You keep claiming I failed, but the fact is that without Tom Brady the Pats still went 11-5. The point is factually accurate. I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding that.
a year after going 16-0 against a much tougher schedule. 2007 16-0 w/ Brady NE faced 6 playoff bound teams and beat all 6 by an average of 20 PPG. 2008 11-5 w/o Brady they faced 4 playoff bound teams(in 5 games) and they went 1-4 in those 5 games. 11-5 sounds nice but NE took a HUGE step back ffrom where they were and they missed the playoffs for the first time in 6 years.
Whatare the odds on Namath spinning the Jets' media attention into a Joe Namath reality show with his 2 skank daughters?
They did not take a huge step back. Super Bowl losers from 1997-2006 were a combined 76-84 the next season with only 3 teams making the playoffs. There is a natural decline after losing the Super Bowl and yet the Patriots w/o Brady still went 11-5. I am not making an argument that Cassel is as good as Brady, but the Patriots did not collapse w/o Brady. In fact they remained competitive and the only reason they did not make the playoffs was due to a tie breaker while an 8-8 team made it.
Joe is one of the reasons I became a Jet fan way back when, but I don't need him trading barbs with our players over everything. I'm glad Braylon took the high road and declined to get in a war of words with Namath.
I find it highly ironic that the guy who tried to pick up a female reporter on national TV is now throwing stones
Please stop, this is the Pats. They would have taken a step back to 14-2 or 15-1. The Pats were MUCH worse the following year w/ Cassell, the difference was greater than from Namath to his backups in that time frame referenced.
They would not have won 14-15 games w/ Brady. 12 or 13 is most likely. I post facts and you want me to stop. :breakdance:
You really think the dropoff from Brady to Cassell is only a game or 2? seriously? I think we can end this debate now, after all the excuses for Manning and the nonsense about Brady this takes the cake.
You would have to look at the losses and evaluate what happened. The only ones I can remember were the Jet game in Foxboro when we won in OT, where Cassel threw for about 400 yards and hit Moss to tie it at 0:00; and Week 3 when Chad threw for 200 yards in the first half to put Miami way up, then they unveiled the Wildcat in the second half and ran the Pats out of the place. Brady couldn't have made much difference in either of those games, so there are three more up for debate which I don't remember at all.
There's no way we beat NE at Foxboro if Brady is playing. Cassell had a good stat night but they fell behind 24-6 and had to throw, that's likely not happening w/ Brady.
Yes, I don't think there was as much of a dropoff as you are trying to tell us there was. I could see the Patriots lose to the Dolphins, Jets, Chargers, Steelers and Colts with Brady.
You are nuts, there's no way we would have beaten them w/ Brady, imagine Favre trying to go back and forth against Brady-:rofl: They likely would have lost that Miami game but they definitely could have won those other 4. They would have had 1-2 losses at most against that weak schedule.
Are you kidding??? BE has been dropping balls for the past 3 seasons. He has made some good catches but thats his m.o. : dropsies.
No, they would have had 4 losses at most. He wouldn't have beaten Pittsburgh or Indianapolis and would have lost to Miami. San Diego on the road at that part in the season would have been a tough game, and the Jets were hot when we beat NE and definitely could have in New England even with the almight Brady playing. You have spent WAY too much time defending Brady off of a factually accurate comment I made.
