Patriots Hall of Fame Finalists - Edelman, Mankins & Vinatieri (Vinatieri vs Edelman)

[signbabybrady]

I'm 57 years old. From 1968 until 2001 my Pats experience was mostly suckitude. Every year was either suck or just good enough to fail in the playoffs. Even when they made it to the SB they didn't look like they belonged.

Then AV made that kick in the snow. It wasn't another failure. And then Brady went down but DB stepped up. Then the absolute underdog role against the Greatest Show on Turf. I sat on a couch in my new apartment just after separating from my first wife and moving to Michigan for a new job with my four year old son curled up in the crook of my knees and my one year old sleeping in my arms. And AV kicked 48 yards for the Pats first SB win. And it was just the absolute perfect moment I needed.

Thank you Adam and here's my vote.

That's not to take away from JE. Great personal story for the 3-28 game as well. Visiting in Salem MA and at a new friends house and the walls were shaking. But without AV and the first dynasty guys it's not the same.

And RK - FU for not putting Bill in before Parcells. He and Brady should have been put in at the same time and you blew it.

That's an awesome memory! Special the way a moment like that with your kids can mean.

 

[farn]

This getting out of hand. How many times must I click on a link hoping to reaffirm a certain LBs muderous past only to be disappointed ?

Have lost our way, patsfans ?!?

 

[Pape]

This getting out of hand. How many times must I click on a link hoping to reaffirm a certain LBs muderous past only to be disappointed ?

Have lost our way, patsfans ?!?

@maust beat you to it.

Post in thread 'Patriots Hall of Fame Finalists - Edelman, Mankins & Vinatieri (Vinatieri vs Edelman)'

Apr 11, 2025

To say I am disappointed at the glaring omission in the poll choices would be a gross understatement. That, once again, the grievous breach of PF etiquette has been made by someone who damn right well knows better makes it even worse. Honestly, sometimes I feel like I don't even know this place anymore

@Pape...

• maust

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Vinatieri first. Why?

Without Vinatieri's kicks in the Tuck Game and then in XXXVI/XXXVIII, the Brady/Belichick Pats would have been great and certainly picked up a few rings, but I think one can reasonably argue, given the randomness of the game, that there never would have been a Dynasty that went to nine SB's in 20 seasons and won six of them. Along with the Lombardi Packers, overlapping the beginning of the SB era (and maybe Paul Brown's Browns in a galaxy far far away), the BB/TB Pats are the greatest dynasty in the history of the NFL...and, I would argue, the greatest of them all.

People cite Jules' loyalty and, yes, it's a real consideration. But the Pats were never going to pay #4 what the Colts paid and...as a K...it meant something to him that they played in a dome, not only their home games but many of their Division games. No domes and a lot of crappy weather in Vinatieri's AFCE. So, I was as disappointed as anyone when he left Foxboro, but I understood and it hardly counts against him. He did what made sense for him.

Edelman has the advantage of "recency bias," especially among those on this Board who don't remember 2001. I don't think he has any bigger fan out here than me. He also had a unique chemistry with TB12. He would have been very good wherever he played, but I think Brady helped a lot to get him into the conversation of being "a great." And, of course, no one can take away "THE CATCH" in LI (as distinguished from Dwight Clark's "the Catch," for those old enough to remember both).

Finally, if we're really honest about it, Adam Vinatieri will have a Gold Jacket and a bust in Canton one day (only the haters in the media kept it from him this year). Edelman, for all his great contributions, won't get there.

I hope the idiots who make this decision call it a "tie" and let them both in at the same time.

PS: Logan Mankins was great. He belongs in the Pats' HOF too, but he's going to be up against bigger and bigger names in the next few years. Unfair.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Vinatieri first. Why?

Without Vinatieri's kicks in the Tuck Game and then in XXXVI/XXXVIII, the Brady/Belichick Pats would have been great and certainly picked up a few rings, but I think one can reasonably argue, given the randomness of the game, that there never would have been a Dynasty that went to nine SB's in 20 seasons and won six of them. Along with the Lombardi Packers, overlapping the beginning of the SB era (and maybe Paul Brown's Browns in a galaxy far far away), the BB/TB Pats are the greatest dynasty in the history of the NFL...and, I would argue, the greatest of them all.

