I think they were a little caught off guard on the possibility that Brady would be injured, but I don't think that automatically makes them an easy beat. They'll be ready to go on Sunday.
exactly. They are a good team even without Brady. I don´t get all that "I want to beat them with Brady"-Talk. Sure, that would be very sweet, but i rather beat them without Brady (that´s hard enough) than loose to Brady once again. I don´t care what their Fans say if we beat them without Brady, a win is a win and making excuses is for loosers.
Does everyone here really think that BB never considered the possibility that Brady would go down? Cassel has done little to impress from what we have seen from him, but BB sees him everyday in practice, meetings, etc and he is on the team for a reason. Maybe Belichick will be wrong ultimately be wrong about Cassel but he obviously has some confidence in him.
They will now run, run and run some more. They have the horses to do it so we better get ready for it. The passing game will be cut back and there will be a lot more 10-20 yard passes than 50 yard passes now. We better be ready for that too.
If you had read the responses to the article you would not have to ask the question. Everyone abouve your post thought it was BS.
I would think with a championship caliber team you would have a back-up QB with actual game experience, not a QB you were developing who hasn't started a game in 8 years or whatever. Cassel may well be "ready," but you just can't teach experience.
Yea. One simple word makes that sound less like a attempt to rile people up and more like asking a question. :beer: ...and I don't think many of us are counting the Pats out. Your team is more then Tom Brady. The road in the AFC east is easier without him there, but by no means simple with a very talented Pats team and a good Bills one around. All this talk is nothing more then sports reporters trying to get people up in arms or excited. Both of which will sell more papers or get more viewers.
Compare what the Pats have now to what they could have had with a vet signed in March. Maybe Culpepper and Leftwich don't have a lot in the tank. But I'd take either of those guys far and away over Cassel. Especially with 6 months to learn the offense and get ready. So that begs the question, why didn't BB have at least one vet QB on the roster other than Brady ??
Exactly. I don't remember a host of Pats fans saying 'Man I wish Tomlinson had played and Merriman and Rivers were healthy' when they beat them in the playoffs. Fuck the Pats, we stuck with them in the second game last year when we had a ton of players that either didn't fit the schemes or just plain sucked. Even if they do suck a dog's rectum without Brady this year, division teams play each other close most times. It will probably be a tough game without Brady on the other side of the LOS and I'll rub Pats fans faces in it if we win. Screw pity. If this were the 2001 Pats without Brady, we'd roll over them. But they've drawn enough attention from players around the league during their cheating years to assemble a good team, even if they are severely declining on the defensive side of the ball.
Meh. If they're going to keep him around for, what, 4 years now?, he's got to have some talent. I'm sure he can't be much worse than Jim Sorgi or David Carr or anyone like that.
I think they'll do a lot of dink and dunk (especially to Welker) like they did the year Brady replaced Bledsoe. And they'll use all their RB - Maroney, Morris, Jordan and Faulk - on both runs and screens, all getting a lot of playing time to keep them fresh. And I'm sure they'll throw a few long sideline play-action passes to Moss when the defense brings eight up in the box in hopes of a mismatch or a pass interference call.
Well really...no team w/ a super star QB is really prepared for the qb to go down. Especially one w/ the healthy track record that Brady has.
