They were in the Super Bowl in 96 with Parcells. Carrol took over a team that was just in the Super Bowl. I don't think that Carrol is a very good NFL head coach. Regardless of how good or bad you think Carrol is, his division title and playoff appearance was because of the team he inherited. You are right about the Pats being on the decline, but it was not becasue they did not have Tom Brady. The Pats were on the decline for multiple reasons.
#1. They just lost Bill Parcells.
#2. Pete Carrol took over. (The Pats were already a Super Bowl team which is why Carrol was able to win the division 1 year and get them to playoffs.
#3. In the 1997 off-season, Parcells convinced several Pats players (The biggest one being Curtis Martin) to come play for the Jets.
#4. They Lost a promising replacement for Martin when Robert Edwards was injured playing flag football in Hawaii.
Bilichick took over an 8-8 team that was on the decline. They had Terry Allen as the leading rusher, and the offensive line was terrible. That is a little different than taking over for a team that was just in the Super Bowl.
You can compare Bilichiks record with the Browns against Carrols record with the Pats and Jets, but it is not a fair comparison. The Browns were a 3-13 team when Bilichick took over and he turned them into an 11-5 playoff team after 3 seasons before going 5-11 in his 5th season with them. Yes, he went 5-11 in his first season with the Pats, but they were an 8-8 team on the decline when he took over. It takes time to build a team.
The Jets were an 8-8 team when Carrol took over, and he led them to a 6-10 record. The Pats were a Super Bowl team when Carrol took over, and he turned them into an 8-8 team after 3 seasons.
I completely disagree. Just because Bilichick went 5-11 in his first season with the Pats, and started 0-2 in his second season, does not automatically mean that they would have missed the playoffs if Brady had not taken over.
Bill Parcells took over for the Patriots in 93. Talk about a team on the decline. They were 6-10 and 2-14 in the previous two seasons.
In 95 the Pats went 6-10 under Parcells and started 0-2 in 96. Just like the 2001 season, the 96 Pats started 0-2, but turned it around and made it to the Super Bowl.
I already showed you that Brady faced weak competition, and did little in the playoffs in the 01 season. You can't tell me that Bledsoe could not have done the same when he already lead his team to the Super Bowl after an identical 0-2 start 4 seasons earlier.
I guess it is just a coincidence that their defense ranked 17th the year they were unprepared and missed the playoffs, and #2 the year they steamrolled the competition.
How did the Panthers D do against the Pats in the Super Bowl? You can't blame one defense, and give all the credit to the Pats offense.
In 2003 those Colts put up 41 against the Broncos and 38 against the Chiefs before the Pats D held them to just 14 points.
In 2004 those Colts put up 49 on the Broncos before the Pats D held them to just 3 points. I am not giving all the credit to the defense. I am sure a dome team playing in NE had something to do with it.
They held Pitt to a field goal after one half. The offense surely helped, but the game was already over at the half.
The Rams were the #1 ranked offense that year. You can't ask for more than holding the high powered Rams offense to just 17 points. That same defense that melted under pressure intercepted Warner 2 times. One was returned for a TD, and the other set them up on the Rams 33 yardline which led to a field goal. They also forced a fumble and returned it to the Rams 40 yardline which also lead to a TD.
I never said when Brady lead his team to points it was because of the opposing defense. I am just using your logic. You blame the Pats D when they allow the #1 ranked Rams offense to score 17 points, and the Panthers to score 29. You never give any credit to the fact that they were pretty good on offense themselves.
We will just have to agree to disagree. Brady leading the Pats to a game winning field goal against the Rams was nice, but if it was not for the defense returning an interception for a touchdown, it would have been for nothing. In fact if it was not for the NE D and ST, the Pats would not have even made it to the Super Bowl that year. I showed you what they did against Pitt in the AFC Championship game. Brady had nothing to do with it.
Even though the Pats D gave up 29 against the Panthers, they forced a fumble which gave the Pats offense the ball on the Panthers 20. That lead to a NE touchdown.
They had 3 picks against Philly. One of which took away 3 points since the Eagles were in field goal range.
When I know that all 3 of those games were won by 3 points, it makes me say that none of them would have been won if it was not for the defense. I give credit to Brady for leading his team to game winning field goals, but if it was not for the defense and special teams, he would not have even had the chance. Since that is the case, you can not say Brady is the biggest reason.
I know you feel differently, but it is pretty clear to me. I know I will not convince you, and you will not convince me. Nevertheless, I always enjoy debating with you. :up:
NE '96 was a good, not great, team. They made the SB thanks to Jax upsetting Denver who would have killed NE in the title game. Bill Belichick in Cleveland inherited a team in 1991 1 year removed from going to the AFC Championship so he and Carroll inherited similar teams.
They did lose Bill Parcells but won the div again the following year, they did lose Curtis Martin the next year but made the playoffs again the following year w/ Scott Zolak starting late in the season. NE had talent and Belichick inherited talent in NE.
