Reply to TP: Babe...you stated the following: 1.) Actually, Cassel was well thought of by most Pats fans before that bad pre-season. I tend to disagree with the above statement...especially after Cassel's above described horrible showing in Miami? But, let's not pull a "Dog(gggg)" and digress from the real issue at hand. What difference does it make what the Pats' fans thought about Cassel before the 2008 season? Cassel was so pathetic in the 2008 preseason that the great majority of Patriots' fans were clamouring for, and expecting, him to be cut. Do you deny that?; Certainly Pats fans were shudering at the prospect of Cassel after that pre-season he had. And he did play awful in the Miami game. But we generally had a good impression of the guy leading up to that. But what our impression of Cassel was is beside the point isn't it? As it turns out he is a decent if not good QB and that is more than the Colts seem to have at the moment. RESPONSE: Nonsense. Patriot fans wanted him gone after his horrific 2008 pre-season performance. He was looked upon then as Curtis Painter is today. The difference is that Cassel was well coached by BB and Josh McDaniels...and they molded Cassel's talents, and made it work. Once Cassel gained confidence, he got better, as did the team.
2.) I said BB was better than Caldwell, so I don't get what your beef is here. He won without Brady, missed the playoffs, while playing an exceedingly soft schedule. I have no beef with BB. But, I do have a major problem with you writing off the Pats' success to an "exceedingly soft schedule". I attribute their success to BB being an "exceedingly" better coach than Caldwell. I havent written off the Pats' success. I have said it was largly due to an exceptionally easy schedule, amd it was. I have also credited BB for a fine coaching job, as I credit him for that every season. I have also implied his coaching ability kept the team from sinking into the kind of malaise the Colts seem to have succumbed to. 3.) You stop it. Their opponents final records were: KC 2-14, NYJ (x2) 9-7, MIA (x2) 11-5, SF 7-9, SD 8-8, DEN 8-8, STL 2-14, IND 12-4, BUF (x2) 7-9, SEA 4-12, OAK 5-11, AZ 9-7. RESPONSE: If you're going to say that the 11-5 record was "largely due to an exceedingly soft schedule", then you are devaluating the great job that BB did. My guess is that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone else, other than perhaps a "spygate" believer or a Jets' troll, who agrees with you.
Fully one quarter of their schedule was against teams that won no more than 5 games that season. Half their schedule was against the AFC ans NFC West where only AZ actually ended up the season with a winning record, and they just barely. And your point is? Who in their wildest dreams expected the Patriots to finish 11-5 after losing Tom Brady for the season? The Pats beat the Jets, Miami, Denver, Arizona, Buffalo twice, and San Francisco...and nearly beat the Colts in Indy. That's seven quality wins, and one big almost, from a Brady-less team. How many games have the Manningless Colts won? Your posturing beating teams that are not above .500 as quality wins is not acceptable to me. A .500 team is an average team. Less than that is below average. Beating an average team or a below average team isn't a "quality win" in my view. And beating a 9-7 team at home that already clinched the division with no hope of getting a better seed is not a quality win either. Their win over AZ was at home against a team that had already clinched their division and it was debatable that they were even going to play their starters. The Cards played their starters and got blown out: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=281221017.
Right. And their starters had zero motivation since they had clinched. They were a 9-7 team in the inferior NFC Wast for crying out loud. RESPONSE: Beating a 7-9 or 9-7 NFL team without Brady, especially on the road, is certainly an accomplishment. Just ask the Manningless Colts.
The Dolphins won the division after going 1-15 the previous season and they reverted back to a losing record the following year. Yet another ludicrous point. Seattle went 10-6 the year before, before falling to 2-14. WHO CARES! The Bottom line is that the 2008 Dolphins won 11 games in 2008, were the AFC East champs...and the improving 2008 Pats buried them the second time they faced them, in Miami, in week 12: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=281123015.
The improving, Brady-less Patriots won their last four games in a row. hat have the Manningless Colts done? Did any team beat the Brady-less Patriots, 62-7?? Who cares? Anybody who has any real interest in how formidable the schedule was that season. Obviously that isn't you. RESPONSE: I completely disagree with your "weak schedule" premise.
4.) It is not incorrect. The only teams that they beat who had a winning record that year were the jets (9-7), Dolphins (11-5) and the Cards who had clinched their division already by the time they played the Pats in a road game. It is correct. As I correctly stated previously, at the time the Patriots played the Denver Broncos, the Broncos were 4-2. At the time isn't what I was referring to. Calling a win a quality win based on the record of a team at the time is a futile excercise. Six games in a 16 game season doesn't define a team as good or bad. The fact is that Denver team's 4 wins at the time came against 3 teams that didn't end up with a winning record and a 3 point win against a Tampa team that ended up 9-7. RESPONSE: That's your interpretation. Not mine.
5.) Apparently you have been spending too much time musing with the villiage idiot and want to ignore the facts and embrace the kool-aide spin. Apparently, you can't give BB the credit that he is due. Winning 11 games without Tom Brady, and with a QB who had never previously logged any meaningful time in an NFL or college game, was a masterful coaching job. If you want to discredit it by claiming that the Pats beat a bunch of cup-cakes, it is to laugh. Again I ask, how many games have the Manningless Colts won? I have given BB credit for holding the team together in the face of adversity. Losing Brady could have sent them into a tail spin and BB did not allow that. He is a great coach and has been every season he has been our coach. But I'm not going to join you in your spin that only serves to undermine the importance of Brady in favor of BB. And I'm not going to do that, because it just isn't true. The Colts have won no games. And they have won no games for more reasons than Manning not being there.RESPONSE: First of all, let me say that I completely agree with your statement about The Dog(gggg) being the "village idiot"...LOL!!!
But now, I see the true reason why you are making such a big deal out of the schedule. You're a big-time Brady man! I can't fault you there. But still, beating 11 NFL teams without Tom Terrific is a terrific accomplishment, no matter how you slice it.
Posted by BabeParilli