Brady era

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Brady era

    Brady has been the starter for 10 seasons (counting this one), 11 if you count 2001. Q - During that time how many were there less than 10 wins?
    A - One, at 9-7 in 2002.

    Q - How many of less than 12 wins?
    A - Three (two at 10-6, one at 9-7).  Four if you count 2001 at 11-5.

    Never a losing season and not making the playoffs twice because of tie breakers.  We should all be very thankful to have had him and hope it continues for at least another five years.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Brady era

    I'd be happy with 3 more good seasons.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mighty2012. Show mighty2012's posts

    Re: Brady era

    I heard there is one problem over 4 quarters and his name is Brady. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from gmbill. Show gmbill's posts

    Re: Brady era


    God Bless us one and all
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: Brady era

    We need to cut Brady.  I read in another thread here that he's been throwing low to his receivers and some have said he's terrible....  Since it was said here where all the experts troll, I KNOW we should cut him.....  TODAY.

    The real post is below:

    Rarely have I seen such discontent with great success and most of that discontent driven by the need of some forum posters to make themselves look like the experts they really aren't.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Brady era

    Yes, and that time they missed the playoffs the second Cassell was the QB. Brady has never had a losing or even .500 record.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: Brady era

    In Response to Re: Brady era:
    [QUOTE]Yes, and that time they missed the playoffs the second Cassell was the QB. Brady has never had a losing or even .500 record.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    Right.  And we were 11-5 that year.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Brady era

    I'd be happy with one more SB win.....lol....after THIS years SB win Laughing
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Brady era

    Will forgive him for the 9-7, after all it was his first full season and wedged between superbowl years.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from proftom. Show proftom's posts

    Re: Brady era

    Tom stays long as he can, we are blessed with every start
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ytsejamer1. Show Ytsejamer1's posts

    Re: Brady era

    Brady is one of the few constants.  The difference between now and his early years is that he didn't have to carry the entire team on his back.  He could have an average or medicore game and the defense would be there to pick him up.  Now it's all in...as he goes, we go.  

    In 2002, he was pretty well broken...he had no business playing toward the end with that shoulder.  

    I don't have many complaints, but there are things I'd like to see more.  I'd like to see him develop some home grown receivers...how Brees has done in NO, Rodgers in GB, Rivers in SD...and of course both Mannings.  But I'm nitpicking...  
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: Brady era

    In Response to Re: Brady era:
    [QUOTE]Some of you would prefer Bledsoe back there I think.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    At the end of 2001, I felt Bledsoe was the better QB at that time.  By mid 2003, Brady had far surpassed where Bledsoe was.  Since then he has gotten better and better with each passing year.  (I take the last three years as combined and feel he is at his peak).
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from krismk. Show krismk's posts

    Re: Brady era

    This here thing that we all have enjoyed for the past decade is not a cult to a particular person.  There have been a wide range of contributors, from the supremely talented HOF-anointed to the walk-on, give-me-a-taste, sloggers. Who would want it any other way?

    Life is grand!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bradleyBliss. Show bradleyBliss's posts

    Re: Brady era

    In Response to Re: Brady era:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brady era : At the end of 2001, I felt Bledsoe was the better QB at that time.  By mid 2003, Brady had far surpassed where Bledsoe was.  Since then he has gotten better and better with each passing year.  (I take the last three years as combined and feel he is at his peak).
    Posted by sheldong[/QUOTE]



    Hey Shel !!!!

    Top three QBs during my time would be TFB, Steve Grogan and then Drew. Could not get over Steve still having a record for QB running TDs that Newton just broke a week or so ago.  Do you...or anyone else... know if Steve did it during a 14 or 16 game season?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RTSully6931. Show RTSully6931's posts

    Re: Brady era

    In response to "Re: Brady era": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brady era : Hey Shel !!!! Top three QBs during my time would be TFB, Steve Grogan and then Drew. Could not get over Steve still having a record for QB running TDs that Newton just broke a week or so ago.  Do you...or anyone else... know if Steve did it during a 14 or 16 game season? Posted by bradleyBliss[/QUOTE] Grogs had 12 rushing TD's in 1976, in 14 games. Once upon a time he was a serious threat as a runner. Had 500+ yards in 1978, also in 14 games. And those who say Drew was only good enough to hand off are dead wrong. For long stretches when the Pats were awful he was one of the few reasons to watch. Without him the stadium probably doesn't get built and they play in Hartford instead. And he was THE major reason they get to the SB in 1996. If they could have tackled Desmond Howard they may have won. And nobody sane wants Brady to hand it off 40 times a game. But 30 times might be nice, since they usually run 65-70 plays a game I think. Keeps our defense off the field and keeps Tom from takimg unnecessary punishment.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Brady era

    In Response to Re: Brady era:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brady era : At the end of 2001, I felt Bledsoe was the better QB at that time.  By mid 2003, Brady had far surpassed where Bledsoe was.  Since then he has gotten better and better with each passing year.  (I take the last three years as combined and feel he is at his peak).
    Posted by sheldong[/QUOTE]

    Brady was better than Bledsoe from day one. He knew how to do the one thing Drew just couldn't do. Take care of the ball.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Brady era

    In Response to Re: Brady era:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Brady era": Grogs had 12 rushing TD's in 1976, in 14 games. Once upon a time he was a serious threat as a runner. Had 500+ yards in 1978, also in 14 games. And those who say Drew was only good enough to hand off are dead wrong. For long stretches when the Pats were awful he was one of the few reasons to watch. Without him the stadium probably doesn't get built and they play in Hartford instead. And he was THE major reason they get to the SB in 1996. If they could have tackled Desmond Howard they may have won. And nobody sane wants Brady to hand it off 40 times a game. But 30 times might be nice, since they usually run 65-70 plays a game I think. Keeps our defense off the field and keeps Tom from takimg unnecessary punishment.
    Posted by RTSully6931[/QUOTE]

    Grogan was a real good QB when he could run. He was never anything more than an average passer.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: Brady era

    Pats' offense has had to settle for way too many FGs within the redzone this season. Brady might have replicated his 50 td season of 07 if they'd been able to convert more often this season in the redzone.  Actually, I haven't checked how many shots they've had; he's got 36 TDs right now.  If he throws for 3 on Sunday,  he'd be at 39.  That's 11 FGs in the RZ that needed to be TDs.

    Two seasons with 50 TDs?  That would end a lot of arguments... 
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: Brady era

    Not complaining, 66.  Read my post...it's in praise of Brady.
    Just playing with numbers.  The media has been all about Rodgers and Brees this season, but they've neglected to show TBs stats in such light.

    Weren't you the guy who posted a thread entitled "I apologize"?  Or was that just hypocrisy?  Show some freaking respect for people.  A lot of people give you a wide lattitude; do you not read their comments?

    Peace in 2012.  Why be such a **** all the time? 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoahJustin. Show NoahJustin's posts

    Re: Brady era

    This year may be Brady's best yet. When has he had to do more with less?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Brady era

    In response to "Re: Brady era": [QUOTE]Pats' offense has had to settle for way too many FGs within the redzone this season. Brady might have replicated his 50 td season of 07 if they'd been able to convert more often this season in the redzone.  Actually, I haven't checked how many shots they've had; he's got 36 TDs right now.  If he throws for 3 on Sunday,  he'd be at 39.  That's 11 FGs in the RZ that needed to be TDs. Two seasons with 50 TDs?  That would end a lot of arguments...  Posted by soups[/QUOTE] They're third in the NFL in red zone offense, so I wouldn't consider one of the things that they are the best in the NFL at a weakness. They could throw the TDs in stead of running them in since they are one of the best teams in the NFL in terms of most rushing TDs with 16. I tend to think alot of these passing record type numbers are a product of poor defense and rushing and I don't care to see them. If I recall in 2007 the RBs couldn't convert a 1st and goal and Brady had to throw it in after failed attempts by the runners, this year the RBs are getting in the end zone (including Brady). I also don't think you get to 5000 yards without the defense putting the offense in long fields, like after a kickoff.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share