He inherited a QB who reached a SB, he inherited a really good purpose back in Kevin Faulk, he inherited Troy Brown and Terry Glenn at WR, Bruce Armstrong, Joe Andruzzi and Damien Woody on the OL. On D he inherited Willie McGinest, Chad Eaton, Chris Slade, Tedy Bruschi, Ted Johnson, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Tebucky Jones and brought over Otis Smith and Bobby Hamilton. On STs he inherited Adam Vinatieri- this is basically the core of the team around Brady and he went 5-11 w/ them in 2000 then started 0-2 in 2001.
The Jets had been going up and down for years. We were 8-7-1 in '88, 4-12 in '89, 6-10 in '90, 8-8 in '91, 4-12 in '92, 8-8 in '93. yeah we were 6-10 in Carroll's only season but that was what we were back then and the man only had 1 season to prove himself, he did a better job w/ better talent in NE.
The bottom line is w/o Brady Carroll has had more success in the NFL than Belichick has.
Bill Parcells specialty was taking over awful teams and turning them around. That wasn't a Belichick specialty and that team was an absolute sinking ship, had Brady not come in he would have been fired as there's no way they make the playoffs w/ Brady. I vividly remember the game where Mo knocked out Bledsoe and Brady came in and you could instantly see a difference in the 2 QBs. I remember commenting to my wife as we watched the game that this Brady guy looks pretty damn good. He didn't have much time in the game and NE didn't score(the game ended on our 2 yard line) but if he had another :30 secs that game was likely going to OT.
In 1996 the Pats started out 0-2 losing to 2 teams that would win double digit games and they lost close games on the road. In 2001 they lost to the Bengals as part of 0-2.
Where did you show me he faced weak competition? and he was great against Oakland in the snow, he wasn't great in his less than 2 qtrs against Pitt but he left the game w/ a 1st down at the Pitt 40 so they were moving the ball. NE faced weak competition in 2000- how did that turn out?
You can look at rankings all you want but that doesn't tell the whole story. They had 3 games allowing 30 or more:
Gave up 38 to KC and WON the game 41-38
Gave up 30 to Chicago and WON the game 33-30
Gave up 30 to the Jets and lost 30-17
They were 2-1 in games they gave up 30 or more in so it wasn't. In the other 13 games they gave up 18.5 PPG, Miami allowed 18.8 PPG for the season and they finished 4th in PA.
The Pats D has failed multiple times in big spots only to be rescued by Brady and the O, the problem in SB XLII was that the O scored too quickly. You can say the Panthers D choked in SB XXXVIII but at least they were facing the best QB of his generation while NE was facing a decent QB from a much weaker conf.
Those amazing Bronco and Chief D's. Man that Peyton is one big time playoff performer
Those 2 teams have won a combined ONE playoff game since 1999 and they played Den at home where Den hasn't won a road playoff game since beating KC in 1997 and KC hadn't won a playoff game of any kind since 1993(they lost in '95, '97 and '03 at home w/ a bye).
Again in '04 they faced the Broncos at home.
In '03 the Pats allowed just 14 to Indy after Indy thrashed Den and KLC but NE's D would allow 29 to Carolina in their next game.
In '04 Indy crushed Den again then scored just 3 points at NE while in the next 2 games NE's D would allow 27 and 21 points to lesser offenses.
That Pitt game was not over yet, Pitt mounted a comeback and made the game interesting in the 4th qtr. Now had B rady pulled a Manning and not led his team to points early then Pitt probably wins but he didn't.
You can ask for a team to not blow a 14 point 4th qtr lead in a flash. SL's O was great but they also weren't great in big games. They scored 11 in the '99 NFC title game, 23 in their first SB, 21 against GB in the '01 playoffs and 24 against Philly- good point totals but far from great. They were up 2 TDs and the D choked only to be saved by the O on that incredible drive to win the game. They did alot of good things in that game but they melted in the 4th qtr and almost cost them a SB.
I do blame the Pats D for allowing 14 4th qtr points to almost blow the game and I do blame them for allowing 19 4th qtr points to almost blow the Panther SB.
They wouldn't have won in '01 w/o their D and STs but again they wouldn't have even been a playoff team w/o Brady.
So if the D does anything good in the game it absolves them of blowing late leads? B/c James Harrison returned that INT for a TD in the SB last year the Pitt D was great despite blowing a double digit lead in the 4th qtr? That doesn't make sense. I guess b/c Doug Brien kicked a FG early in the '04 div playoffs he goes blamesless for missing 2 kicks late when we only needed one of them to beat Pitt?
The fact that they were 3 point games makes the decision making of the QB that much bigger. Brady was a young 1st year starter and he got the ball at his 17 w/ just over a minute and no timeouts against the Rams. Against Carolina his D gave up 19 4th qtr points and he needed to score 30 to win that game.
The Pats D's have been GOOD, the D and STs have contributed significantly to their dynasty BUT the biggest reason for their dynasty is Tom Brady. He's by far the best QB of his generation and w/o him they have a good team that can't quite break through but w/ him they had a dynasty.
Also, let's not forget the average offensive talent around him in the dynasty years. It was like Montana and the Niners 1981. That is what seperates Brady from the rest this generation.
I enjoy th civil debates as well. I hate backing Brady and NE but that's how I feel, it makes feel as dirty as when I defend Marino against other fans. :crazy:
