The most mindblowing stat

[Brady_to_Moss]

Brady should have 5 rings by now if it wasn't for Bernie

this was supposed to be a two parter:


There’s a man who brings dread upon sight.
He’s a bad luck charm, jinx and a blight!
Cost us a trophy for sure
And a chance at two more
Bernard Pollard, the Pats kryptonite!


Of how to break this curse many proffer
So this modest proposal I’ll offer
It may the best bet,
for Bernie to get
the travel agent used by Jimmy Hoffa.

Dude.

Bernard Pollard limericks?

Painful. On many levels.

Topped only by the results of the "Bernard Pollard limericks" Google search I just did, which produced this: Scooter & Hum: Limerick Friday LXXXXII: Charter Member, Bernard Pollard Fan Club

I wish I'd never done that!

 

[JohninLynn]

Dude.

Bernard Pollard limericks?

Painful. On many levels.

Topped only by the results of the "Bernard Pollard limericks" Google search I just did, which produced this: Scooter & Hum: Limerick Friday LXXXXII: Charter Member, Bernard Pollard Fan Club

I wish I'd never done that!

I thought calling the guy a curse and hoping he gets a pair of cement shoes would convey that i'm not in Bernard Pollard fan club.

Those aren't limericks which are supposed to have a structure to them and rhyme sometimes, but it's not suprising that the knuckle-draggers at the Bernard Pollard fan club have trouble with simple concepts. I agree that it's creepy that these people exist out there....

 

[mosi]

Jets - 0 of 40+

Brady - born to win.

Jets, LOL!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I absolutely agree and don't mean to disrespect either of them in the least for their accomplishments. I just consider the 'undefeated' angle when the topic comes up for discussion to be a bit disingenuous; to me there are many out there that take that statistic to an extreme, a bit over the edge. There is a certain segment that attempt to portray them as being so clutch that they never lost a single important game in their entire careers.

...

Thanks for clarifying. We are in agreement, but were just emphasizing different sides of the coin.

I was saying that it's pretty damn amazing to go to the game where it's all on the line four times and never lose and that we can't use "eras" or "great D's" or "supporting casts" to tear that down.

You were emphasizing that Bradshaw and Montana both lost big playoff games and you are right: Bradshaw lost the AFCCG in 1972 and 1976 (seasons); Joe lost the NFCCG in 1983 and 1990 (seasons) and had a couple of dismal, earlier round, playoff losses to the Giants.

Bottom line for me is that a Tom Brady with a fourth ring would be in a league of his own, with seven trips to his Conference Championship Game, six trips to the SB and four trophies.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

No dissing the Otto Graham era, please, or the Cleveland Browns of that time. Paul Brown was the BB of his day in many, many ways. Graham was extraordinarily accurate and had a great touch. I once saw WR Dante Lavelli sprintingtoward the end zone, looking away from Graham, then raising his arms above his head, waiting for Graham's pass. The ball fell into his hands--he never did look at it--and of course he scored. The crowd was totally silent, in awe.

I also remember the day that in a play toward the end of the first half, half of Graham's lip was ripped open. Fifty or sixty stitches during halftime and he was back in for the second half. Won the game, of course. May have been a long time ago, but pro football in those days was anything but a powder puff game.

The Browns started in something called the All America Conference, which was barely a hair above college ball, and the Browns were so much better than all the other teams that it was no contest. The AAC folded and a couple of teams were invited to join the NFL, the Browns being one of them, of course. "We'll teach these guys what real football is like," the NFL said. The Browns won the championship that year, beating the Philadelphia Eagles 35-10, if memory serves. And they kept winning.

For a young kid, a big fan like me, it was a lot like the last decade of the Patriots. Only better.

It's stuff like this that keeps me reading Ian's Patsfans

Not moronic threads about The Hammah replacing Brady

 

[Joker]

Remember when fans actually talked football, memories, good times and players' skills?

3/4's of today's message board maestros only want to talk about money, contracts, legal language, and daily cap updates.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Agreed.

Whether you like it or not, Eli will go down as one of the best quarterbacks of his generation, if not the best.

That's more or less a truism. Any QB who wins two SB's is going to go down as one of the best of his generation, when you consider that only 11 QB's have accomplished that in the nearly half century since the SB era began in 1966/67. Only Jim Plunkett, among retirees, didn't turn his second ring into a Bust in Canton.

It's going to take a lot to get Eli in the conversation as the "best" of his generation though. But he's only been starting for seven years, so he could still put up the kind of numbers that would warrant that consideration. Of course, a third ring will change that or a few seasons of leading a team consistently from August to January, even without another ring, would help a lot...not to mention a Pass Rating north of the low 80's.

If his career ended today, he'd go down, as you said, as one of the best of his generation, with an uneven record, but noteworthy for putting together two extraordinary late season runs and getting the job done when it counted the most, in the SB itself.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

And yet, if you ask 1,000 NFL fans to list the top three quarterbacks of the last decade, the only ones that will have Eli on that list are Giants fans.

Interesting thought. I guess it's why they don't ask fans to decide stuff like this.

But, if you asked me to "list the top three quarterbacks of the last decade," and defined that as 2001--2011, I guess I'd put Brady and Peyton at the top and in that order.

As for number three? Brees or Rodgers would have to get votes based largely on their potential. Favre would be tough to leave off. Big Ben, whatever we feel about him, did win two rings, as did Eli.

So, who would be number three?

If you forced me to vote, I'd have to say Roethlisberger based on his rings and consistency and, as much as I dislike him, sheer grit.

I'd put Favre number four and Eli number five, with "Special Mention" to Brees or Rodgers, noting that their future performance would change things.

I have Eli down the list because he just hasn't been consistent from September to January. His stats and W/L record are modest. What he did do was engineer two spectacular late season runs and then got it done twice in the SB. He's only been starting for seven years, so that could change of course.

 

[IndyColtfans]

You guys forgot some other important stats:

Patriots without Brady 11-5 (with a guy who hadn't started since HS and is a very mediocre NFL QB).

Colts without Manning: 2-14.

Brady hasn't won crap since his D went away.

 

[Deus Irae]

You guys forgot some other important stats:

Patriots without Brady 11-5 (with a guy who hadn't started since HS and is a very mediocre NFL QB).

Colts without Manning: 2-14.

Brady hasn't won crap since his D went away.

Why do you Colts fans insist on posting this sort of stupidity?

The Patriots played a much easier schedule in 2008 than they did in 2007, they had a competent quarterback ready as the backup, and they still were 6 games worse. The Colts had a backup QB situation that was so bad they were signing 40 year old Kerry Collins to be the replacement starter just days before the first game, and they had an 8 game decline. Also, since 2008, Brady's been to as many Super Bowls as Captain Neckbolts.

I know that Colts fans are almost as stupid as Jets fans, but y'all really don't need to go about proving it with every post.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Why do you Colts fans insist on posting this sort of stupidity?

The Patriots played a much easier schedule in 2008 than they did in 2007, they had a competent quarterback ready as the backup, and they still were 6 games worse. The Colts had a backup QB situation that was so bad they were signing 40 year old Kerry Collins to be the replacement starter just days before the first game, and they had an 8 game decline. Also, since 2008, Brady's been to as many Super Bowls as Captain Neckbolts.

I know that Colts fans are almost as stupid as Jets fans, but y'all really don't need to go about proving it with every post.

Maybe they're just upset that the '08 Pats won more games than the '10 Colts — who had Manning all season long. That Colts team was certainly in decline. Looks to me like Brady — AND Cassel — are better able to do more with less than Manning.

 

[Ron Sellers]

You guys forgot some other important stats:

Patriots without Brady 11-5 (with a guy who hadn't started since HS and is a very mediocre NFL QB).

Colts without Manning: 2-14.

Brady hasn't won crap since his D went away.

Although those that are not fans of Brady continue trot that phrase out as "proof" of something, all it proves is that they are biased and will seek any excuse to justify their stance.


I.
In 2007 the Patriots won 18 games with Brady
In 2008 the Patriots won 11 games without Brady
Net difference: seven wins

In 2010 the Colts won 10 games with Manning
In 2011 the Colts won 2 games without Manning
Net difference: eight wins

That's before also taking into consideration (a) the ease of the Pats 2008 schedule (faced the two weakest divisions in the NFL, the AFCW and NFCW) as opposed to the 2007 schedule (NFCE and AFCN), (b) the steep decline in the rest of the Colts roster heading into 2011, as well as their injuries that year, and (c) the very real possibility that they were tanking in the 'Suck for Luck' sweepstakes.


II.
Matt Cassel had spent three full years in the Patriots organization learning the system; what he did or did not do in college is irrelevant. The fact that he has gone on to be an NFL starter elsewhere makes bringing him up a moot point. About the only thing that shows is the difference in the two team's philosophies on building a roster: the Colts throughout the 2000's were very top-heavy in money spent on their talent and content to fill out their roster with a comparably larger number of low salaried rookies; the Patriots preferred to focus more on the middle third and bottom third of the roster.