He'll get in based on those 3 kicks alone. The offense was more reliant on Adam who was a pretty shaky K up until that point. That kick in the snow was a lot to ask for. Then the Rams kick. Had he missed, the Rams would've probably ended it in overtime as they figured out the Pats D was gassed and couldn't keep up in the no huddle offense. Then you have the Panthers kick. 2004 was when the tide turned and Adam wasn't needed as much anymore.

Edelman has the advantage of "recency bias," especially among those on this Board who don't remember 2001. I don't think he has any bigger fan out here than me. He also had a unique chemistry with TB12. He would have been very good wherever he played, but I think Brady helped a lot to get him into the conversation of being "a great." And, of course, no one can take away "THE CATCH" in LI (as distinguished from Dwight Clark's "the Catch," for those old enough to remember both).

I think he'd struggle to stay in the league because teams don't utilize the slot like the Pats did. Case in point, Welker was cut in SD and kind of an after thought in Miami, but career exploded when he played in NE.

 

[Huckleberry1]

It has to be Edelman, and I love Mankins and Vinatieri. But Edelman’s role in winning the Lombardi’s against Seattle and Atlanta was just too big to pass him over.

 

[Tunescribe]

Vinatieri first. Why?

Without Vinatieri's kicks in the Tuck Game and then in XXXVI/XXXVIII, the Brady/Belichick Pats would have been great and certainly picked up a few rings, but I think one can reasonably argue, given the randomness of the game, that there never would have been a Dynasty that went to nine SB's in 20 seasons and won six of them. Along with the Lombardi Packers, overlapping the beginning of the SB era (and maybe Paul Brown's Browns in a galaxy far far away), the BB/TB Pats are the greatest dynasty in the history of the NFL...and, I would argue, the greatest of them all.

People cite Jules' loyalty and, yes, it's a real consideration. But the Pats were never going to pay #4 what the Colts paid and...as a K...it meant something to him that they played in a dome, not only their home games but many of their Division games. No domes and a lot of crappy weather in Vinatieri's AFCE. So, I was as disappointed as anyone when he left Foxboro, but I understood and it hardly counts against him. He did what made sense for him.

Edelman has the advantage of "recency bias," especially among those on this Board who don't remember 2001. I don't think he has any bigger fan out here than me. He also had a unique chemistry with TB12. He would have been very good wherever he played, but I think Brady helped a lot to get him into the conversation of being "a great." And, of course, no one can take away "THE CATCH" in LI (as distinguished from Dwight Clark's "the Catch," for those old enough to remember both).

Finally, if we're really honest about it, Adam Vinatieri will have a Gold Jacket and a bust in Canton one day (only the haters in the media kept it from him this year). Edelman, for all his great contributions, won't get there.

I hope the idiots who make this decision call it a "tie" and let them both in at the same time.

PS: Logan Mankins was great. He belongs in the Pats' HOF too, but he's going to be up against bigger and bigger names in the next few years. Unfair.

In a roundabout way you've made a good argument against fans deciding who gets in and who doesn't. Since Kraft set a precedent naming Tuna, perhaps ownership -- or an appointed committee -- should handle this going forward. All three of this year's nominees should be in and it would be a shame for any of them to ultimately get left behind or forgotten with newly eligible players always coming up.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

If Vinatieri doesn't secure that first Super Bowl victory, it makes it far less obvious what they do next. Bledsoe vs Brady becomes a bit more of a debate. Belichick doesn't get the same cachet as a coach.

Vinatieri quite literally 'kicked' the 20 year run off.

 

[PP2]

It has to be Edelman, and I love Mankins and Vinatieri. But Edelman’s role in winning the Lombardi’s against Seattle and Atlanta was just too big to pass him over.

Vinatieri single-handedly won the Lombardi against the Rams and Panthers. He also got us past the Raiders.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Vinatieri single-handedly won the Lombardi against the Rams and Panthers. He also got us past the Raiders.

