dlockz
Hall Of Famer
Or the rest of the league that Johnson and others have claimed that did the same thing.
The Fall of the Patriots
- Thread starter The Goat
- Start date
Or the rest of the league that Johnson and others have claimed that did the same thing.
The New Guy
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 74
I rarely agree with you, but I am with you on this one. BB running that D and special teams was a bigger reason for the Pats first SB win than Brady was.
Belichick went 5-11 in 2000, but that was his first season with NE, and Pete Carrol had that team on the decline. They faced 10 teams that were at least 9-7 or better his first year.
BB started 0-2 in 2001. So what? Teams don't turn it around after two games? Want to guess what record the Pats had after two games when Bledsoe led the Pats to the SB just a few years before? Yep, it was 0-2.
Let's not act like Brady came in and was a world beater. He won his first start against the Colts who went 6-10 that year. He lost his next start to the 11-5 Dolphins. His next 2 games were against the 5-11 Chargers, and the 6-10 Colts again. He lost to the 8-8 Broncos before beating the 7-9 Falcons and the 3-13 Bills. He beat the 7-9 Saints, the 7-9 Browns, the 3-13 Bills again, and the 1-15 Panthers. They faced 10 teams with a losing record in 2001. You can't tell me that it isn't possible that Bledsoe couldn't have had the same success against those weak teams.
In the playoffs, the D held Oakland to just 13 points in the divisional playoff game, yet if it was not for the tuck rule, Brady would have lost the game.
The next game against the Steelers the defense allowed 17 points. They intercepted 3 passes and held the Steelers running backs to 19 total yards. What did Brady do in that game to get them to the SB? I know he got injured late in the first half, but before the injury, he led the offense to 0 points. Drew Bledsoe came in and led the team to its only offensive touchdown of the game. In addition to the TD pass, Bledsoe put the Patriots in position for a 4th quarter field goal. The other scores came from a punt return and a blocked field goal returned for a touchdown.
In the SB, the D held the #1 ranked offense to just 17 points, while creating turnovers that they not only scored off of, but helped put the O in great FP which allowed them to score. They 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 led to another TD.
Brady is a great QB but the Pats do not win their first SB in 2001 without the great D and special teams play. If that never happens, who knows how things play out after that?
Brady may be a bigger reason with the 03 and 04 runs, but the D and STs was the main reason in 2001. And the cheating.
dlockz
Hall Of Famer
I rarely agree with you, but I am with you on this one. BB running that D and special teams was a bigger reason for the Pats first SB win than Brady was.
Belichick went 5-11 in 2000, but that was his first season with NE, and Pete Carrol had that team on the decline. They faced 10 teams that were at least 9-7 or better his first year.
BB started 0-2 in 2001. So what? Teams don't turn it around after two games? Want to guess what record the Pats had after two games when Bledsoe led the Pats to the SB just a few years before? Yep, it was 0-2.
Let's not act like Brady came in and was a world beater. He won his first start against the Colts who went 6-10 that year. He lost his next start to the 11-5 Dolphins. His next 2 games were against the 5-11 Chargers, and the 6-10 Colts again. He lost to the 8-8 Broncos before beating the 7-9 Falcons and the 3-13 Bills. He beat the 7-9 Saints, the 7-9 Browns, the 3-13 Bills again, and the 1-15 Panthers. They faced 10 teams with a losing record in 2001. You can't tell me that it isn't possible that Bledsoe couldn't have had the same success against those weak teams.
In the playoffs, the D held Oakland to just 13 points in the divisional playoff game, yet if it was not for the tuck rule, Brady would have lost the game.
The next game against the Steelers the defense allowed 17 points. They intercepted 3 passes and held the Steelers running backs to 19 total yards. What did Brady do in that game to get them to the SB? I know he got injured late in the first half, but before the injury, he led the offense to 0 points. Drew Bledsoe came in and led the team to its only offensive touchdown of the game. In addition to the TD pass, Bledsoe put the Patriots in position for a 4th quarter field goal. The other scores came from a punt return and a blocked field goal returned for a touchdown.
In the SB, the D held the #1 ranked offense to just 17 points, while creating turnovers that they not only scored off of, but helped put the O in great FP which allowed them to score. They 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 led to another TD.
Brady is a great QB but the Pats do not win their first SB in 2001 without the great D and special teams play. If that never happens, who knows how things play out after that?
Brady may be a bigger reason with the 03 and 04 runs, but the D and STs was the main reason in 2001. And the cheating.
The d was among the best in the league those years. People that think that it only takes one thing to win in the nfl are delusional. 2001, 2003 and 2004 The pats had a damn good defense , Brady doesn't win a supebowl or get there with an average defense.
I rarely agree with you, but I am with you on this one. BB running that D and special teams was a bigger reason for the Pats first SB win than Brady was.
Belichick went 5-11 in 2000, but that was his first season with NE, and Pete Carrol had that team on the decline. They faced 10 teams that were at least 9-7 or better his first year.
BB started 0-2 in 2001. So what? Teams don't turn it around after two games? Want to guess what record the Pats had after two games when Bledsoe led the Pats to the SB just a few years before? Yep, it was 0-2.
Let's not act like Brady came in and was a world beater. He won his first start against the Colts who went 6-10 that year. He lost his next start to the 11-5 Dolphins. His next 2 games were against the 5-11 Chargers, and the 6-10 Colts again. He lost to the 8-8 Broncos before beating the 7-9 Falcons and the 3-13 Bills. He beat the 7-9 Saints, the 7-9 Browns, the 3-13 Bills again, and the 1-15 Panthers. They faced 10 teams with a losing record in 2001. You can't tell me that it isn't possible that Bledsoe couldn't have had the same success against those weak teams.
In the playoffs, the D held Oakland to just 13 points in the divisional playoff game, yet if it was not for the tuck rule, Brady would have lost the game.
The next game against the Steelers the defense allowed 17 points. They intercepted 3 passes and held the Steelers running backs to 19 total yards. What did Brady do in that game to get them to the SB? I know he got injured late in the first half, but before the injury, he led the offense to 0 points. Drew Bledsoe came in and led the team to its only offensive touchdown of the game. In addition to the TD pass, Bledsoe put the Patriots in position for a 4th quarter field goal. The other scores came from a punt return and a blocked field goal returned for a touchdown.
In the SB, the D held the #1 ranked offense to just 17 points, while creating turnovers that they not only scored off of, but helped put the O in great FP which allowed them to score. They 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 led to another TD.
Brady is a great QB but the Pats do not win their first SB in 2001 without the great D and special teams play. If that never happens, who knows how things play out after that?
Brady may be a bigger reason with the 03 and 04 runs, but the D and STs was the main reason in 2001. And the cheating.
They don't even get to the playoffs without Brady so how can the D/STs be bigger?
10 teams that went 9-7 or better b/c they BEAT the Pats. if we split w/ NE in 2000 we don't go 9-7. If they sweep us we go 7-9. Their sched wasn't crazy. They lost games to the 3-13 Browns and 5-11 Bears.
Teams do turn it around after 0-2 starts but that team was DEAD. Going nowhere, rumors of BB's job were swirling. They lost to a bad Cincy team week 1 then a playoff bound Jet team week 2 where they couldn't do anything offensively against us.
The Colts went 6-10 that year but they started off strong. The same Jet team that NE scored 3 pts on Indy beat us 45-24 2 weeks earlier. Indy fell apart later in the year, had some key injuries and Peyton was still young.
He beat who was on the sched, better than losing to bad Bengal team week 1 or bad Bears and Browns teams in 2000 w/o him, right?
The playoff game was in a BLIZZARD and he led them on the game tying and game winning drives.
The next game the D/STs was great scoring 2 TDs but Bledsoe didn't lead anything, he finished off a drive. Brady's last play was a 28 yd pass play that set NE up 1st and 10 at the Pitt 40.
They did a great job in the SB for 3 qtrs. then blew an historic lead and that SL offense was held to 11 pts at home in the '99 title game so they could be slowed down.
The Patriots don't make the playoffs in 2001 w/o Brady, Bill Belichick gets fired after 2001 w/o Brady.
it was among the most overrated, they had a great stretch in the 2001 playoffs before melting in the biggest spot. won 3 SBs, in 2 of them they blew double digit 4th qtr leads. In the history of the SB, 48 games, it has happened exactly 3 times(and never happened before the 2 times NE did it) and 2 of them were the "great" NE D's.
dlockz
Hall Of Famer
You have to get to those superbowls, something that neither the jets or dolphins know much about anymore. winning games 20-17 is not because of bad defense except in your world
I did not call their D bad but when you blow double digit 4th qtr leads in the SB you are certainly not great especially when it has only happened 3 times in history and 2 times it was those "great" NE D's.
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
Everybody should read that book.
actually you should read this in response to that trash article: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/10/...pygate-in-anticipation-of-jets-patriots-game/
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
As always you are missing the point.
It is not just the taping which was an issue. Anybody can tape anything. You can tape signals from the stands with a decent camera. The point was the use of video cameras in game, sometimes in play, with the use of additional radio communication. The latter part was never investigated because the league shut the investigation down within days. In addition to that the rumors of locker room microphones at Gilette Stadium were swirling. The great Peyton Manning once said: 'it was like they were sitting in our locker room while we did the game planning'. And according to Manning at times he went outside with OC and continued their game planning.
This whole 'it was just about video taping" and "everybody does it" is and was for the dull and gullible.
why do you think the league shut down the investigation?
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
Yeah, let's believe the Boston Globe.
