Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GTripp0012;305778]If Brady was the Tom Brady from NE...not a whole lot would be different. Brady still plays a really conservative game. I mean, certainly you've realized this. Why do you think his INT totals are so low? He plays it safe.

If we asked him to open it up, inevitably we'd get more mistakes.

Of course Brady>Brunell. He's considerably younger and a bit more efficient. No one is arguing the contrary. But its a reasonable comparision because they approach offense fairly similarly.

Aggressive does not always equal better. Aggressive is one thing. Better is something else.[/quote]

I don't know about that. I watch this guy constantly throw deep over the middle to the TE all the time. I mean all the time. And I've seen them open it up many times. Example. Minnesota on Mon. night. They just went to 4-5 wr sets the whole game. Didn't even bother running the ball that much casue they knew it was going to be tough to run against Minn. So they just said the hell with this. We will just throw it on these guys. I also remember NE doing the same thing to Chi. Just the fact that they would even try that type of game plan w/ below average wr's tell's you the confidence the coaching staff has in Brady. No way could our offense EVER do that, or would we ever even try and do that. W/ our offense we have the "we must run to win" mentality. And that is what I love about the NE coaching staff. They have the "do what it takes to win" mentality.

Brady's INT totals are low because he's a great QB who see's the entire field. He has the ability to come off to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th options. It's not because he isn't aggressive. Not at all.

I'm hoping we see a little more of an open offense this year. It's all going to depend if JC can handle it.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;305769]Randy Moss is not a posession receiver. He is the best deep threat in the history of the league. Bar none.

Come on now.[/quote]


he WAS one of the best deep threat wr. i'm not sure about "all time". he has not been very good lately, i do understand he was on the raiders but still he has not been good as of late. he may return to form with the pats and once again become a very good deep threat. but if given the choice, i would take santanna over randy. santanna is the better all around wr. santanna is a threat every time he touches the ball, not just a deep threat like randy used to be.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=wolfeskins;305963]he WAS one of the best deep threat wr. i'm not sure about "all time". he has not been very good lately, i do understand he was on the raiders but still he has not been good as of late. he may return to form with the pats and once again become a very good deep threat. but if given the choice, i would take santanna over randy. santanna is the better all around wr. santanna is a threat every time he touches the ball, not just a deep threat like randy used to be.[/quote]


I have nothing else to say. Watch Randy play this year and talk to me 12 months from now. Just like my Keyshawn point last year.

I will take any bet on the side that Randy has more TD's and yards than Santana in 2007. Anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is, private message me.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;306241]I have nothing else to say. Watch Randy play this year and talk to me 12 months from now. Just like my Keyshawn point last year.

I will take any bet on the side that Randy has more TD's and yards than Santana in 2007. Anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is, private message me.[/quote]

I agree. I think Moss is going to have a huge year.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=skinsfan69;306258]I agree. I think Moss is going to have a huge year.[/quote]


I think that both will have good years. Personally, I think that Santana could go for 1100 and 7 tds and that is a great year, especially since CP is going to have close to 2000 total yards and 15+ tds.

Randy will have at least 1400 yards and 14+ TD's. Does that mean Santana is not a Pro-bowl wide receiver? In the NFC he is. In the AFC he is lucky to be in the top 7. Indy and Cincy will have two receivers on each squad who are more productive.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=skinsfan69;305943]I don't know about that. I watch this guy constantly throw deep over the middle to the TE all the time. I mean all the time. And I've seen them open it up many times. Example. Minnesota on Mon. night. They just went to 4-5 wr sets the whole game. Didn't even bother running the ball that much casue they knew it was going to be tough to run against Minn. So they just said the hell with this. We will just throw it on these guys. I also remember NE doing the same thing to Chi. Just the fact that they would even try that type of game plan w/ below average wr's tell's you the confidence the coaching staff has in Brady. No way could our offense EVER do that, or would we ever even try and do that. W/ our offense we have the "we must run to win" mentality. And that is what I love about the NE coaching staff. They have the "do what it takes to win" mentality.

Brady's INT totals are low because he's a great QB who see's the entire field. He has the ability to come off to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th options. It's not because he isn't aggressive. Not at all.

I'm hoping we see a little more of an open offense this year. It's all going to depend if JC can handle it.[/quote]Ok. You have some solid points with the flexibility of the NE offense, and having a QB of Brady's caliber certainly gives them that flexibility, but spreading the defense out does not necessarily imply aggression. I mean they can be and usually are very safe and smart with their throws, and it's a credit to Tom Brady's patience as a QB.

