Let's pretend the SD playoff game went the same way as the Indy game. At Indy we were down 5 midway through the 3rd when Indy removed starters, at SD we were down 4 midway through the 3rd. if they removed starters and we won everyone would whine they gave it to us but that game played out and we won. Indy likely wins but we don't know. I think it's pretty much a given NE wins if they needed that game and yes if Brady remained in the game taking over at his 34 w/ 1:47 to play and all 3 TOs the odds are pretty good they would have tied the game. against us they got it at their 10 w/ 11L:48 to play and NO timeouts, do you think that is different than 1:47 to plat, all 3 Tos and at their 34? You know he fumbled in Denver, right? The real question is how can you take away credit from us for beating Indy and give Houston credit for beating NE? NE wasn't great in 2009 but they had the best QB in the game for 16 gams vs. for less than a half in 2008. That alone makes them much better and therefore made our sched much more difficult. NE 2008 DIDN'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS
Let's pretend the SD playoff game went the same way as the Indy game. At Indy we were down 5 midway through the 3rd when Indy removed starters, at SD we were down 4 midway through the 3rd. if they removed starters and we won everyone would whine they gave it to us but that game played out and we won. Indy likely wins but we don't know. I think it's pretty much a given NE wins if they needed that game and yes if Brady remained in the game taking over at his 34 w/ 1:47 to play and all 3 TOs the odds are pretty good they would have tied the game. against us they got it at their 10 w/ 11L:48 to play and NO timeouts, do you think that is different than 1:47 to plat, all 3 Tos and at their 34? You know he fumbled in Denver, right? The real question is how can you take away credit from us for beating Indy and give Houston credit for beating NE? NE wasn't great in 2009 but they had the best QB in the game for 16 gams vs. for less than a half in 2008. That alone makes them much better and therefore made our sched much more difficult. NE 2008 DIDN'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS despite the weak sched. There's a reason we don't know how they would have done in the playoffs, they didn't earn the right to make it.
We got to play the Colts again just a couple of weeks later when they wanted to win and kept the starters in. We know the result. He fumbled after having a chance with over 5:00 and going 3 and out. Fumbling is a turnover right? He couldn't do it with 2 chances. So being on your 10 with no timeouts makes you only complete 1 pass out of 5? Make all the excuses you want but he had 4 opportunities that season to take the lead and couldn't get it done. Seeing as how he couldn't do anything in Houston all game, Houston would have likely made it 5. If you can't see the difference of one team taking out their starters for a half and the another removing the QB on only 2 drives all game then I can't help you. Either way you look at it, you are a hypocrite to give us credit and not Houston. SuperFan gonna SuperFan. :rofl2: 2008 NE didn't make the playoff because the divisional opponents won 7, 9 and 11 games. 2009 NE made it because the divisional opponents won 6, 7 and 9 games. Your schedule excuse has been debunked time and time again. I know you want to tear down 2008 NE since that is the year Favre was our QB and you want to build up the 2009 NE because that is the year that Sanchez was our QB but the fact is NE wasn't a very good team either year. 2008 NE didn't get a chance to prove it but 2009 NE surely did in that beat down Bal gave them in the WC round.
Yep, we built a double digit lead and our "great D" blew it. How come we can use a game from a month later but not a game in back to back weeks like the Cincy games? Fumbling is a freak occurrence, I think if you gave Brady 10 tries he'd convert at least 8 times. You posted 2 completely different scenarios, if they were similar I'd be with you and don't forget early in the year he was working a little rust off from being off a year. he was still good but he wasn't great yet. Yes, NE wanted that game so badly they took out the best player in the game for the last drive which could have tied the game. You got me:lol: They didn't make it in 2008 b/c they weren't good enough, they had a good record in a weak year. a year earlier that team won 16 games in the reg season and was humiliating opponents. I deal in reality, 2008 was an incredibly weak year, 2009 was a much stronger year. If I wanted to pump up sanchez I'd be talking nonstop about how he led us to a win at NE against a GREAT Pats team in the div rd in 2010.
holy douchery batman. well said testaverde. i appreciate those who take the time to debunk the juncisms. i personally dont have the time to do the research. i try to post stuff i remember seeing, with my own eyes of course.
haha, I love when you guys band together to make yourselves feel better. Anyone who thinks the 2008 sched was tougher has absolutely no idea what they are watching- IF they are watching at all.