III.
It sounds to me as if you are implying that if a team does well without a certain player than he is not that great. Do you think Joe Montana was not particularly good? When Steve Young took over for Montana the 49ers won just as many games in the following season as they had previously with Montana. According to your argument you either don't think much of Montana, or you are a two-faced hypocrite.


IV.
Brady hasn't won crap since his D went away.

It's ironic because this point actually works against your argument rather than for you.

We agree that the Pats defense has not been very good over the last two years, and not even close to the level it was at from 2001-04. Yet despite that during that time the Patriots have won 29 games and a conference championship.

Care to explain how that could possibly be?



Bottom line: just because something gets repeated often, it doesn't make it a valid statement or rational logic. All it points out is that you have a pre-conceived bias and will grasp at anything to justify the close-minded lack of objectivity.

 

[randomk1]

You guys forgot some other important stats:

Patriots without Brady 11-5 (with a guy who hadn't started since HS and is a very mediocre NFL QB).

Colts without Manning: 2-14.

Brady hasn't won crap since his D went away.

You're an idiot. Cassell is a probowl QB playing with what could've been one of the best teams ever.

Your ****ty Colts team on the other hand was trending downwards even with Manning.

Atleast you should be happy about being ****ty enough to get another no.1 pick QB.

 

[Ring 6]

You guys forgot some other important stats:

Patriots without Brady 11-5 (with a guy who hadn't started since HS and is a very mediocre NFL QB).

Colts without Manning: 2-14.

Brady hasn't won crap since his D went away.

Of course you forgot the most important one 9-10. Career playoff LOSER.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

You're an idiot. Cassell is a probowl QB playing with what could've been one of the best teams ever.

Your ****ty Colts team on the other hand was trending downwards even with Manning.

Atleast you should be happy about being ****ty enough to get another no.1 pick QB.

I find it absolutely hysterical that Bill Polian's GM acumen brought the Colts the #1 pick—at the cost of his job.

 

[brdmaverick]

A few things........

1.) This is tough, I know, because I haven't even fully taken my own advice, but we should be happy with what we have (three rings). We, including myself, love to make the argument that Brady could/should have 6 Super Bowl rings*. Well, what about thinking positively and thinking about a ring that we have but could easily not have. What if the refs didn't rule in favor of the tuck rule. Or what if Vinatieri doesn't make a once in a lifetime kick to send that game into OT? Those are analagous to Tyree's play.

*hypothetical 1) If we could only hold onto a massive lead, we would have beaten the Bears in 06.
*hypothetical 2.) We win in 2007 if it's not for a once in a lifetime catch by Tyree.
*hypothetical 3.) We win in 2011 if Welker catches the ball.

2.) Opening up to the audience, who is better, a QB that is 1-0 in the Super Bowl or someone who is 1-4. Better yet, is a 1-0 record better than a 2-4 record?

 

[LasVegasPatsFan]

Good LUCK next year, Colts fans. (Pun intended)

 

[Ron Sellers]

2.) Opening up to the audience, who is better, a QB that is 1-0 in the Super Bowl or someone who is 1-4. Better yet, is a 1-0 record better than a 2-4 record?

In truth the answer is the 2nd QB or team.
It was essentially brought up in another thread this week, but in a nutshell 1=1 and in the next category 5>1; therefore 1-4>1-0, and 2-4>1-0.


However in the court of public opinion which is ruled by the loudness of a very minute but vocal minority that dominate message boards, comment sections and sports talk radio callers, the answer will be the opposite. By their logic losing at any time prior to the Super Bowl is perfectly acceptable but winning the games it takes to get there means nothing because they want you, the fan of the losing team, to feel that losing in that game is the worst possible humiliation there is in all of sports.

Yes that makes zero sense, but that is the collective wisdom of the masses. By their logic missing the playoffs with a 7-win season is preferable than winning more than twice as many games but not winning the championship. Likewise 1-0 is somehow better to them than going (any number greater than zero) and (any number greater than zero) in championship games in their minds.

 

[ScottieC]

Agreed.

Whether you like it or not, Eli will go down as one of the best quarterbacks of his generation, if not the best.

Oh my. That's funny.

 

[Huckleberry1]

You guys forgot some other important stats:



Colts without Manning: 2-14.

Good thing they cut his @ss.