Super Bowl Gameday Thread

I agree. Tom was throwing all the underneath stuff and their defense never adjusted.Where was the aggressive play from their corners like in last year's SB where they man handled those WRs? Keep in mind though, Lane and Anvril got hurt in that game. That's 2 starters down.



I don't think they had the personal to cover small quick receivers. It was more about their linebackers not being able to cover the Running Backs/Tight Ends.

Also Seattle has always allowed the underneath stuff. The difference last night they didn't tackle and the linebackers were exposed through match-ups.

Last year's super bowl they not only tackled well but you could see the bronco receivers start to get scared. That took away the short stuff and then the pass rushers got to Manning. This year they couldn't take away the short stuff so the pass rushers could never get to Brady. He was just too quick with the ball.

Why do you put words into my sentences that aren't there? Tom is one of the greatest regardless of whether they win that game or not. In fact, just listen to how stupid this is. You are judging Tom based on a sequence of plays he isn't involved with. However that play went last night shouldn't change Tom's status as one of the best. It's not like he "lost his clutch ability" if they lose it.



The difference between you and me is that I recognize BB as one of the top 2 coaches of all time and continues to put complete teams around Brady, whereas you think the Patriots would not be crap without him.


Not crap but not 4 time superbowl champions. Not even close. I think BB is a tremendous coach.

Not crap but not 4 time superbowl champions. Not even close. I think BB is a tremendous coach.

Yea I agree with this. They would probably be like what the Lions or Bengals are right now.

I don't think Bill has ever assembled a defense that was good enough to win it on its own. Like the 2001 Ravens or last year's Seattle.

He is great at both offense and defense. Some coaches just know how to assemble talent on both sides.

I don't think they had the personal to cover small quick receivers. It was more about their linebackers not being able to cover the Running Backs/Tight Ends.

Also Seattle has always allowed the underneath stuff. The difference last night they didn't tackle and the linebackers were exposed through match-ups.

Last year's super bowl they not only tackled well but you could see the bronco receivers start to get scared. That took away the short stuff and then the pass rushers got to Manning. This year they couldn't take away the short stuff so the pass rushers could never get to Brady. He was just too quick with the ball.

Not sure I agree about their LBs not being able to cover TEs/RBs. They have top notch LBs and Bobby Wagner is 1st team all-pro. Not sure why they didn't jam those smaller receivers at the LOS. They have the size and speed to do that with guys like Edelman and Amendola. Granted, Sherman is hurt (probably needing surgery) and Lane was out of the game. That said, I still didn't like what I saw from them in that 4th quarter. Pats adjusted offensively, but Seattle didn't.

Not sure I agree about their LBs not being able to cover TEs/RBs. They have top notch LBs and Bobby Wagner is 1st team all-pro. Not sure why they didn't jam those smaller receivers at the LOS. They have the size and speed to do that with guys like Edelman and Amendola. Granted, Sherman is hurt (probably needing surgery) and Lane was out of the game. That said, I still didn't like what I saw from them in that 4th quarter. Pats adjusted offensively, but Seattle didn't.

They tried to jam them. Simon just couldn't. That is who they kept throwing it at.

I think they could jam one of them but they didn't have the depth to do it to both. It is why Amendola had a pretty good game as well. Plus like I said, Seattle has always allowed the underneath stuff, they just didn't tackle as well as they usually do.

It wasn't Wagner. If you noticed they targeted Wright. That was who Gronk scored the touchdown on. A lot of those Vereen passes were on Wright. They actually tried to avoid Wagner, especially after his pick.

I think it was more about Seattle being terrified that they couldn't cover Gronk so they spent the game taking him out with help from Chancellor which made them give more field responsibility to the LBs which opened the underneath for exploitation. If only Tom Brady wasn't such a hack Patriots would have won by 30.

I think it was more about Seattle being terrified that they couldn't cover Gronk so they spent the game taking him out with help from Chancellor which made them give more field responsibility to the LBs which opened the underneath for exploitation. If only Tom Brady wasn't such a hack Patriots would have won by 30.

Excellent point.

Yea I agree with this. They would probably be like what the Lions or Bengals are right now.

I don't think Bill has ever assembled a defense that was good enough to win it on its own. Like the 2001 Ravens or last year's Seattle.

He is great at both offense and defense. Some coaches just know how to assemble talent on both sides.

Thing is, Tom didn't play very good the first Super Bowl. I think he played like dog shit if I'm correct. (70-80 QBR) Those years in early 2000s were good to win with or without Tom. In fact, Drew Bledsoe had to get the win in Pittsburgh that year for them to even go to the Super Bowl.

Also, I"m going to compile the numbers and show you guys how good some of those defenses were early on. Those teams weren't flashy nor did they put a bunch of points, but they rode the defense, got turnovers, let Brady manage the game and finish it off with Vinateri's foot.


edit: changed two to first

Why do you put words into my sentences that aren't there? Tom is one of the greatest regardless of whether they win that game or not. In fact, just listen to how stupid this is. You are judging Tom based on a sequence of plays he isn't involved with. However that play went last night shouldn't change Tom's status as one of the best. It's not like he "lost his clutch ability" if they lose it.



The difference between you and me is that I recognize BB as one of the top 2 coaches of all time and continues to put complete teams around Brady, whereas you think the Patriots would not be crap without him.


I have zero idea about what u are referring to. Who is judging Brady based on a series of plays? What?
Listen man as Calia pointed out you lost some major coin on the game - got home- and starting plastering the board with a bunch of nonsense about how Brady got outplayed and he is lucky - its all there for everyone to see. Now your backtracking because you realize how ridiculous you sounded and blaming me for putting words in your sentences? Anybody can go back and read the thread.

Thing is, Tom didn't play very good the first two Super Bowls. I think he played like dog shit if I'm correct. (70-80 QBR) Those years in early 2000s were good to win with or without Tom. In fact, Drew Bledsoe had to get the win in Pittsburgh that year for them to even go to the Super Bowl.



Also, I"m going to compile the numbers and show you guys how good some of those defenses were early on. Those teams weren't flashy nor did they put a bunch of points, but they rode the defense, got turnovers, let Brady manage the game and finish it off with Vinateri's foot.


So is he top five all time as you have said a couple times or is he just lucky and Would be nothing without his kicker? Lmao. Ive never seen anybody try to argue two sides of an argument in my life like you have over the last few pages of this thread. Lol. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP IT MAN - HE IS GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT. If not for him the Pats wouldnt have won a single god damn superbowl.