And Mark Brunell certainly did not display the same level of patience as Brady did this year, but that was as much a function of some inconsistent protection as it was with age and fragility.

But once given the clear differences between a great 28 year old QB in the prime of his career and a once great 36 year old QB in the twilight of his career, its still not hard to see that they do a lot of stuff similar, even this year. Brady is obviously in a better situation as far as system and protection goes, whereas Brunell is in a better situation after the completion with guys like Moss and Cooley who excell after the catch.

Both guys do a great job in taking what the defense gives them. That doesn't translate to wins if you have the 32nd ranked defense, but both guys do their jobs.

[QUOTE]Brady's INT totals are low because he's a great QB who see's the entire field. He has the ability to come off to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th options. It's not because he isn't aggressive. Not at all.[/QUOTE]Replace "Brady's" with "Brunell's" and the statement stays accurate. I mean, the term "great" is quite subjective, but as far as 36 year old QBs go, I'd say Brunell is great for his age.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;306289]Randy will have at least 1400 yards and 14+ TD's. Does that mean Santana is not a Pro-bowl wide receiver? In the NFC he is. In the AFC he is lucky to be in the top 7. Indy and Cincy will have two receivers on each squad who are more productive.[/quote]If Randy Moss gets 1000 yards, I'd buy you a drink. Once I reach age.

Hell will freeze over before he gets 1400 again.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GTripp0012;306308]If Randy Moss gets 1000 yards, I'd buy you a drink. Once I reach age.

Hell will freeze over before he gets 1400 again.[/quote]

I agree. As I said in an earlier post, no one in that NE offense catches 100 balls or gets 1000 yards. Especially with Stallworth, Welker, and Watson on the field with Moss. Also, Tom Brady's favorite WR is whoever's open. That won't help Moss' stats either. I predict 60-70 catches, 800-900 yds, 7 TDs...

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GMScud;306320]I agree. As I said in an earlier post, no one in that NE offense catches 100 balls or gets 1000 yards. Especially with Stallworth, Welker, and Watson on the field with Moss. Also, Tom Brady's favorite WR is whoever's open. That won't help Moss' stats either. I predict 60-70 catches, 800-900 yds, 7 TDs...[/quote]

Trust me. I will be all over this board when Randy has 1000 yards in week 10.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;306322]Trust me. I will be all over this board when Randy has 1000 yards in week 10.[/quote]

Cool. Hey, go check the link I posted on the Keyshawn thread.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;306322]Trust me. I will be all over this board when Randy has 1000 yards in week 10.[/quote]

Just make sure that you have a hanky ready for when you splurge. You have the biggest man crush I have ever seen over a player.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=angryssg;306329]Just make sure that you have a hanky ready for when you splurge. You have the biggest man crush I have ever seen over a player.[/quote]

I tell it like it is. I don't even like Randy Moss but I cannot deny pure talent.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;306336]I tell it like it is. I don't even like Randy Moss but I cannot deny pure talent.[/quote]

The funny thin is that I was arguing your point of view to Jsarno the night before last. Now I am giving you shit about something I actually agree with you on. I was only making the statement that those 2 receivers bring something uniquely different to the table. Randy is better, he will break at least 1300 yards, but he is not God!

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;306241]I have nothing else to say. Watch Randy play this year and talk to me 12 months from now. Just like my Keyshawn point last year.

I will take any bet on the side that Randy has more TD's and yards than Santana in 2007. Anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is, private message me.[/quote]



randy might very well end up with better stats then santanna but that doesn't make randy the better wr. i'd take tom brady over jason campbell as my qb. the pats just have a better offense then the skins do, maybe not better players but definately a more productive offense.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GTripp0012;306306]Ok. You have some solid points with the flexibility of the NE offense, and having a QB of Brady's caliber certainly gives them that flexibility, but spreading the defense out does not necessarily imply aggression. I mean they can be and usually are very safe and smart with their throws, and it's a credit to Tom Brady's patience as a QB.

And Mark Brunell certainly did not display the same level of patience as Brady did this year, but that was as much a function of some inconsistent protection as it was with age and fragility.

But once given the clear differences between a great 28 year old QB in the prime of his career and a once great 36 year old QB in the twilight of his career, its still not hard to see that they do a lot of stuff similar, even this year. Brady is obviously in a better situation as far as system and protection goes, whereas Brunell is in a better situation after the completion with guys like Moss and Cooley who excell after the catch.

Both guys do a great job in taking what the defense gives them. That doesn't translate to wins if you have the 32nd ranked defense, but both guys do their jobs.

Replace "Brady's" with "Brunell's" and the statement stays accurate. I mean, the term "great" is quite subjective, but as far as 36 year old QBs go, I'd say Brunell is great for his age.[/quote]

"and a once great 36 year old qb" Are u serious? I loved Brunell's game in his prime. He was a poor man's Steve Young. But he was never a great QB. I know you love the guy to death but keep it real.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

how did this thread last so long without a picture of the 2 beautiful women? thats right, hessy and ladybrave. you guys thought i was talking about someone else?

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=dmek25;306932]how did this thread last so long without a picture of the 2 beautiful women? thats right, hessy and ladybrave. you guys thought i was talking about someone else?[/quote]

Did he knock them up too?

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;306322]Trust me. I will be all over this board when Randy has 1000 yards in week 10.[/quote]


You might be all over the board but not for that......That isn't happenin

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=skinsfan69;306761]"and a once great 36 year old qb" Are u serious? I loved Brunell's game in his prime. He was a poor man's Steve Young. But he was never a great QB. I know you love the guy to death but keep it real.[/quote]Great to me does not mean hall of famer for the record. I'm guessing it does to you, but let's not assume that because I'm calling a guy great, I'm stamping his ticket to Canton.

Brunell in his prime was certainly great, IMO. He would probably rank in the top 40 all time, part because good QBs were rare prior to the Young, Marino, Elway era. He's still capable of doing good things, and did a lot for this team last year, but you and I both know hes best suited to be a backup now.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=wolfeskins;306631]randy might very well end up with better stats then santanna but that doesn't make randy the better wr. i'd take tom brady over jason campbell as my qb. the pats just have a better offense then the skins do, maybe not better players but definately a more productive offense.[/quote]Yeah, WR stats in general are very problematic. All the popular ones like catches and yards are 90% a combination of the system they are in and the tendencies of the QB. However, guys who are consistenly at the top of the league are probably as good as billed. Just don't crown Marcus Colston yet...you don't know if hes going to be the next Michael Clayton.

The one good measure for a WR is how many yards he averages after the catch. A great WR will be at the top of the league in YAC, and a good receiver will be average at YAC. That is the true decider of WR talent.

Not to say that everything that happens before the catch isn't important, but a good QB will always try to hit the open man, so the "ability to get open" for a receiver is more about the type of coverage he is facing than about any special skill he has.

Any receiver in the league can beat man to man coverage a good percentage of the time. It's why blitzing can only be effective if the QB gets pressured. If he gets off a good pass, every CB in the league is screwed.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GTripp0012;305425]Well, they certainly are the best team in their division again this year. They are one of the teams to beat in the AFC, but certainly CERTAINLY are not a better team than SD right now. Jacksonville, [I]might [/I]be better, and Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are maybe just as good, and the Colts aren't just going to go away.

The Pats are NOT the favorite to win the SB, but they will be back in the playoffs again this year...so it wouldn't be completely shocking if they won it.[/quote]

Are you high on aderol??? Jacksonville maybe better? Whos there starting qb again? When the Jags beat Houston let me know. And im not even gonna get into Pittsburgh who could quite possibly come in last in their division.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GTripp0012;305537]Well, they've definately done a great job in March and April for about 6 consecutive seasons now. They have strong, intelligent management.

But that's all that seperates teams like NE, Philly, and SD from the rest of the league. They aren't any more likely to luck into wins than any other team.

Some article I was reading made a great point. The Eagles are just the NE Patriots without the lucky bounces. Both teams have done an excellent job building their franchises, but when it comes to clutch situations, Philly gets hosed and the Pats pull a rabbit out of a hat.

And as a confirmed Eagle hater, I'm glad. But eventually, NE's luck will run out on them.[/quote]

And when luck whens you 3 out of 4 superbowls let me know so i can shove a rabbits foot up leprechauns ass and then shove that leprechaun up Snyders ass.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=holmester;306958]And when luck whens you 3 out of 4 superbowls let me know so i can shove a rabbits foot up leprechauns ass and then shove that leprechaun up Snyders ass.[/quote]

There has been way too much talk about asses in the Warpath recently. Did we sign Jeff Garcia?