Secondly it is a very common procedure trying to pull issues into obscurity and make it laughable in order to distract from the reality and possible underlying facts.
When I went to school and college it was actually basic English Speech and Composition how to manipulate readers. The press is using it on a daily basis to create fear or misguided opinions counter to evidence and facts.
We know three facts:
a) tapes existed
b) tapes were destroyed within a couple days from NFL staff in New England ordered so by Goodell without ever seeing the tapes
c) the 'punishment' came within a couple days after destroying the tapes and were based on destroyed tapes
Last time I checked it is always good to keep evidence. No matter how big or how small the crime or infraction is. The other thing is that in order to quell any kind of conspiracy theories you need to bring evidence to counter act such theories.
Conspiracy theories are only existing in the absence of evidence which makes it possible to speculate. If you add rumors to lack of evidence and such rumors are neither denied nor disproved the conspiracy theory continues on. In the case of Spygate and the experiences of Flutie and Manning, neither denied nor confirmed such rumors. They simply did not want to be asked about it.
In any case: any conspiracy theory can be crushed and flushed down the toilette with evidence countering these theories.
But the evidence is not there to counter conspiracy theories. Even worse the book 'Spygate' is adding its own evidence which fuels the speculation of a cover up.
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
To protect itself. It's a money machine, tax-free money. A multi-billion dollar for-profit organization who lives still in tax free status.
In addition to that Congress protected the NFL with an anti-trust exception. No professional football league countering the NFL or created on the level of the NFL can be formed.
These are two major items which could risk the survival of the NFL as we know it. The NFL is a either a tax free income for the owners or, in case of losses, a legal tax write off.
Congress could withdraw both status very quickly. And a lengthy investigation of the Patriots and possibly uncovering a larger crime than just 'taping' could easily trigger such actions. But in such case even before the hammer comes down on the NFL from Congress fans would be driven away; cities, counties and states would rescind on tax incentives and bonds issued to the teams; banks would probably start their own investigations for loans given; and suddenly NFL franchises who are declared in value at 1 billion and more could be had for pennies.
The happy, little and protected world of the NFL would come crumbling down. And I didn't even include possible criminal charges for those involved.
You never have an industry investigate and regulate themselves. The abuse of power is to great.
Of course one could simply say: why did not organizations like ESPN dig into that? Money, again. ESPN makes billions of dollars on the NFL. So does CBS Fox etc. With a crumbling NFL investigated for cheating TV and Sports Stations stand too lose billions of dollars themselves.
Just the fact that if Congress would simply decide to withdraw the antitrust law exemption would trigger Chaos. I could name you about 2 dozen cities in the US who either were denied an NFL franchise in the past or had their teams moved for dubious and greedy reason who would jump right onto a competitive professional football league on the level of the NFL - not too mention that there would be a few teams moving to another league from the NFL.
It's all about money. Every heard of "to big to fail"?
Yeah, let's believe the Boston Globe.
Secondly it is a very common procedure trying to pull issues into obscurity and make it laughable in order to distract from the reality and possible underlying facts.
When I went to school and college it was actually basic English Speech and Composition how to manipulate readers. The press is using it on a daily basis to create fear or misguided opinions counter to evidence and facts.
We know three facts:
a) tapes existed
b) tapes were destroyed within a couple days from NFL staff in New England ordered so by Goodell without ever seeing the tapes
c) the 'punishment' came within a couple days after destroying the tapes and were based on destroyed tapes
Last time I checked it is always good to keep evidence. No matter how big or how small the crime or infraction is. The other thing is that in order to quell any kind of conspiracy theories you need to bring evidence to counter act such theories.
Conspiracy theories are only existing in the absence of evidence which makes it possible to speculate. If you add rumors to lack of evidence and such rumors are neither denied nor disproved the conspiracy theory continues on. In the case of Spygate and the experiences of Flutie and Manning, neither denied nor confirmed such rumors. They simply did not want to be asked about it.
In any case: any conspiracy theory can be crushed and flushed down the toilette with evidence countering these theories.
But the evidence is not there to counter conspiracy theories. Even worse the book 'Spygate' is adding its own evidence which fuels the speculation of a cover up.
The guy in the article completely tore apart the NY post writer. I hate the Pats, I'd like to be on the side of the Post writer but I am on the side of the truth and it is pathetic for people top whine about spygate. teams have always tried to cheat through history(I guess it was ok to forget to put the tarp down prior to the '82 title game?). They didn't win b/c of it, they won b/c they were great.
The tapes were destroyed and all that b/c the NFL knew how widespread this stuff was. They tried to get it out of the game quietly, NE was reprimanded multiple times before the Jets turned him in and it became huge news.
we all hate NE and I would love to bash them over this and I probably did at the time but they went undefeated and made 2 SBs post spygate so it's hard to say that's why they won.