It's not debatable: it's totally wrong. The only place, besides QB, where they're better is TE's and LB's. But QB is the most important position by far and you can't just take a HOF and replace him with a scrub and think things will be the same. There's a reason why offensive players who leave the Cheaters never do much elsewhere.Originally Posted by Joe Fo Sho
Joe Fo Sho (07-24-2016)
Did you mean "quiet?" Spelling has never been all that important to Republicans. Like taking care of their neighbors in need.I can't remember a more quite offseason than we have this year here on BZ. It's like hardly anyone talks football anymore.
They're only more talented at two positions but they're perennial contenders while we struggle to break .500? Please.
Oh, and the last time they replaced a HOF QB with a scrub, they went 11-5 and only missed the playoffs on tiebreakers. And that was a full season. This is only 4 games.
So the exception that proves the rule is actually just the rule?
Yeah, it's called having Brady. Belichick was a sub-.500 coach with the Browns and the year after he took over an 8-8 Cheaters team. Having a prolific offense that not only score points but keeps the defense off the field is a huge advantage.
As for that 2008 season, they also had a team that had the greatest offense of all time that returned entirely intact, the 4th ranked defense in yards and points, and who went 18-1 the year before, barely losing the SB thanks to a miraculous catch. But they still missed the playoffs didn't they? Think they make the playoffs and go deep in them if Brady had played? This current team is nowhere near that one.
The rule is that NE still plays well when starters aren't available. They've done it time and time again. Granted, they've only had to go without Brady for an extended period once since he became the starter, but they're one for one.
Every year. Every damn year. "this NE team isn't as good as their past teams." Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
Show me where I've said that once. As long as they have Brady and Belichick, they are good enough to beat the Bills consistently. Just like how the SB era Bills beat their division opponents consistently.
They were good enough to get 11 wins without Brady.
The Patriots have exactly TWO players left from that 2008 team, and they are both Special Teams players...not including Brady, of course. I don't know how many coaches remain, but probably not too many.
Today's Patriots roster isn't nearly as good as it was back then. That 2007 team was probably the best one I've ever seen, or close enough to it. That carried over into 2008 when Brady got hurt.Saying the Patriots beat us without Brady in 2008 means nothing in relation to this year's matchup. Why totally ignore the fact that the Bills beat the Pats with Jimmy Garoppolo at QB recently? It means just as much.
I don't think that anyone in their right mind is going to say that anyone in the AFC East has gained ground on the Pats at this point, even with Brady missing four games. They are still odds-on favorites to win the Super Bowl. But I think the Bills have a fair shot of beating them in week 4 without Brady. That's about as far as I'd go with that. Wish that game was to take place in Buffalo...
Great point. And Brady played the first half of that game. And that team was a lot more talented than the one the Cheaters have now.
I'm ignoring that fact because it's tainted. It was more than just Brady who was resting and the Patriots were more concerned with being healthy for their playoff game while the Bills were desperate to get their first ever win in Foxboro. That game meant everything to the Bills and nothing to the Patriots. It's not even remotely comparable to a game where both teams need a W equally.
You can make any excuse you want but that's what happened the last time the Bills faced the Cheaters without Brady, for a half.
So why not also ignore that the Patriots beat the Bills in 2008, since only the kicker and gunner on Special teams remain from that squad?
This is my point.
How does that even remotely compare to this year's matchup? The Titans had the best record in the NFL in 2008, so I guess everyone has to watch their sweet ass about them this year too, right?
Because the Patriots have demonstrated the ability to overcome injuries time and time again. When they need a win, they get one far more often than not, regardless of who's not playing.
Absolute fact.
In the 16 years of the Belichick NE regime, they have suffered only one losing season - his first, back in 2000.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/
Fiat justitia ruat caelum. Noli timere. Laus Deo.
That's because they have Tom Brady.
Don't bring up 2008 again unless you want to finally address my post (#90) in this thread. Don't make me repeat myself.
Belichick is not a wizard. A great coach, but not a wizard. Do you you think that he can turn ANY NFL roster into a winner? He's never made the playoffs without Brady.
Before Bellicheck, Brady was nothing. He was a 6th round draft pick who spent most of his college days riding the pine behind Drew ****ing Henson. So, I wouldn't say he can get any NFL roster into the playoffs. But he sure as hell can make a good run with his current roster minus Brady for 4 games.
Good point. ,I'm amazed the Bills actually beat them last year!
Before Brady, Belichick, who was a SB-winning DC, was a sub-.500 head coach who couldn't even get the Cheaters to .500 the year he took over, when they were 8-8 the year before, and that was with a former 1st round QB in Drew Bledsoe. They even started the 2001 season 0-2 before Brady took over thanks to Bledsoe almost dying on the field, whereas before he was an ironman. Needless to say, they got uber lucky with Brady and haven't been able to draft/develop anyone close to him, or even anyone good (Cassel eked out a few good seasons). Garooolopppoollo hasn't looked too good to date, even though he was a 2nd rounder (drafted much higher than Brady was so that means he should turn out better, right?), so you can't even reasonably say that he'll be anywhere as good as Cassel was with a loaded offense in 2008, until proven otherwise.
Yes I meant quiet. Phone does thatball the time and Im too lazy to proof read my posts. And I wouldnt know that because Im not a republican.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote