Is anyone else sick of the Patriots?

[Ax]

WHat a jackass post. The team in 2001 was completely different from the teams that won the other two.

Get over it. Enjoy your culture of losing.

BTW, the rampant jealousy is hilarious. What you guys wouldn't give for one tenth of our recent success.

Awww, how sweet of you to be so gracious. What a cute little girl you are.

Now, I know you think the tuck rule is fabulous honey. I also imagine that had the shoe been on the other foot, you would join the rest of the world in saying, "It was a goddamn FUMBLE!" But since your team won because of it, your denial of it being directly responsible for the pats even making it to the 1st of their three Super Bowl victories shows an ignorance of the fact.

That, and your failure to understand and comprehend the meaning of the word "possibly" suggests that maybe you're too full of what comes out of Jack's ass to comment honestly about anything that isn't patriot friendly. :jerk:

[Henry]

Chomerics, I have no doubt Belichek is a great defensive coach. But the fact that this great defensive mind landed an elite QB can only been seen by outsiders as lightning in a bottle. It's not like Bill had been tearing up the league as a head coach before Brady came on the scene, and he'd been around for awhile.

[Ax]

Yeah, wasn't Shanahan a genius with Elway, vs average without him?

[SonnyJ]

Belichick is not a "good coach", he is one of the greatest coaches to ever don a headset. Look at his record in the playoffs. Heck, look at his record as a defensive coordinator too! Heck, Parcells has not even sniffed the SB without Belichick, yet BB won 3 times w/out Parcells. . . so who is the better coach?

Here are some more sick stats. . .

Read that again, Joe Montana and Payton Manning have never beat a BB defense in the playoffs!!!

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=1246&Category=11

His playoff record as a coach and def. coordinator? 23-6

his record as a coach? 13-2

Yea, he's just a "good coach" :laugh:

Eh, you're just blinded by love for the Patriots.

BB is a great defensive coach. Doesn't mean that he is a superlative head coach.

Here is his breakdown:

Before Brady: 41-57, 1-1 Playoffs

With Brady: 70-24, 12-1 Playoffs

Now, what singular event happened to him after 6+ seasons as a head coach that turned him from a 42% head coach to an almost 80% success rate? This after going 5-13 in his first 18 games as Patriots coach (Before Brady).

Coaches and players have come and gone. But Brady has remained. So, yeah, saying he is a good head coach is accurate, maybe charitable. He owes his reputation to Brady. The only way you don't see the immediate, unprecedented metamorphosis in his perceived coaching ability once Brady became his QB is willful ignorance of the facts.

With Brady as the QB, NE almost starts from a baseline of at least 8, maybe 10 wins. That is the worst you can expect from him. I can't imagine what Gibbs would have done with a QB of Brady's caliber back in the '80s. They may have renamed it the Lombardi-Gibbs trophy.

I'd like to see how Belichick does w/o Brady for an extended period of time. I have no doubt they would be ok in the short run w/o him - that team has a champion's confidence now (thanks to Brady). But a long run w/o him would tell a different story.

Fortunately for Belichick, he'll probably never have to learn what life w/o Tom will be like anymore. He can keep standing on the shoulders of Greatness until he decides to step down, probably at a time when he can sense that Brady's passion for the game is ebbing.

[SonnyJ]

Yeah, wasn't Shanahan a genius with Elway, vs average without him?

Belichick and Shanahan are doubtlessly the two most overrated coaches of our time.

Not saying they aren't good, just that they aren't all that. Their records w/o all-time QBs attest to that.

[Major Harris]

put me on the list. i'm sick of the patriots, and have been for a few years now.

[chomerics]

Chomerics, I have no doubt Belichek is a great defensive coach. But the fact that this great defensive mind landed an elite QB can only been seen by outsiders as lightning in a bottle. It's not like Bill had been tearing up the league as a head coach before Brady came on the scene, and he'd been around for awhile.

Yet his record spoke for itself. Think about it for a little while. . .