Was this a typo Junc? Unless I misread some stuff I thought you were arguing 2009 schedule was tougher than the 2008 schedule hence the 9-7 in 2009 is more impressive than the 9-7 in 2008? In the above post quoted, you are saying now that if someone thinks the 2009 schedule was tougher has no idea what they're talking about. I thought I was following the back and forth but I probably missed something
Yeah, he committed a Freudian slip and typed the correct information instead of the propaganda he spews on a normal basis. He knows he's on thin ice arguing that a .500 SOS in 2009 was a harder schedule than a .568 SOS in 2008. Though he'll try like a Tabloid reporter to twist the facts to make it look like he's right....as long as you don't look too hard at what he's saying.
:rofl2: all you ever have are #s w/o context. 9-7 one year is not the same as 9-7 in another year. Our 2002 team at 9-7 was MUCH better than our 10-6 team in 2001 just like our 9-7 team in 2009 was much better than our 9-7 team in 2008. someday you may start to watch this game instead of relying on statsheets. Someday you may being to realize that stats tell part of the story not the whole story.
What does the Cincinnati game prove? Did we beat them by 37 points in the playoffs? I've never said we couldn't have beaten Cincinnati had they kept the starters in and wanted to win. You are still completely missing the point. One team took out starters for a half and one team took out the QB on only 2 drives. When the Colts removed their starters it changed the game for us. We scored a TD off of a Curtis Painter fumble as soon as he came in. He was 4 for 11 with 2 turnovers. Peyton was leading his O to scores on us 50% of his drives. Yet you give us credit for the win. Brady played all but 2 drives and on one of those drives the back up led them into FG range to tie the game before the half. Houston faced Brady for the majority of the game. He was on the field when NE got outscored 21-7 in the 2nd half but Houston doesn't get credit? You give credit to one team that faced starters for 50% of the game but not Houston since Brady was removed on 2 drives. :lol: It is your usual SuperFan double standard. I'm glad to see you finally admitting that you are a SuperFan with the change of your avatar. LoL!! Even if Brady didn't come out, they were still down 7 points with 1:47 left in the game. I gave you several examples where Brady couldn't get it done that year. You aren't going to find identical situations. Brady had 4 opportunities that season to lead game winning drives and failed. You can dismiss the fumble but he still had an opportunity on the previous drive with 5:00 left in the game and went 3 and out. I guess he just didn't want to win at that point. When Brady was out there was only 1:47 left and they were down 7 points and the ball was on the NE 34. Brady has 26 4th quarter comebacks and 37 game winning drives. Do you know how many of them happened when NE was down 7 with under 2:00 in the 4th and had the ball behind the NE 40? The answer is ZERO. It has never happened. Yes, I got you but you make it easy for me with your SuperFan thought process. Thanks! You are clearly just an average fan like I am though. :lol:
you and others have bashed the team b/c Cincy didn't play starters. One team took out starters for a qtr and a half up only 5, the other team down 7 w/ good FP and plenty of time took out their starters. That really sends a signal they were going all out to win regardless of resting starters or not. NE was not playing to win regardless of who was playing. down 7 w/ 3 TOs and almost 2 mins left w/ excellent FP would have been a terrible spot for Tom Brady. The man inherited the ball inside his 20 w/ NO timeouts in a SUPER BOWL w/ 1:30 to play and you don't think he could lead his team to a TD w/ almost 2 mins left and 3 TOs at his 34? rookie year vs. SD: took over w/ 2:10 left down 7 w/ 2 TOs and led his team to TD. I'm sure the extra few secs and having 1 less TO made all the difference. 2nd year: down 5(needing a TD, an even harder situation than down 7 b/c a D knows they will lose w/ a TD) w/ 1:50 to play and NO TOs leads NE to GW TD vs. Chi. I haven't even gotten through year 2 and he's had 2 similar situations where he succeeded, your premise that he couldn't lead his team to a TD is so beyond asinine.
Oh that's exactly what I said Junc, 9-7 years aren't the same. in 2008 the SOS was .568, in 2009 it was .500. in 2008 9-7 wasn't good enough to sneak in to the playoffs, in 2009 it was. Someday Junc you'll stop trying to deflect with that asinine argument "you don't watch football". It's hilarious, I've watched more football in my lifetime than you can dream. And I've watched more than enough football to know that the eyes deceive and only when you can back perception with statistical facts do you come to a full and complete conclusion. Those who argue that you should rely only on the subjective and not the objective data, and yes junc DATA includes visual data, can you arrive at the truth. But just like those who argue that the sun revolves around the earth because that's what it looks like despite all the other data you will continue to use your rigidly dogmatic, and naïve approach.
