What's a longer period of time? 8 years or 44 years? It still amazes me that Jets fans can even utter a statement like this when their team hasn't accomplished anything in over 4 decades.
On the 3 years part, a lot of Jets go back when Rex started and we got Sanchez. It was clearly a new era for the Jets with a new coach and hopefully a new,long time starting QB. So when Jets fans including myself say recent, we usually go to the beginning of the Rex era since the key pieces of the organization have remained constant since then, Tanny, Rex, Sanchez. Do you hear Jets fans bragging about our Super Bowl, no. Are there Pats fans bragging about their Super Bowls, yes. That is why we can bring up it has been 8 years because many Patriots fans act like it was yesterday and it has relevance on the future accomplishments of the team. You can bring up your Super Bowls if you run into a Jets fan going around bragging about and bringing up Super Bowl III go right ahead and say what you said, but since 99% of Jets fans don't, if you bring up your Super Bowls to validate something recent, you are going to be mocked and laughed at. Especially since the last two Super Bowls you performed in have been 1) An absolute choke 2) The same story but less of a choke. And I'm just going to skip over nyjunc and murrell2878 posts because I get looped into that argument too many times and nobody changes their mind anyways.
Why does that amaze you? We haven't had a SB quality team in 4 decades why should I expect them to win a SB. I keep hearing how the Pats since 07 have been absolutely great, SB quality and they have produced 2 of the biggest chokes in SB history. If I was a fan of the Pats I would have to be very dissapointed at the absolute failure of what on paper is a great HOF QB and HC along with huge talent drafted on both sides of the ball. As a Jets fan I have been mostly happy that our band of misfits with a second tier QB and joke of a HC has even been in the mix.
w/o Brady in the AFCCG they still won. w/o Vinatieri they don't win the AFCDG vs. Oakland. w/o the Patriots defense the Pats put up ZERO points in SB 36 for 58 mins. But you say Brady was the main reason. Okay. Got it.
That's probably the best analysis as to why the Pats are 3-2 in their most recent Super Bowls and not 5-0. I couldn't agree with you more junc.
They wouldn't have been in the playoffs w/o Brady. Sure if they can have Kordell Stewart as the opposing QB then get a PR Td and blocked FG TD they can win games but how often is that happening? They aren't a playoff team in 2001 if Brady doesn't take over. who set up the GW FG vs. Oak? who led the GW drive in the SB after the D collapsed?
The Pats were able to lose a SB without Brady. The beat the Rams not because of the Pats great passing game but because the Pats were allowed to hold the Rams recievers and take out the Rams great passing attack. Brady was outright awful in last years SB and was clearly outplayed. In 07 a team that averaged 37 points a game put up 17 in the SB and let an average Giants team hang around and pull out a win. The won SB with Weiss calling the plays because Brady didn't turn the ball over and they had D and could run the ball. They haven't won since because Brady hasn't produced and they can't run the ball or play D.
You don't think I (or any Pats fan for that matter) were disappointed in those two games? 2007 was an absolute crushing defeat. Most people always cite the Tyree catch as the game winner. The Samuel drop of a very easy INT would have ended the game. And then BB's decision to blitz and let the shrimp of a Hobbit cover Buress 1-1 on the goal line was just as bad. Last year, Welker makes that catch 99 times out of 100 and it's game over again. But that is football, as a fan, you just deal with it.
1) Brady did not "turn that team around" in 2001. Yes, they started winning when he took over, but correlation does not imply causation. Anyone who watched that team knows that the offense was structured to limit his impact, just like Sanchez in 09 and 10. 2) Belichick isn't like Rex Ryan where he completely ignores one side of the ball. He's the head coach and he coaches the entire football team. Not to mention when their QB coach died in training camp of 2001 he took over that position for the year. Bill Belichick is one of the greatest coaches of all time. Coaches help players get better, and Tom Brady is no exception.
The Pats won Super Bowls when they were a great team with a great coaching staff. They haven't won since they became a team with a great QB and a great HC. It takes more than that to win a Super Bowl or the Fins would have had 3 or 4 of them in the 80's and 90's. That's just what it is.
Lets be accurate. You can disagree with any opinions formed from the stats here: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co..._Hangover_Pt._2:_From_Bradying_to_Welker.html But this does show that this is not a catch Welker makes 99/100 times, in fact its not even a pass Brady threw to Welker 100 times and they misconnected on the same type of pass in Philly earlier that year.
I have no problem with you being dissapointed in Welker and Brady choking last year or the choke of your entire O in 2007.
That D blew a 14 4th qtr lead, the first and only time this has happened in SB history. Brady was great until he got that hard hit from Tuck. After that he wasn't but he did keep NE in that game and if Welker makes a not too diffiult catch NE wins. In '07 he didn't have the greatest game but didn't throw a pick and led his team 80 yds late for the go ahead TD to give their D a 4 pt lead. They won SBs b/c Brady had the last real possessions. They didn't start losing SBs b/c Weis left, maybe if Weis had a track record w/o Brady I could buy it but that clearly isn't the case. Just like Sanchez in '09 & '10 Brady was vital to his teams success. I saw it int he game we played in week 2 when Bledoes got hurt. The offense looked different when Brady was out there even though you didn't score. Brady was the difference, w/o him you don't make the playoffs. where has rex ignored the offense? so you are crediting BB w/ developing Brady? Can we be serious please? BB wouldn't be a HC today if not for Brady and he would just be considered a great DC who couldn't cut it as a HC. is 90 out of 100 better? either way Welker has to make that catch no matter what some stats website says.
PR TD and blocked FG for a TD in the AFCCG. INT for a TD and 2 other turnovers that led to 10 more points in the SB. But you're right. Brady was the main reason. the drive in the AFCDG was set up by a 27 yard Punt Return by Troy Brown and then finished by a Vinatieri 45 yd FG in a blizzard. All hail Brady!!
Again, w/o him they don't make the playoffs and don't have those opportunities and they blew a historic lead in the 4th qtr of the SB only to be resuced by Brady and the O. In a blizzard where his top RB averaged 3.2 YPC Brady had to throw 52 times. The Pats 4 scoring drives: FG to bring Pats w/in 7-3 in 3rd qtr 7 passes 3 runs 1 reverse which set up a 2nd and 19(Brady completed 25 yd pass on next play) 4th qtr: trailing 13-3, 67 yd TD drive where they threw every single down(10 plays) to pull them w/in 13-10 FG drive to tie it, they pass every down except one OT: They receive coin toss and Oak never touches the ball. 8 passes to 1 run which got them in FG range, from there they ran it 5 times including QB keeper to set up GW FG. yeah, he didn nothing. It was all a Troy Brown PR.
Why do you guys keep saying this? This was a fabricated story made up by the Boston Herald without any facts whatsoever. A few days later, the Herald took out a full page apology to Kraft, the Patriots and their fans admitting that the situation never occured.
w/o Brown's Punt Return they NEVER get into FG range for Vinatieri to hit a nearly impossible 45 Yd FG. Explain what was so great about Brady's pass on the 25 yard pass play to Patten on their first scoring drive?