No he didn’t. He finished both teams off, but both those games were won by everybody on those teams. Great kicks, but by themselves would have been just 6 points.

This is just like the posts that try. to say it was all Brady, and in doing.so ignore the contributions of Seymour, Law, McGinest, Wilfork, Brown, Bruschi, Harrison, Hightower,etc etc etc……..

 

[TommyD4207]

Vinatieri single-handedly won the Lombardi against the Rams and Panthers. He also got us past the Raiders.

Funny those MVPs went to Brady, though...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

In a roundabout way you've made a good argument against fans deciding who gets in and who doesn't. Since Kraft set a precedent naming Tuna, perhaps ownership -- or an appointed committee -- should handle this going forward. All three of this year's nominees should be in and it would be a shame for any of them to ultimately get left behind or forgotten with newly eligible players always coming up.

Ha ha! Great observation. You're basically saying that I was too long-winded and, to use Newspaper-speak, that I "buried the lead." You're right.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Funny those MVPs went to Brady, though...

Yeah. Brady deserved them because he put the Pats in a position to win those games. The only MVP Brady received that I'd argue should have gone to another player, was SB LI's. James White should have been MVP. Brady brought them back, but he brought them back out of a hole that he had helped dig. White was the difference maker (strong nods to Jules' catch and to Amendola and Hightower as well in that game).

 

[p8ryts]

No he didn’t. He finished both teams off, but both those games were won by everybody on those teams. Great kicks, but by themselves would have been just 6 points.

This is just like the posts that try. to say it was all Brady, and in doing.so ignore the contributions of Seymour, Law, McGinest, Wilfork, Brown, Bruschi, Harrison, Hightower,etc etc etc……..

That first SB win, great game plan on defense, great execution, kept them in the game, clutch offensive finish, and a great kick. Couldn't have one without all the other.

 

[PP2]

No he didn’t. He finished both teams off, but both those games were won by everybody on those teams. Great kicks, but by themselves would have been just 6 points.

This is just like the posts that try. to say it was all Brady, and in doing.so ignore the contributions of Seymour, Law, McGinest, Wilfork, Brown, Bruschi, Harrison, Hightower,etc etc etc……..

Yeah he did.

Sure, everyone may have done their parts, both offense and defense, but it still wasn't enough to win these games.

 

[PP2]

Funny those MVPs went to Brady, though...

Do you reward the man who kept you in the game or the man who won it for you? That's an interesting philosophical dilemma, for sure.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Vinatieri single-handedly won the Lombardi against the Rams and Panthers. He also got us past the Raiders.

Yeah he did.

Sure, everyone may have done their parts, both offense and defense, but it still wasn't enough to win these games.

Do you reward the man who kept you in the game or the man who won it for you? That's an interesting philosophical dilemma, for sure.

He was an important factor in those wins, but he's only as good as the offense putting him in position to make those kicks. Also, Adam wasn't a very good long distance kicker, so he needed to be put in favorable positions. And regarding the Rams game, had Ty Law not ran back an INT for a TD, they aren't winning that game. He also missed an easy field goal early vs Carolina and got another one blocked.

Saying he "single-handedly" won the game is stretching it. He did his job when called upon when the team needed it most, but they don't teleport and just kick the field goal.

 

[Froob]

let’s get Adam in first and jules next year

 

[Patriot Missile]

Julien Edelman. Whole career as a Patriot. 3 time Champion.

While AV deserves in 100%, 3 time Champion.

However there’s still that Colts stink to think about. I get it, BB didn’t pony up, still, blasphemous to a degree.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Julien Edelman. Whole career as a Patriot. 3 time Champion.

While AV deserves in 100%, 3 time Champion.

However there’s still that Colts stink to think about. I get it, BB didn’t pony up, still, blasphemous to a degree.

I'm guessing Bill didn't pay him for a few reasons being he was 34, didn't have a strong leg, the offense was less reliant on him and he was a shaky kicker overall. Bill hit big with Gostkowski who was actually the better kicker. In fact, he blows Adam out of the water statistically.

Going to the Colts was irritating, but he was in a good situation with the opportunity to be with a contender while playing half the season in a dome.