you got me, clearly the 2008 sched was so much tougher. having to face the dynamic 11-5 dolphins and Brady-less pats 4 times that year was too much to handle, along w/ the fearsome 8-8 Chargers, the tyler Thigpen Chiefs, the Ryan Fitz Bengals, Jamarcus Russell Raiders, the losers of 10 straight Rams(do you realize how hard it is to lose 10 games in a row?), the mighty Broncos, Mike Singletary's Niners(who by the way were bad but one of our toughest opponents all year- that's how bad the sched was) and the Seneca Wallace Seahawks. I don't know why I trusted you but looking it up: 2008 opps: 91-116-1 2009 opps: 109-99 I apologize, it was my mistake for being lazy and trusting your #s. This is why I discuss the eye test, there's just no way 2008 was tougher than 2009 and now it is proven to you since the #s show a huge edge to the 2009 opps.
I have not bashed our team because Cincinnati took their starters out. We beat them in the playoffs so I think we stood a good chance to beat them in the final week. I've only pointed out that the win against the Colts never would have happened if they didn't remove their starters. When they cared they beat us by 2 scores. Read what you just wrote! One team took out starters UP 5 the other team down 7. :rofl2: That says it all. On top of that one team took out starters for 50% of their drives. The other team only the QB for 20%. Giving credit to to us against Indy and not giving credit to Houston is yet another example of your Superfandom. :rofl2: Those are the only two examples in his CAREER that are even close. Please keep looking! In those lone 2 examples out of 26 4th quarter comebacks and 37 game winning drives they still had better field position and more time than what they had in Houston. Brady wasn't coming off knee surgery those years either. I'm not saying it is impossible to tie it, but taking credit away from Houston because Brady wasn't on the field for 1 drive when they were already down 7 while giving credit to the Jets against Indy when we were losing until they removed the starters is a complete joke. You have nothing to back up your statement that Brady leads them to a score that year. Other than the 4 examples that year where he couldn't get it done, Brady had a chance in the Houston game with 4:27 left in a tie game. He threw a pick. You taking away credit from Houston by automatically assuming the Patriots score while giving credit to us when we didn't face starters for 50% of the game speaks for itself. It's A Bird... It's A Plane... It's Superfan!! :rofl2:
Taking your starter out after only one drive in the second half with a 5 point lead is a much different situation than taking your starter out with a deficit at the very end of a game. Yes NE did give up in that game, but it still a stretch to say that they would have won even if they hadn't. And that is coming from a pretty big Tom Brady fan. When Indy gave up against the Jets, they had already made a pretty strong case that they were the better team and were capable of winning that game (even though it was meaningless for them, and they almost certainly hadn't been giving 100%). When NE pulled out Tom Brady, they were losing and had been outplayed up to that point. They left us with no option but to guess whether Brady could have led a late comeback, which is a hard thing to do and an assumption that you can't just make.
I looked at his first 2 years and gave you 2 examples. Why waste my time? To insinuate that he couldn't have or wouldn't have led them to a TD to tie it is so foolish it's not worth my time to debate it but I wrapped up my day at work and have a few minutes to kill to make you look even more foolish. 2003 Den: got the ball w/ 2:15 left and 1 TO down by 3. Led NE to GW TD 2003 Hou: down by 7 w/ 3 mins left and 2 Tos from NE 20, leads GT TD then win in OT 2007: down 4 w/ 3 1/2 to play vs. Bal, leads TD drive for win 2009: down 24-19 to Buf w/ under 2 mins left, leads TD drive for win 2011 Dal: down 3 w/ 2 1/2 to play and 1 TO. leads TD for win I can't believe this discussion. Do you guys even watch football? thinking Tom Brady doesn't have a chance w/ almost 2 mins left, all 3 TOs from his own 34 yd line. Just mind boggling.
NE didn't play to win, if they wanted to they would have. The evidence is there that w/ the game w/in reach they pulled Brady in a one score game. Do we need any more evidence? Indy made a strong case up just 5 pts at home midway through the 3rd? really? Again, using the SD example, we were down 4 at SD in the div rd, if they pull starters everyone says we won only win b/c of that but they didn't and we wound up winning. Chances are Indy would have won but it wasn't a slam dunk and we'll never know. Brady was down just 7 w/ great FP, plenty of TO and all 3 TOs. NE was "outplayed?" b/c they weren't really trying, if they were they would have won. The air came out of their balloon when Welker got hurt early in the game.
The fact that you had to go through 10 seasons of football to come up with 5 examples says a lot. How about we go through those 10 years and find the examples where he failed to lead a last minute comeback.
Foolish argument Junc, we've seen the Jets shut down Brady before on final drives. But whatever, context Junc, context.