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;306967]There has been way too much talk about asses in the Warpath recently. Did we sign Jeff Garcia?[/quote]

Why do you like him[IMG]http://www.thewarpath.net/images/icons/icon12.gif[/IMG]

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=holmester;306956]Are you high on aderol??? Jacksonville maybe better? Whos there starting qb again? When the Jags beat Houston let me know. And im not even gonna get into Pittsburgh who could quite possibly come in last in their division.[/quote]By the same logic, whats to say NE won't get screwed by injuries and end up in last?

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=holmester;306958]And when luck whens you 3 out of 4 superbowls let me know so i can shove a rabbits foot up leprechauns ass and then shove that leprechaun up Snyders ass.[/quote]Being the best team in the league in 2003 and 2004 certainly had a lot to do with that. Just because you are the [I]best [/I]team doesn't make you a champion. Just ask 2005 Indy, and 2006 SD and Baltimore. If the Patriots had gotten the bounces those teams had (although for 2005 Indy, they just ran into Pittsburgh on the wrong day), we wouldn't be hearing much about them, would we?

Don't even get me started on the 2001 team. They were maybe the 11th or 12th best team in the regular season, only got into the playoffs playing a last place schedule, and as we all know, probably shouldn't have gotten by a much better Oakland team in the divisional round. Not to mention their path after than included a team Quarterbacked by Kordell Stewart, and a Rams team who certainly did not play their best game in the Super Bowl. 2001 NE was probably the luckiest season ever.

2002 NE was a much better football team than 2001 NE, and they didn't even make the playoffs. How's that for luck varience?

So if you can find THAT leprechaun, I will bend Danny Snyder over myself.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=holmester;306958]And when luck whens you 3 out of 4 superbowls let me know so i can shove a rabbits foot up leprechauns ass and then shove that leprechaun up Snyders ass.[/quote]

It cracks me up when people say NE is lucky. Not only have they won the 3 sb's, but they did something that you might not see again in this life time. They ran off 21 or 22 straight wins in a row. That is soooooooooooo hard to do in the NFL it's not even funny. They have had some turnover too. But what they have is Tom Brady and the guy is simply a great QB. He get a lot of pub. but he deserves all the praise he gets.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GTripp0012;306971]Being the best team in the league in 2003 and 2004 certainly had a lot to do with that. Just because you are the [I]best [/I]team doesn't make you a champion. Just ask 2005 Indy, and 2006 SD and Baltimore. If the Patriots had gotten the bounces those teams had (although for 2005 Indy, they just ran into Pittsburgh on the wrong day), we wouldn't be hearing much about them, would we?

Don't even get me started on the 2001 team. They were maybe the 11th or 12th best team in the regular season, only got into the playoffs playing a last place schedule, and as we all know, probably shouldn't have gotten by a much better Oakland team in the divisional round. Not to mention their path after than included a team Quarterbacked by Kordell Stewart, and a Rams team who certainly did not play their best game in the Super Bowl. 2001 NE was probably the luckiest season ever.

2002 NE was a much better football team than 2001 NE, and they didn't even make the playoffs. How's that for luck varience?

So if you can find THAT leprechaun, I will bend Danny Snyder over myself.[/quote]


Bend Danny over? AHHH What is next, rainbow avatars?

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;306974]Bend Danny over? AHHH What is next, rainbow avatars?[/quote]
You are homophobic aren't you?

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GTripp0012;306952]Great to me does not mean hall of famer for the record. I'm guessing it does to you, but let's not assume that because I'm calling a guy great, I'm stamping his ticket to Canton.

Brunell in his prime was certainly great, IMO. He would probably rank in the top 40 all time, part because good QBs were rare prior to the Young, Marino, Elway era. He's still capable of doing good things, and did a lot for this team last year, but you and I both know hes best suited to be a backup now.[/quote]

I think the word great is thrown around way too much. Right now I would say the NFL has two great QB's. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. And then the 2nd tier is McNabb, Palmer, Brees and possibly Bulger. But all those 2nd tier guys have the chance to be great.

You are probably just too young to remember but in the 70's and early 80's the NFL had plenty of really good QB's. Dan Fouts and Ken Stabler were two of my old time favorites. And no one threw as nicer looking ball than Warren Moon in his prime. Do you realize that Warren Moon would hold almost every single passing record if the NFL didn't pass him over? But alot of the the stats of the old timers don't match up w/ today's Qb's becasue the passing game and the rules have changed so much. In the old days DB's could just kill wr's. Now they can't touch them. It's the Mel Blount rule.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=GTripp0012;306971]Being the best team in the league in 2003 and 2004 certainly had a lot to do with that. Just because you are the [I]best [/I]team doesn't make you a champion. Just ask 2005 Indy, and 2006 SD and Baltimore. If the Patriots had gotten the bounces those teams had (although for 2005 Indy, they just ran into Pittsburgh on the wrong day), we wouldn't be hearing much about them, would we?

Don't even get me started on the 2001 team. They were maybe the 11th or 12th best team in the regular season, only got into the playoffs playing a last place schedule, and as we all know, probably shouldn't have gotten by a much better Oakland team in the divisional round. Not to mention their path after than included a team Quarterbacked by Kordell Stewart, and a Rams team who certainly did not play their best game in the Super Bowl. 2001 NE was probably the luckiest season ever.

2002 NE was a much better football team than 2001 NE, and they didn't even make the playoffs. How's that for luck varience?

So if you can find THAT leprechaun, I will bend Danny Snyder over myself.[/quote]

01 Pats did not have the most talent. That is for damn sure. But they were the best team. Look at the 05 Redskins? We played some of the shitiest teams in the NFL on our playoff run. We got to play teams that were on their 2nd and 3rd qb's. But no one cares. A win is a win in the NFL.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=skinsfan69;306977]I think the word great is thrown around way too much. Right now I would say the NFL has two great QB's. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. And then the 2nd tier is McNabb, Palmer, Brees and possibly Bulger. But all those 2nd tier guys have the chance to be great.

You are probably just too young to remember but in the 70's and early 80's the NFL had plenty of really good QB's. Dan Fouts and Ken Stabler were two of my old time favorites. And no one threw as nicer looking ball than Warren Moon in his prime. Do you realize that Warren Moon would hold almost every single passing record if the NFL didn't pass him over? But alot of the the stats don't match up w/ today's Qb's becasue the passing game and the rules have changed so much. In the old days DB's could just kill wr's. Now they can't touch them. It's the Mel Blount rule.[/quote]Duely noted and I think its a great point. But I also think that Brunell in his hey day was very comprable to those 2nd tier guys you named. So if that gave him a chance to be great, then he's guilty as charged.

Fouts, Stabler, and Moon were great QBs. You can run their era-adjusted numbers, or just watch the old NFL-films highlight reels, and you arrive at that conclusion. But then again, those guys are all hall of famers, so I don't think you are exactly going out on a limb here.

Throw Ken Anderson on that list too. This guy is easily one of the 15 best QBs ever to play.

But back then, the emphasis in the college game was not on the passing game. Thus, less kids became quarterbacks, and even fewer became NFL QBs. There just werent enough good QBs to go around 20-30 years ago because an NFL caliber talent came out once every 2-3 years.

Now, 3-4 QBs each year have NFL caliber skill with a ton more catching on as backups. With a certain percentage of these players becoming great, it isnt surprising that there are so many more HOF worthy QBs playing today when compared with yesteryear.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

I am a Big fan of watching really well played football.
There are a few unknowns that has me interested to see how the Pat's will play:
1) In his entire career, Tom Brady has never thrown to as good a receivers as R. Moss & D.Stallworth and TE's Ben Watson and Kyle Brady.

2) Likewise, Randy Moss has never played with a Qb as good as Brady and never played on an offense as loaded as the Pat's.

3) Adding TE as Kyle Brady as a second TE gives the offense great flexibility and a good change of pace to be able to play two good TE's at same time.

4) Nobody talks about Laurence Maroney, but he may be the biggest beneficiary and have a break out year.

5) The defense is talented and deep. The last reamining weakness they had on defense was depth at safety. They addressed it in a big way with drafting U of Miami FS Brandon Meriweather. He was one the best safeties in college football in 2006. Versatile safety who stood out at safety and cornerback at Miami.

Anything can happen. It should be interesting to watch.

REDSKINS will still be my team. But I will also watch the Pats in 2007.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=skinsfan69;306979]01 Pats did not have the most talent. That is for damn sure. But they were the best team. Look at the 05 Redskins? We played some of the shitiest teams in the NFL on our playoff run. We got to play teams that were on their 2nd and 3rd qb's. But no one cares. A win is a win in the NFL.[/quote]There was the Rams game...and that was it right?

Yeah, a win as a win, and the goal of the game is to win, but not all wins are of equal difficulty, obviously. The 01 Pats didn't get a lot of quality wins, and you could make a case that there were teams more deserving of their playoff spot than they were. But due to the way scheduling is designed to help lesser teams win more games (thus, parity), NE just happened to win 11 games.

I mean, obviously the biggest function of luck was Bledsoe getting injured...the only time he missed games in his career. Thats not going to be an 11 win team with Bledsoe, not even close.

Even with Brady, they lacked a lot of talent. I mean, they were among the better half of teams that year, but I mean shouldn't have been able to run with Oakland or Pittsburgh, much less the Rams.

The tuck rule received a lot of publicity, but what sometimes goes unnoticed is that had the weather not been such a big factor in that game, the score wouldn't have even been close.

Oakland lost the last three games of their season after starting 10-3 and clinching their division in Week 14. They lost to Tennessee, Denver, and someone else that year to end the season, all three on the last play of the game. Crazy finishes, too. But thats how close they came to securing the No. 2 seed, and being able to blow out an inferior New England team in the divisional round, assuming they even made it that far.

But that's the role that luck plays in football. Makes legends out of players who aren't necessarily deserving (and Brady would become deserving within 2 years, but we didn't know that).

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=Defensewins;306981]I am a Big fan of watching really well played football.
There are a few unknowns that has me interested to see how the Pat's will play:
1) In his entire career, Tom Brady has never thrown to as good a receivers as R. Moss & D.Stallworth and TE's Ben Watson and Kyle Brady.

2) Likewise, Randy Moss has never played with a Qb as good as Brady and never played on an offense as loaded as the Pat's.

3) Adding TE as Kyle Brady as a second TE gives the offense great flexibility and a good change of pace to be able to play two good TE's at same time.

4) Nobody talks about Laurence Maroney, but he may be the biggest beneficiary and have a break out year.

5) The defense is talented and deep. The last reamining weakness they had on defense was depth at safety. They addressed it in a big way with drafting U of Miami FS Brandon Meriweather. He was one the best safeties in college football in 2006. Versatile safety who stood out at safety and cornerback at Miami.

Anything can happen. It should be interesting to watch.

REDSKINS will still be my team. But I will also watch the Pats in 2007.[/quote]Their back 7 is still pretty problematic. Rodney Harrison was a great player, but who knows what they are getting now? If Merriweather has to contribute as a rookie, things could get brutal. Samuel is good, but probably a bit overrated. Ellis Hobbs?

Their LBs are old too. Colvin is getting up there. Bruschi and Vrabel are getting up there. Adailus Thomas was a 30 year old last year, and they invested a lot in him.

The Pats are certainly a solid SB pick, but like every team, they have their holes.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

I agree with everything except for moss. No reciever, and i mean no reciever could have had a great season with the raiders the last two years. Randy did not want to play there and was not trying. People are gonna see this season why he is indeed THE BEST RECEIVER IN THE NFL. thats right i said it

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=bigm29;306991]I agree with everything except for moss. No reciever, and i mean no reciever could have had a great season with the raiders the last two years. Randy did not want to play there and was not trying. People are gonna see this season why he is indeed THE BEST RECEIVER IN THE NFL. thats right i said it[/quote]The best receiver in the NFL doesn't "play when he wants to play" or play only when hes happy, while sucking the rest of the time. Inconsistency does not equal greatness no matter how talented you are.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=skinsfan69;306973]It cracks me up when people say NE is lucky. Not only have they won the 3 sb's, but they did something that you might not see again in this life time. They ran off 21 or 22 straight wins in a row. That is soooooooooooo hard to do in the NFL it's not even funny. They have had some turnover too. But what they have is Tom Brady and the guy is simply a great QB. He get a lot of pub. but he deserves all the praise he gets.[/quote]But do you not realize that winning 3 sbs and reeling off 21-22 straight wins in a row are A-list examples of exactly how lucky this team has been over the years.

They are good. They were the best football team in the league in 2003 and 2004 which is very tough to do. But they were lucky to play 21 games without running into a bad matchup at least once.

Great luck combined with great skill is a deadly combination.

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

Ill restate that: Best reciever when he wants to be

Re: Brady's Bedtime Buddies
 

[quote=bigm29;307000]Ill restate that: Best reciever when he wants to be[/quote]Probably. I've never seen anyone with more physical skill, but that doesn't get one far at all without a work ethic.