He turned around a MORBID 3-13 Cleveland team and brought them from the league doormat to a playoff contender before free agency, something hard to do. His record for Cleveland was. . .

6-10

7-9

7-9

11-5 They went 1-1 in the playoffs and he beat Parcells that year. . .

5-11 This was the year they started 3-1 and then Model announced he was moving them to Baltimore. They went 2-10 the rest of the way, so I consider it a scrap of a season. . .

Now, He took over for NE and blew up a team that was in cap hell. He went 5-11 his first year there. Since then, he has been phenomenal. You can give all the credit to Brady, but who played him.

You have to remember, Bledsoe was the face of the franchise. In Brady's first year, they kept him on the team as a FOURTH QB! yes, they had 4QBs that year! They had Michael Bishop and Damon Huard. They cut Bishop the second year, and Brady moved ahead of Huard on the depth chart.

In 2001, Bledsoe is injured, and Brady wins 5 out of 8 games. The team is 5-5, and beldsoe is ready to come back from his injury. What does Belichick do? Does he start the franchise QB? No, he benched Mr. Patriot Drew Bledsoe and gave the reigns of the ship to an unheard of 2nd year 6th round draft pick. That right there is coaching suicide, but BB saw in Brady what nobody else did.

You can say he was "lucky" to have found him, or you can say that Brady was a "product" of Belichick's coaching, personally I think it is 6 of one and 1/2 a dozen of the other. They BOTH thrive off of each other, and they are two of the hardest working people in the game bar none. Brady has a work ethic that can only be attained from feeling slighted, and he always has a chip on his shoulder. He was told he was not strong enough, big enough, or fast enough to play in the NFL. Belichick gave him the chance, over a regional mega star, and it worked out!

is Brady good? Absolutely, the best QB under pressure I have ever seen, better then Montana when everything is said and done. Can they win without him? Absolutely, and I bet when Brady is gone, Matt Cassel, the person who never started a college game will do just fine. The coach vs the QB, which it the reason for success? Both know they are joined at the hip for eternity now, and neither wants to find out what life is like without the other one. They are both about one thing, that is winning, nothing else matters. That is why the Pats win, the only thing they care about is winning.

[Heidenreich]

Belichick is an OK coach who just happened to luck into the best QB of our era.

If Brady never arrives, BB is another unemployed coach in the carosel with Jim Fassells, Norv turners, Mike Martz's, etc.

The opinions changed when Brady arrived, much like with Joe torre & the Yankees. He was an average manager (at best) when the Yanks hired him. 4 WS's in five years, he's the greatest manager of all time.

It's all about perception. Dungy would be a great coach too if his QB didn't choke under pressure ever year

[chomerics]

Eh, you're just blinded by love for the Patriots.

BB is a great defensive coach. Doesn't mean that he is a superlative head coach.

Here is his breakdown:

Before Brady: 41-57, 1-1 Playoffs

With Brady: 70-24, 12-1 Playoffs

Now, what singular event happened to him after 6+ seasons as a head coach that turned him from a 42% head coach to an almost 80% success rate? This after going 5-13 in his first 18 games as Patriots coach (Before Brady).

Coaches and players have come and gone. But Brady has remained. So, yeah, saying he is a good head coach is accurate, maybe charitable. He owes his reputation to Brady. The only way you don't see the immediate, unprecedented metamorphosis in his perceived coaching ability once Brady became his QB is willful ignorance of the facts.

With Brady as the QB, NE almost starts from a baseline of at least 8, maybe 10 wins. That is the worst you can expect from him. I can't imagine what Gibbs would have done with a QB of Brady's caliber back in the '80s. They may have renamed it the Lombardi-Gibbs trophy.

I'd like to see how Belichick does w/o Brady for an extended period of time. I have no doubt they would be ok in the short run w/o him - that team has a champion's confidence now (thanks to Brady). But a long run w/o him would tell a different story.

