Tom Brady

Bullshit again. Certainly Brady is no small part of their success, as was Montana, Aikman, Bradshaw, and Bart Starr. And a win is a win. Even Madden this weekend said this Pats team may be one of the best teams he has ever seen. If they win their 4th Superbowl, by more than 3 points, you will admit you were wrong?

 

i think he might lead his team to an undefeted season.
a feat only miami has seen, and more impressive then just another superbowl ring.... but even tho he is a great QB. he wouldent be who he is with out who he has around him.

 

Just suppose the Colts took it all this year, the team of the decade would still be in the balance. It's plausible. Can't use the word dynasty in connection with the Pats yet, can't say the same for asterisk.

Damn, I just replied to this stupid thread

 

What are you talking about, asswipe?

Achieving what the Patriots have in the free agancy era has nothing to do with the "moves they make" it is about keeping the right parts of a team together, drafting better than anyone and having the best coach.

Look at the Dallas teams of the 90's they 49er teams of the 80's and the Steeler teams of the 70's. They would have never been able to win multiple rings in the free agency era because all those players would have never stayed. Back then you drafted a guy and kept his rights. He either played for you or sat.

The Patriots have lost as many players as anyone to free agency but have drafted smart and made some good free agency pickups but, most importantly, have kept the core of the team together over the past 7 years. They are also the best coached team in the league with the highest number of college graduates.

I'll take the words of Aikman, and Young over a bufoon like you. They both said that what the Patriots are doing this decade is much more impressive because free agency makes it impossible to keep a team together.

Now why don't you tell us all about your 'knowledge' of the cover 3 defense again. That was impressive.

 

But you know that mentioning the asterisk about the Pats will boost some dipshit's blood pressure a notch or 2. Enjoy.

 

My point is that your free agency era argument has no merit because the Pats haven't been significantly affected by free agency, and in fact, free agency has significantly diluted their competition. Yes, Belichick is the greatest head coach in the NFL. Yes, the Patriots have drafted consistently well. And yes, they lucked into Brady. Without that last part, the prior two wouldn't have earned them any Super Bowls. They weren't getting there with Bledsoe.

Like who? I can't think of anyone they've lost who wasn't pretty much washed up by that point anyway. I'm sure I'm missing some people, but you certainly can't argue that they've lost as many as other teams. That's ludicrous.

Aikman and Young are qualified to speak about quarterbacks, but I fail to see why they should be considered experts in football history or the construction of a team. Did either comment on the fact that free agency has drastically diluted the competition? I'd argue that it's easier now to consistently win if you have a good coach, don't fuck up your contracts (Morgan, Kemoeatu, etc), and have consistent success in the draft.

Again, the Pats wouldn't be the Pats if they hadn't lucked into Brady, and they wouldn't be dominating this year even with him if Moss hadn't forced Oakland to trade him to New England for nothing.