Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

7DnBrnc53 wrote:Now, I wasn't one of the ones who dumped on him after the KC loss like some people did (saying that he is washed-up). However, I didn't praise him and call him the GOAT like a lot of people have done (when they win the SB). Those SB wins could have gone the other way. Heck, they probably shouldn't have been in many of those SB's. Tom has gotten a ton of breaks in his playoff career (McCree and Lee Evans among them).

Even as great as many of those NE Super Bowl winning teams supposedly were, they only won the SB by three points three times, by four points another time and by six (in OT) the other time. Two of those three-point wins were last second FG victories to break a tie, and the four-point win was the Seattle game where they picked off the pass at the goal line with 30 seconds to play when Seattle was going in for the winning score. The OT game against Atlanta, they came back from 18 points down late in the third quarter, and the other Super Bowl against Philadelphia the Eagles might have been able to pull that out in the end but Andy Reid was playing poor clock management. In many of those Super Bowls, those games could have very well went the other way. History would regard the Pats much differently today if they had lost to the Rams or Panthers in the Super Bowl when Vinatieri missed the last second tries and New England lost in Sudden Death, or if they hadn't been able to come back against Atlanta. I don't think Belichick and Brady would be as highly regarded if they were 2-5 or 1-6 in Super Bowl appearances instead of 5-2.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

7DnBrnc53 wrote:Now, I wasn't one of the ones who dumped on him after the KC loss like some people did (saying that he is washed-up). However, I didn't praise him and call him the GOAT like a lot of people have done (when they win the SB). Those SB wins could have gone the other way. Heck, they probably shouldn't have been in many of those SB's. Tom has gotten a ton of breaks in his playoff career (McCree and Lee Evans among them).

Even as great as many of those NE Super Bowl winning teams supposedly were, they only won the SB by three points three times, by four points another time and by six (in OT) the other time. Two of those three-point wins were last second FG victories to break a tie, and the four-point win was the Seattle game where they picked off the pass at the goal line with 30 seconds to play when Seattle was going in for the winning score. The OT game against Atlanta, they came back from 18 points down late in the third quarter, and the other Super Bowl against Philadelphia the Eagles might have been able to pull that out in the end but Andy Reid was playing poor clock management. In many of those Super Bowls, those games could have very well went the other way. History would regard the Pats much differently today if they had lost to the Rams or Panthers in the Super Bowl when Vinatieri missed the last second tries and New England lost in Sudden Death, or if they hadn't been able to come back against Atlanta. I don't think Belichick and Brady would be as highly regarded if they were 2-5 or 1-6 in Super Bowl appearances instead of 5-2.

As Don Meredith liked to say, "If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas." A lot of people think that winning close games is the mark of a great team.

rhickok1109 wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:

7DnBrnc53 wrote:Now, I wasn't one of the ones who dumped on him after the KC loss like some people did (saying that he is washed-up). However, I didn't praise him and call him the GOAT like a lot of people have done (when they win the SB). Those SB wins could have gone the other way. Heck, they probably shouldn't have been in many of those SB's. Tom has gotten a ton of breaks in his playoff career (McCree and Lee Evans among them).

Even as great as many of those NE Super Bowl winning teams supposedly were, they only won the SB by three points three times, by four points another time and by six (in OT) the other time. Two of those three-point wins were last second FG victories to break a tie, and the four-point win was the Seattle game where they picked off the pass at the goal line with 30 seconds to play when Seattle was going in for the winning score. The OT game against Atlanta, they came back from 18 points down late in the third quarter, and the other Super Bowl against Philadelphia the Eagles might have been able to pull that out in the end but Andy Reid was playing poor clock management. In many of those Super Bowls, those games could have very well went the other way. History would regard the Pats much differently today if they had lost to the Rams or Panthers in the Super Bowl when Vinatieri missed the last second tries and New England lost in Sudden Death, or if they hadn't been able to come back against Atlanta. I don't think Belichick and Brady would be as highly regarded if they were 2-5 or 1-6 in Super Bowl appearances instead of 5-2.

As Don Meredith liked to say, "If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas." A lot of people think that winning close games is the mark of a great team.

I recently reread Jerry Kramer's "instant Replay" and then Pat Haden's book on the 1976 Rams. The 70's LA Rams were kind of the opposite of the Packers. I never liked Lombardi's Packers (aside from some individual players) but I give them credit for finding a way to win.

So do Belichick's Patriots.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

7DnBrnc53 wrote:Now, I wasn't one of the ones who dumped on him after the KC loss like some people did (saying that he is washed-up). However, I didn't praise him and call him the GOAT like a lot of people have done (when they win the SB). Those SB wins could have gone the other way. Heck, they probably shouldn't have been in many of those SB's. Tom has gotten a ton of breaks in his playoff career (McCree and Lee Evans among them).

Even as great as many of those NE Super Bowl winning teams supposedly were, they only won the SB by three points three times, by four points another time and by six (in OT) the other time. Two of those three-point wins were last second FG victories to break a tie, and the four-point win was the Seattle game where they picked off the pass at the goal line with 30 seconds to play when Seattle was going in for the winning score. The OT game against Atlanta, they came back from 18 points down late in the third quarter, and the other Super Bowl against Philadelphia the Eagles might have been able to pull that out in the end but Andy Reid was playing poor clock management. In many of those Super Bowls, those games could have very well went the other way. History would regard the Pats much differently today if they had lost to the Rams or Panthers in the Super Bowl when Vinatieri missed the last second tries and New England lost in Sudden Death, or if they hadn't been able to come back against Atlanta. I don't think Belichick and Brady would be as highly regarded if they were 2-5 or 1-6 in Super Bowl appearances instead of 5-2.

I think it goes without saying that 5-2 is better than 0-7. But that said, they were a lot closer to winning the two they lost than they were to losing any of the first four that they won -- except perhaps Seattle, and the only reason that was in jeopardy was a ridiculously fluky catch much like the ones in each of the Giants' wins.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:

7DnBrnc53 wrote:Now, I wasn't one of the ones who dumped on him after the KC loss like some people did (saying that he is washed-up). However, I didn't praise him and call him the GOAT like a lot of people have done (when they win the SB). Those SB wins could have gone the other way. Heck, they probably shouldn't have been in many of those SB's. Tom has gotten a ton of breaks in his playoff career (McCree and Lee Evans among them).

Even as great as many of those NE Super Bowl winning teams supposedly were, they only won the SB by three points three times, by four points another time and by six (in OT) the other time. Two of those three-point wins were last second FG victories to break a tie, and the four-point win was the Seattle game where they picked off the pass at the goal line with 30 seconds to play when Seattle was going in for the winning score. The OT game against Atlanta, they came back from 18 points down late in the third quarter, and the other Super Bowl against Philadelphia the Eagles might have been able to pull that out in the end but Andy Reid was playing poor clock management. In many of those Super Bowls, those games could have very well went the other way. History would regard the Pats much differently today if they had lost to the Rams or Panthers in the Super Bowl when Vinatieri missed the last second tries and New England lost in Sudden Death, or if they hadn't been able to come back against Atlanta. I don't think Belichick and Brady would be as highly regarded if they were 2-5 or 1-6 in Super Bowl appearances instead of 5-2.

I think it goes without saying that 5-2 is better than 0-7. But that said, they were a lot closer to winning the two they lost than they were to losing any of the first four that they won -- except perhaps Seattle, and the only reason that was in jeopardy was a ridiculously fluky catch much like the ones in each of the Giants' wins.

Have to give credit where credit is due. Nothing fluky about the Manningham catch, it was a perfectly thrown ball and a perfect catch. Just a well executed play.