizzard. lol yeah not sure that flies.

You do realize the Patriots were down most of that game? Why would the Pats play keep away when midway through the fourth quarter, the Patriots were down 13-3?

And was it Brady that only allowed the Raiders to convert 4 of 15 third downs? Was it Brady that only allowed 230 net yards by the Raiders? The Pats only converted 4 of 16 third downs BTW. Was it Brady that held the Raiders to 3.7 YPP?

Stop it. Giving Brady all the credit the Pats' defense earned.

 

[Rob0729]

Not the point as they don't have the luxury to pluck your selected guys. The 2000's Ravens wish they could use your logic. The 2017 Jaguars or the recent Bears teams.

You also admitted they need a good QB to win the Super Bowl. You just argued against your "defense" argument. It's the trap you keep walking into.

They needed a good QB to compliment the defense. It was still the defense that was the main reason the Pats won that year. But they couldn't do it without the offense at least being somewhat productive. Brady was A REASON, not THE REASON. Brady was THE REASON for most of the second part of the dynasty.

 

[Rob0729]

At this point he's so far behind in the race he thinks he's leading.

Nah, you guys are killing me at the race down to the bottom of Idiotsville. But I guess I don't have the luxury of rewriting history to fit my arguments. I am sticking to the facts of what happened. It is a real hinderance when arguing with you guys.

 

[Triumph]

Do you like any QB's from this draft? Not gonna tear them down or anything, just curious.

If I had to choose one its Trask.

 

[203Pat]

Nah, you guys are killing me at the race down to the bottom of Idiotsville. But I guess I don't have the luxury of rewriting history to fit my arguments. I am sticking to the facts of what happened. It is a real hinderance when arguing with you guys.

I don't know even get why you're fighting this so hard. Most people you're fighting with seem to think Brady is a big part of the reason as well as the defense but give the edge to Brady as to who was more valuable. You seem think both were very important but give the edge to the defense. I don’t think anyone is being that crazy about this.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't know even get why you're fighting this so hard. Most people you're fighting with seem to think Brady is a big part of the reason as well as the defense but give the edge to Brady as to who was more valuable. You seem think both were very important but give the edge to the defense. I don’t think anyone is being that crazy about this.

First, that isn't the case. There are people here who believe that Brady is the only reason the defense pulled their heads out of their arses and even tried to play to a high level.

Second, many of you were and still are offended that I said in the early dynasty years, Belichick was more important than Brady and the dynamic switched around 2004 -2007 somewhere. A lot of people are also trying to rewrite history to make Belichick a product of Brady and just got lucky to get him and is really the same mediocre coach who coached in Cleveland. Some of them are people arguing with me in this thread.

I am sorry, but I don't like when people rewrite the history of this team to suit their agenda and/or bias. I think Brady is the best football player to ever play and #2 isn't even close, but I can accept the guy wasn't a finished product when he first started and he worked hard for a number of years to become the GOAT. And I can accept that this team won in the early parts of this Dynasty on defense when defenses won champoinships and the league let defenses play defense. Which unfortunately for some to admit would also have to admit the genius of Belichick.

 

[Pats2000]

Nothing that Ive seen from Jones leads me to believe that he is anything more than a game manager..

I've watched dozens of them come and go.

Funny, your assessment of Brady was probably the same too

 

[TheRainMaker]

They needed a good QB to compliment the defense. It was still the defense that was the main reason the Pats won that year. But they couldn't do it without the offense at least being somewhat productive. Brady was A REASON, not THE REASON. Brady was THE REASON for most of the second part of the dynasty.

Except for the D being the main reason, this is all I've been saying. You can have a D that's lights out, but at the end of the day, you need competent QB play. The D was not good enough to carry a crappy QB. In fact, rarely any D is.

 

[Rob0729]

Except for the D being the main reason, this is all I've been saying. You can have a D that's lights out, but at the end of the day, you need competent QB play. The D was not good enough to carry a crappy QB. In fact, rarely any D is.

Only historical defenses like the 2000 Ravens can carry a crappy QB and I don't even think they can do that anymore. San Fran a few years back was probably the closest and even then Garoppolo is ok QB.

But you are not the only one I am arguing with.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

BB was right to lead him off the field. Sitting there with your head down, distraught, and possibly crying is not a good look after a loss. Take him off the field and help him get his head on right and move on to next week.

Could also be Mac's "welcome to the nfl" moment.

Learn from it.

 

[Rob0729]

Could also be Mac's "welcome to the nfl" moment.

Learn from it.

As long as he doesn't let it get to him, I think this could make him a better QB in the long run. He does seem confident enough to shake this off and move on.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

I blame Harry

Well, actually, you could, in a way, but it is unfair to the young man....but...the reason the Patriots lost was that the receivers could not get open. Mac had to wait and scan for someone to get open, exposing him to a rush. Then he tried to force the ball into covered receivers and he got into trouble. It is disgraceful that the Patriots got all these talented players in the offseason, but failed to get a true number one WR.

I suppose some will blame Mac for the loss, but it is not his fault. He is a superb QB with no one to throw to.