I agree that the 96 PAts were not an elite team, but that team was way better than the 3-13 Browns that Belichick inherited. At least the 97 Pats had consistency at the QB position.
Didn't you say:
How can you say the team was a sinking ship and give all the credit to Brady in one post, and then say they were a talented team in the next?
Maybe you are starting to see that it is not just Brady.
I do agree that NE had some talent, but they were still searching for a back to replace Curtis Martin. Yes, belichick went 5-11 in 2000, but that was his first year, and they were 8-8 in the previous season. Faulk is a good all purpose back, but he is not an every down back. Faulk and J.R. Redmond are not the 2 backs that I want to be carrying the load for my team. Together they combined for 289 carries for 976 yds. They had a much better back in Antowain Smith in 01.
Exactly. They were 8-8 in 93 with Esiason at QB and when Carrol took over they lost 2 more games than they did the year before. How can you give Carrol a pass because it was his first season, but not Belichik? Belichick took over an 8-8 team and went 5-11 in his first season. That is only one more loss than Carrol.
I still do not think it is fair to compare Carrol's time with the Pats to Belichick's time with the Browns. Those were completely different situations.
Even so, when Carrol took over the 11-5 Pats, they were progressively getting worse. (10-6), (9-7), (8-8). When Belichick took over the 3-13 Browns, they improved. (6-10), (7-9), (7-9), (11-5). He did that with 3 different starting QBs in the first 3 seasons.
What do you base that on? An 0-2 start after a 5-11 season the year before? Parcells had an almost identical 6-10 record and started out 0-2 in 96 and not only made the playoffs, but went to the Super Bowl.
Bledsoe did it before in 96 against tougher competition, and he could have done it again in 01 against easier competition.
When the Pats started 0-2 in 96 they faced 5 teams with a losing record all year. In 2001 they faced 10 teams with a losing record. The Dolphins, Jets and the Rams were the only teams they faced that had a record above .500.
As far as facing weak competition in 2000, I am not sure what you are talking about. They faced 10 teams that were at least 9-7 or better. They also faced the 8-8 Bills twice. The 2000 schedule was tough.
Here is where I pointed out the weak competition Brady faced in 01:
I did not add the 7-9 Saints, the 7-9 Browns, the 3-13 Bills again, and the 1-15 Panthers.
I have shown you multiple times where the defense has either put points on the board, or put the offense in great field position to score points in big games. You can give all the credit to Brady for leading the game winning drives, but without the D, he never has a chance.
Why don't you blame Brady for not leading his team to more points earlier? The D scored a touchdown in that game and set the offense up on the Rams 40 and 33 yardline. That more than equals out two late touchdowns, especially considering that it was the Rams.
At least you agree that they would not have won in the playoffs even with Brady. I am slowly opening your eyes.
If a defense puts points on the board it gives some room for error. Harrison's interception return for a touchdown was a game changer. Not only did it give Pitt 7 points, but it took away at least a field goal from the Cardinals. That is a 10 point swing. Without that play, Pitt losses the game. So, in that game I give more credit for the win to the Pitt defense than I give to the QB for leading the game winning drive. It is the Qb's job to put points on the board. Any points you get from your defense is a huge bonus.
The comparison of a kicker is not the same. You expect a kicker to make close field goals, but you don't expect your defense to score points.
All those games were tied, so there was not as much pressure. If they don't score they go to overtime. How did Brady do when he was playing from behind against the Giants? I know he only had 35 seconds, but they did have all 3 timeouts left. He did not even complete a pass.
It may be more equal with the 03 and 04 runs, but in my opinion the overall reason for their success is the D and STs. And the cheating. :lol2:
I know what you mean. Every time I take the credit for success away from Brady, I am putting it on Belichick and the Patriots as a team. :crazy:
Lets move on shall we? :D