Fortunately for Belichick, he'll probably never have to learn what life w/o Tom will be like anymore. He can keep standing on the shoulders of Greatness until he decides to step down, probably at a time when he can sense that Brady's passion for the game is ebbing.

I don't deny Brady has been a reason for their success, but who put him in there? I also think it is simplifying the story to say Brady is the sole reason for the success. Did Brady beat the 01 Rams? Did he singlehandedly stop their vaunted attack? No, it was a BB designed defense that stopped them. Brady is only part of the equation, Belichick is the other half, and when you put both of them together, it is stuff legends are made of.

[chomerics]

Belichick is an OK coach who just happened to luck into the best QB of our era.

If Brady never arrives, BB is another unemployed coach in the carosel with Jim Fassells, Norv turners, Mike Martz's, etc.

Sorry, don't buy it. Look at his record as a defensive coordinator, and look at who he has beat. Look at his record against MVPs in the playoffs. Look at his career. Yes, it exploded once he was given control of everything, and had the experience gained in Cle., but Brady is not the SOLE reason for their success. He is one man, you need another 21 players to play the game too, and the last time I looked, Brady wasn't playing both ways.

The opinions changed when Brady arrived, much like with Joe torre & the Yankees. He was an average manager (at best) when the Yanks hired him. 4 WS's in five years, he's the greatest manager of all time.

It's all about perception. Dungy would be a great coach too if his QB didn't choke under pressure ever year

Dungy is not a great coach, because he has lost the game with better talent plenty of times. Maybe this year is different, and the Colts win, but I find it hard to bet against the Pats. I mean who wants to go against them? I know Payton is already thinking that he has finally got them where he wants them, and he just may have. The Colts may win, but I wouldn't place my mortgage on it.

[chomerics]

Belichick and Shanahan are doubtlessly the two most overrated coaches of our time.

Not saying they aren't good, just that they aren't all that. Their records w/o all-time QBs attest to that.

Sonny, you do realize that BB has not one but TWO gameplans in the Pro Football HOF right?

The one against the Bills and the K-gun offense and the one against the Rams. At some point, greatness is not "luck" you need to make your own luck and win the game. maybe that is why the Pats win so much, because people don't realize that they capitalize when they can, and it is not luck.

BTW, about the "tuck rule". The Pats STILL had to make 2 fourth down throws in a blizzard, kick a 45 yard FG into the wind and then win it in OT. The tuck rule happened to them earlier in the year, and I knew it when it happened. I stood up and said

"HAHAHA The REVENGE of Ben Dreith!!!!!"

When the play happened, and I knew it would be overturned. You can say they were lucky the rule is in place (it still is), but they still had to execut4e the plays to win the game, and they did. That was not lucky.

Also, on the tuck rule, Brady was hit in the head by the Raiders tackler, which is an automatic 15 yd penalty which was not seen, so if it HAD gone by the book, the pats would have had the first down anyways so. . . :nana: :laugh:

[Reic]

I don't deny Brady has been a reason for their success, but who put him in there? I also think it is simplifying the story to say Brady is the sole reason for the success. Did Brady beat the 01 Rams? Did he singlehandedly stop their vaunted attack? No, it was a BB designed defense that stopped them. Brady is only part of the equation, Belichick is the other half, and when you put both of them together, it is stuff legends are made of.

They won by a vinitieri field goal....

[twenty-eight]

Everyone and their mother is sick of these fools

[SonnyJ]

Sonny, you do realize that BB has not one but TWO gameplans in the Pro Football HOF right?

The one against the Bills and the K-gun offense and the one against the Rams. At some point, greatness is not "luck" you need to make your own luck and win the game. maybe that is why the Pats win so much, because people don't realize that they capitalize when they can, and it is not luck.

BTW, about the "tuck rule". The Pats STILL had to make 2 fourth down throws in a blizzard, kick a 45 yard FG into the wind and then win it in OT. The tuck rule happened to them earlier in the year, and I knew it when it happened. I stood up and said

"HAHAHA The REVENGE of Ben Dreith!!!!!"

When the play happened, and I knew it would be overturned. You can say they were lucky the rule is in place (it still is), but they still had to execut4e the plays to win the game, and they did. That was not lucky.

Also, on the tuck rule, Brady was hit in the head by the Raiders tackler, which is an automatic 15 yd penalty which was not seen, so if it HAD gone by the book, the pats would have had the first down anyways so. . . :nana: :laugh:

Well, I don't recall mentioning the tuck rule or anything about luck (other than landing Brady in the 6th round). That's a battle you're having with others. Not going to argue with you about that.

And I should have said HEAD Coaches. Again, I'm not doubting BB's defensive acumen - the guy is damn good.

You've done nothing to dissuade me from the fact that BB's success is a product of having Brady as his QB. Maybe you're right that it's kind of a symbiotic relationship, that all BB needed was his equal on the offensive side of the ball to create a football machine. I just don't buy it, though. If he were that good as a HEAD coach, he would have been better than 42% prior to Brady becoming his QB. I mean, amongst others, the guy had multiple top draft picks to work with at the QB position, yet still couldn't do better than that? Just inserting Brady was the trigger for doubling his winning %?

Couple of questions for you:

-What was Crennel's role in designing the defense, active or supporting?

-If you had to say goodbye to one, which would it be, BB or TB? No cop-outs, please choose one or the other .

[chomerics]

-What was Crennel's role in designing the defense, active or supporting?

In the 01' SB season, it was a passive roll, but active in implementing it. It was actually a GREAT gameplan, and it ruined the Rams as a juggernaut. The Pats realized the problems with letting ST. Louis play their game, so they took it to them. The Rams had a timing based attack that year, and they disrupted the timing. There were a bunch of things they did that stopped the Rams that game they were. . .

1. Attack Marshall Faulk- Every time a play was snapped, Marshall Faulk was hit. If he went into the backfield, he was popped. If he came out as a wide out, they popped him. They hit him on every passing play to throw him off his game. He was the key to their success, and by attacking him instead of Warner, he threw them off their game.

2. Play bump man coverage- every team was scared to death of playing bump man vs the Rams because of the speed of Bruce and Holt. They always played back and let the Rams dictate to them rather then throwing off their timing and playing bump. Well, BB took both safetys and played them over the top in a man zone with bump coverage. It threw off their timing, and caused a number of incompletions.

3. Hit the receivers hard- they were punishing the St. Louis receivers, because they were a finesse team and knew they hated to be hit. They made sure if Bruce or Holt came over the middle in one of their crossing routes, they would pay the price. If you watch the tape, bu the third quarter, both WRs were actually going down after catching the ball because they didn't want to get popped, it is actually pretty comical if you know what to look for.

4. Play into Martz ego- Mike Martz has a HUGE ego, and he is of the mindset that he will beat you with what he wants to. Well, Martz bought into the "greatest show on turf" mentality and wanted to show what a great coach he was. he NEVER put the ball in Faulk's hands, and let Warner throw the ball for the majority of the game. This was due to their first meeting. When the Pats played the Rams in November of 01, BB blitzed Warner on about 80% of the plays. He sent everyone at him, but this time, he rushed more than 4 people only once in the twice half, and played a base nickel package for most of the game. He was daring them to run the ball, and Martz never adjusted. He passed all game, and never used his best weapon on the ground to move the ball.

The overall gameplan was very similar to the one against the bills in the 90's (Norwood game). They attacked Thurman Thomas instead of Kelly, and tried to disrupt the timing of the Bills receivers. As for who came up with it, Belichick drew up the initial gameplan in the 90's, dusted it off and gave it to Crennel for tweaking. It was a BB/Crennel gameplan, but it had BB's fingerprints all over it.

-If you had to say goodbye to one, which would it be, BB or TB? No cop-outs, please choose one or the other .

Simple, Brady. I have watched Cassel play, and I KNOW you can win with a decent QB (read Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson) but it is hard to win with a coach that is not that good. . . you only have to look to Sunday's game for evidence

[NoCalMike]

I am just tired of seeing them drive for the winning field goal in seemingly every game. They pretty much are the epitome of the post-salary cap era NFL.....a team most unspectacular that finds a way to win at the end of the game. It is teams like that, that make me long for the days of old.

[GrimReefa]

Look at the locale, of course I'm sick of the Patriots.

That said, it's over. No way the team I saw on Sunday evening is winning the Super Bowl. The best four teams I saw play last weekend were the Saints, Eagles, Bears, and Seahawks, and in that order.

[Skin'emAlive]

I have no problem with the Pats. Its not like they cheat or get away with calls that teams like the Cowboys, Buc's, Giants, and Broncos seem to get away with every game. Just face it... They are the best team in this century. Tom Brady is clutch and BB knows how to get the most out of his players. (Gaffney a top reciever ???) You gotta hand it to them.

[RedskinsNation]

Here, here. At least the Pats have won something. Peyton gets shoved down our throats & he hasn't won ****....

I agree.

But there are TONS of players im sick of that havent won jack that we get forcefed. QB's stand out cuz they are THE Glamour position in all of Sports, period.

If Manning DOESNT win the AFC Champ game this year I personally believe he never will. Im rooting for him just because I respect his passion, competiveness and love of the game. Im also rooting for him cuz the Colts won me $100 last week and i got another note on this weeks game

The Pats....revengetime....home game....Colts D playing "good" right now. He's got everything he wants or one would think.

[Henry]

I am just tired of seeing them drive for the winning field goal in seemingly every game. They pretty much are the epitome of the post-salary cap era NFL.....a team most unspectacular that finds a way to win at the end of the game. It is teams like that, that make me long for the days of old.

Well, the Pats were 7th in points scored and 2nd in points allowed, so I don't think they were winning a ton of close ones. Didn't they just last week beat the Jets by 21 points?

And didn't EVERY team that won this weekend win by a FG?

I dunno. For some reason I just can't bring myself to hate this team.

[bubba9497]

Brady didn't win squat, THE PATRIOTS did

he stunk it up Sunday, if not for some plays by other players the Pats would have lost because of Tom Terrfic, but yet he still gets all the credit

[Fanatic684]

I dunno. For some reason I just can't bring myself to hate this team.

Yeah, me either. I think it's cause I can't dislike Brady, he seems like a good guy and he wins. But I think when a team wins over and over and over, it's only natural to dislike them. The Patriots are sort of like the Yankees right now.

Brady didn't win squat, THE PATRIOTS did

he stunk it up Sunday, if not for some plays by other players the Pats would have lost because of Tom Terrfic, but yet he still gets all the credit

I don't think he's getting all the credit for Sunday. If Troy Borwn doesn't cause the fumble, the Pats lose the game. After that though, Brady was good, and that pass to Reche Caldwell that set up the field goal was a great pass.

Besides this is how it works. Does anyone care that Peyton has had two bad games in a row? No, because the team won. If you win you get a pass. If you lose you get criticized. That's sports.

[deejaydana]

I am starting to not like them too much, but HOW CAN YOU NOT ADMIRE their ability to win in the era of Free Agency and always field a strong team? And guess what people? They have 2 picks in the first round of this year's draft! Damn, why can't we run our team like the Pats!

[Ax]

Sonny, you do realize that BB has not one but TWO gameplans in the Pro Football HOF right?

The one against the Bills and the K-gun offense and the one against the Rams. At some point, greatness is not "luck" you need to make your own luck and win the game.

As far as the one against the Bills, the biggest thing that hurt them was the Giants offense. At the end of the day, the Bills got into position for a 40 yarder that Norwood would usually make, and he choked. It wasn't short. It wasn't blocked. Call it luck, fate, or anything else you want to, but three feet to the left and no one would remember BB's defense that day.

No one.

[Mooka]

I'm sick of watching the Pats in the big game. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Indy vs NO in the SB. :fingersx: