[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Murrell2878

I live in the world of fact. And you over-blow the impact Brady had in that game and even on that GW drive. I give credit to who is deserving of it. And that's why I give so much credit to JR Redmond for that drive. w/o Redmond they don't even get to mid-field before time runs out.

Other than getting OB after an 11 yard catch, what exactly did Redmond do? He had two other catches in that drive for 5 and 8 yards.

The biggest play of that drive was Brady hitting Troy brown with a clutch throw over the middle for 23 yards with only :29 left. Brown was also able to get OB.

[displacedfan]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

so now we are looking for that EXACT type of catch? The ball wasn't perfect but it was more than catchable and it should have been caught.

Yes we are talking for that type of catch because that statement you and the other poster provided was Welker catches that 90/100 times or 99/100 times. So yes we need to look at the exact catch, and when we do we see that Brady and Welker have completed that type of pass and catch in game 0 times, so the statement which I said was not accurate (99/100 or 90/100 times he catches that) is not accurate. It is clear as day that was not a common play.

End of the day I already said the ball should have been caught, but it was a poor throw also. If we look back on the facts, it is not a typical catch for Welker 20+ yards down the field, and it is not a typical throw for Brady so combine those 2 and you have an incomplete pass.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by displacedfan

Yes we are talking for that type of catch because that statement you and the other poster provided was Welker catches that 90/100 times or 99/100 times. So yes we need to look at the exact catch, and when we do we see that Brady and Welker have completed that type of pass and catch in game 0 times, so the statement which I said was not accurate (99/100 or 90/100 times he catches that) is not accurate. It is clear as day that was not a common play.

End of the day I already said the ball should have been caught, but it was a poor throw also. If we look back on the facts, it is not a typical catch for Welker 20+ yards down the field, and it is not a typical throw for Brady so combine those 2 and you have an incomplete pass.

he got both hands on the ball and should have made the catch, plays EXACTLY like that don't come up often but if in that situation again I bet he'd make that catch.

The throw was not a good one but it wasn't a bad one, it was catchable and should have been caught.

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

Other than getting OB after an 11 yard catch, what exactly did Redmond do? He had two other catches in that drive for 5 and 8 yards.

The biggest play of that drive was Brady hitting Troy brown with a clutch throw over the middle for 23 yards with only :29 left. Brown was also able to get OB.

every completion Brady has is all b/c of the receivers, every completion Peyton has is all b/c of him and every INT is the fault of his receivers.

[displacedfan]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

he got both hands on the ball and should have made the catch, plays EXACTLY like that don't come up often but if in that situation again I bet he'd make that catch.

The throw was not a good one but it wasn't a bad one, it was catchable and should have been caught.

Well hes 0-2 at the best maybe even 0-10 for all we know. So you are betting against the odds

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by displacedfan

Well hes 0-2 at the best maybe even 0-10 for all we know. So you are betting against the odds

it's a catch an NFL WR should make more often than not.

[GoPats]

Originally Posted by Murrell2878

And they filmed the Rams' final preparations. I'm sure that helped slow down the Rams offense too.

Originally Posted by Murrell2878

I live in the world of fact.

No proof of the allegations about the Rams' practice, but hey, you live in a "world of fact."



Nice fail.

[Donttasemebro]

Originally Posted by GoPats

No proof of the allegations about the Rams' practice, but hey, you live in a "world of fact."



Nice fail.

Says the guy arguing about old bullshit on another team's message board.

Nice life

[GoPats]

Originally Posted by Donttasemebro

Says the guy arguing about old bullshit on another team's message board.

Nice life

Wow, your words cut so deep...

But you're right. I have no life.

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

10 years from now Jets fans will still be pounding their chests that the Jets "went to back-to-back AFCCG's" like it was some type of significant accomplishment.

I know. It's kind of like Pats fans talking about how great the team has been from 2005 on because of all the regular season wins, division titles, and two SB losses.

Let's face it, since 2005, the Pats have dominated the AFC East, but they are not close to be being one of the best post season franchises in football over that time period. They are 7-6 in the playoffs with no championships. During the same time frame, the Steelers are 9-3 with 2 SBs. The Giants are 8-3 with 2 SBs. New Orleans is 5-2 with a SB. Green Bay is 5-3 with a SB. Indy is 6-5 with a SB.

The Pats are in the same class as teams like Arizona who is 4-2 in the post season with a SB loss, Seattle who is 5-4 with a SB loss, Chicago 3-3 with a SB loss and a half step ahead of team like the Jets who are 4-3, Baltimore 5-5, San Diego 3-4, and Philly 3-4.

One game over .500 in the post season over the past 7 years with no titles is not a dynasty. It makes the Pats a good team over that period , along with a lot of other good teams that made the playoffs often during that time period without winning it all.

[Professor Frink]

Originally Posted by Joe Willie White Shoes

I know. It's kind of like Pats fans talking about how great the team has been from 2005 on because of all the regular season wins, division titles, and two SB losses.

Let's face it, since 2005, the Pats have dominated the AFC East, but they are not close to be being one of the best post season franchises in football over that time period. They are 7-6 in the playoffs with no championships. During the same time frame, the Steelers are 9-3 with 2 SBs. The Giants are 8-3 with 2 SBs. New Orleans is 5-2 with a SB. Green Bay is 5-3 with a SB. Indy is 6-5 with a SB.

The Pats are in the same class as teams like Arizona who is 4-2 in the post season with a SB loss, Seattle who is 5-4 with a SB loss, Chicago 3-3 with a SB loss and a half step ahead of team like the Jets who are 4-3, Baltimore 5-5, San Diego 3-4, and Philly 3-4.

One game over .500 in the post season over the past 7 years with no titles is not a dynasty. It makes the Pats a good team over that period , along with a lot of other good teams that made the playoffs often during that time period without winning it all.

You're right, since 2005 they haven't been the best team in football. They've only been the fifth or sixth best. How disgraceful.

Not only would the last seven years be considered the greatest stretch in New York Jets history, it even trumps the seven best years the Jets have had in the last 40 years.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

Originally Posted by Professor Frink

You're right, since 2005 they haven't been the best team in football. They've only been the fifth or sixth best. How disgraceful.

Not only would the last seven years be considered the greatest stretch in New York Jets history, it even trumps the seven best years the Jets have had in the last 40 years.

Yeah but for most of that time Tom Brady has been healthy and extremely productive. What a waste of an opportunity.

If Namath had stayed healthy the Jets probably would have added to their SB score. He didn't and so the franchise collapsed. That Brady has been healthy but the Pats could not capitalize is going to haunt some New England fans 40 years from now.

[Professor Frink]

Originally Posted by Br4dw4y5ux

Yeah but for most of that time Tom Brady has been healthy and extremely productive. What a waste of an opportunity.

If Namath had stayed healthy the Jets probably would have added to their SB score. He didn't and so the franchise collapsed. That Brady has been healthy but the Pats could not capitalize is going to haunt some New England fans 40 years from now.

Yeah, an 86-26 record with three title games and two Super Bowl appearances, what a waste. I seriously doubt that's an era that's going to "haunt" me in 40 years. I'll probably be haunted by the fact that I'll never see a team as dominant as this one.

[Biggs]

Originally Posted by Professor Frink

Yeah, an 86-26 record with three title games and two Super Bowl appearances, what a waste. I seriously doubt that's an era that's going to "haunt" me in 40 years. I'll probably be haunted by the fact that I'll never see a team as dominant as this one.

In 40 years your short term memory will be shot and the glory days of the past will seem like it just happened yesterday. It will be a very pleasant memory until you realize you pissed in your diaper and need to wait for a Union employee to get off break to change it.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Br4dw4y5ux

If Namath had stayed healthy the Jets probably would have added to their SB score. He didn't and so the franchise collapsed. That Brady has been healthy but the Pats could not capitalize is going to haunt some New England fans 40 years from now.

Now that's pretty funny.

The last 10 years the Pats are up there with the Steelers of the 70's, 49ers of the '80's and the Cowboys of the 90's as a NFL dynasty team.

[Professor Frink]

Originally Posted by Biggs

In 40 years your short term memory will be shot and the glory days of the past will seem like it just happened yesterday. It will be a very pleasant memory until you realize you pissed in your diaper and need to wait for a Union employee to get off break to change it.

Sounds like I'll be living a good life

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by Joe Willie White Shoes

The Pats are in the same class as teams like Arizona

Jets fans are a funny bunch.

[KurtTheJetsFan]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

Now that's pretty funny.

The last 10 years the Pats are up there with the Steelers of the 70's, 49ers of the '80's and the Cowboys of the 90's as a NFL dynasty team.

Really? I don't think the Steel curtain defense ever finished # 32 in team defense, Bill Walsh was never sanctioned for surveiling the opposition, & Allen/Newton/Stepnowski/Williams never got thrown around like Rag dolls in a super bowl.

Roger Craig/Emmitt Smith/Franco Harris & Corey DILLION?!

Get the hell out of here.

[displacedfan]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

Now that's pretty funny.

The last 10 years the Pats are up there with the Steelers of the 70's, 49ers of the '80's and the Cowboys of the 90's as a NFL dynasty team.

Just curious, how do you define a dynasty? I would put the 01-04 Pats as a dynasty since they went 3/4 but for me personally it takes championships to have a dynasty. For me the Pats dynasty was 01-04 and probably could have been extended if they won in 07.

The Patriots have been the best team in the first half the decade 2000-2001 season until the the 2004-2005 season. The Steelers have been the best team in the second half of the decade 2005-2006 season until 2010-2011 season. So over the whole decade I would give the nod to you guys, but I wouldn't consider the whole decade a dynasty. I would say the first half of the decade was a dynasty though and you guys were the only dynasty of the decade, but it definitely didn't last a decade.

[PatsFanTX]

Originally Posted by displacedfan

Just curious, how do you define a dynasty? I would put the 01-04 Pats as a dynasty since they went 3/4 but for me personally it takes championships to have a dynasty. For me the Pats dynasty was 01-04 and probably could have been extended if they won in 07.

The Patriots have been the best team in the first half the decade 2000-2001 season until the the 2004-2005 season. The Steelers have been the best team in the second half of the decade 2005-2006 season until 2010-2011 season. So over the whole decade I would give the nod to you guys, but I wouldn't consider the whole decade a dynasty. I would say the first half of the decade was a dynasty though and you guys were the only dynasty of the decade, but it definitely didn't last a decade.

I agree with you.

The Steelers, 49ers and Cowboy teams were not dynasty teams for the entire decade as well, just like the Pats.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

I agree with you.

The Steelers, 49ers and Cowboy teams were not dynasty teams for the entire decade as well, just like the Pats.

SF won 4 SBs in the 80s, the first in '81, the last in '89. They were a dynasty throughout the decade.

Pitt won 4 in 6 seasons- first 74, last 79

Dall won 3 in 4 years just like NE- both teams of the decades but dynasties for only half the decades.