The New Guy
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 74
Brady won 2 SBs w/ Antowain Smith as his starting RB so obviously even during his first few years they were still trying to replace Curtis but still managed to win thanks to #12.
Antowain Smith was best back NE had since 97. Smith had over 1,100 yards with 12 TD's that year. Smith was not a spectacular back, but don't undervalue his contribution to the team that year. I believe that he was one of the reasons the Pats went from 5-11 the year before to 11-5.
Even if you compare just the first seasons of Carrol and Belichick, Belichik was more successful. You can't look at just the win / loss record. Carrol took over an 8-8 team and went 6-10. Anyway you look at it, that is not an improvement.2000 was Belichicks first season w/ NE but it wasn't his first season as a HC, 1994 was Carroll's first chance to be a HC and he at least had us in contention until early December.
Belichick's 1st year in Cle they were 6-10, his last year in Cle they were 5-11. he had ONE winning season in 5 years. Carroll has ONE losing season in 4 years.
I know the Browns were in the AFC championship game in 89, but by the time Belichick took over, that team had unraveled. Kosar was playing terrible, and the team was last in the league in rushing and near the bottom in rushing defense. Belichick took over a 3-13 team and went 6-10. A losing season, but still an improvement.
Carrol may have only one losing season in 4 years, but that is only because he took over a good NE team. They progressively got worse every year he was the coach. I really doubt that if has took over the 8-8 team he finished with, that he has the 2 winning seasons he has.
I was comparing the 2000 schedule to the 2001 schedule, not the 96 schedule to the 2001 schedule. Things change from season to season. Bledsoe went 6-10 in 95 and could not beat the 7-9 Panthers, or the 7-9 Saints, but lead them to the Super Bowl on a much easier schedule in 96. It is very similar to what the Pats did in 2000 and 2001. Except in 2001, Brady took over and gets all the credit.Tougher competition in 1996? The AFC was better in 2001 and the AFC East was comparable in '96 to 2001 and actually AFC east teams won 41 games in 2001 compared to 39 in 1996. Bledsoe also didn't have Curtis to carry him to a SB like he did in 1996.
The 6-10 Cols became 6-10 b/c they had alot of injuries. early in the season they were playing like a playoff team. Indy was 2-0 when they faced them the first time, they then lost to the Raiders before facing the Pats again. So they started 2-3 but in non-Pats games they were 2-1 and they started 4-1 in non Pats games in their first 5 no pats games before things fell apart.
In 2000 Bledsoe couldn't beat 3-13 Cleveland or 5-11 Chicago so why would he have beaten those bad teams they faced in 2001?
Other than the much easier schedule the Pats had in 01, they had a back in Smith that could take some of the pressure off of the QB.
Oh, that.Playing from behind against the Giants he only led them on an 80 yd TD drive to put his team up 4 w/ 2 1/2 to play.
:foundout:
Not to shabby. But was that Brady, or the Giants D collapsing under the pressure of the Super Bowl?
Or maybe it was the cheating.
Ok, what did he do against the Colts in the AFC Championship game in 06? He threw an interception. :whew!:
We are proof to everyone that a Jet fan and a Dolphin fan can have a nice, civil discussion. :)Good debate, I like nice, civil discussions.:up:
Last edited by a moderator: