Why Do You "Hate" The Patriots?

[soxfan1468927]

His last two Super Bowl appearances he wasn't very good. In fact, I believe last year he had the lowest QB rating in Super Bowl history. So maybe heavy lifting of the suck.

He really only had one impressive SB, against the Bears. The one and only SB he won MVP.

Nah there have been quite a few that have been worse. Roethlisberger had the lowest rating of any winning QB. Craig Morton started the 1977 Super Bowl and had a rating of 0 before he was relieved after 15 attempts. The lowest rating of any QB who played the whole game was Kerry Collins with a 7.1 in 2000 against the Ravens.

 

[PatsFan2003]

There is also the Celtics and Red Sox. I think it's just a regional thing because nobody else comes close except maybe Yankees fans.

Or Dallas Fans and not everyone love Steelers fans either.

And what about Seahawks fans?? They've been pumping up their cred in recent years.

 

[PatsFan2003]

His last two Super Bowl appearances he wasn't very good. In fact, I believe last year he had the lowest QB rating in Super Bowl history. So maybe heavy lifting of the suck.

He really only had one impressive SB, against the Bears. The one and only SB he won MVP.

Against Rex "f**ing" Grossman. How many interceptions did the Big G throw that game?

 

[flyingelvis]

Nah there have been quite a few that have been worse. Roethlisberger had the lowest rating of any winning QB. Craig Morton started the 1977 Super Bowl and had a rating of 0 before he was relieved after 15 attempts. The lowest rating of any QB who played the whole game was Kerry Collins with a 7.1 in 2000 against the Ravens.

You are correct. Not sure where I heard that. His was the 4th worst among winning QBs, a rating of 56.6.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Against Rex "f**ing" Grossman. How many interceptions did the Big G throw that game?

Just two. I forgot how bad that game started for Indy. Kickoff return for a TD and a Manning interception on the next drive. And then even when they do score, Vinatieri misses the extra point.

 

[soxfan1468927]

You are correct. Not sure where I heard that. His was the 4th worst among winning QBs, a rating of 56.6.

3rd or 4th, depends on how you want to look at it. While Earl Morrall had a lower rating and more attempts in Super Bowl IV, Unitas technically started that game.

 

[cdumler7]

You have to give Belichick the nod is only because his scope is just that much more. But Brady has been critical to the success of the Patriots and Bill knows it as much as anything.

As far as Manning winning on multiple teams go, you could certainly say 2013 was because of Manning but last year??? He should buy the defense a new Rolex every year for life.

Just an additional Papa John commercial a year

True but there were plenty of years that Manning was about the only thing that made the Colts a winning organization. So I would say this last year's Super Bowl just makes up a bit for all the terrible decisions made by that FO while having one of the best to ever do it.

 

[flyingelvis]

True but there were plenty of years that Manning was about the only thing that made the Colts a winning organization. So I would say this last year's Super Bowl just makes up a bit for all the terrible decisions made by that FO while having one of the best to ever do it.

Good point.

 

[PatsFan2003]

No hate here either even though the Pats have been a barrier to the Steelers covering two head coaching regimes.

Save for a blip for the Jets, they can't help that their DIV has mostly sucked during their long run of dominance.

What I don't like about the Pats is they are more than willing to bend the rules to win...either that or they simply have been caught trying more than any other team. Secondly, BB seemingly wears this genius label but the reality is, he's had a 1st ballot HOF QB for his entire run of dominance. I know about Cassel and I also know about his run in CLE.

Give them credit where its due because they've earned it...dominance in an era that's set up for parity is amazing. But, imo BB will truly earn the genius label when he wins a ring w/o a Brady led team.

Brady has certainly given Belichick a huge buffer but considering that the rest of the team has been rebuilt several times that's a credit to Belichick

 

[ATL96Steeler]

For me its just like Jerry Rice, Joe Montana and Bill Walsh. They all had success without each other no doubt but they are GOATs in a lot people's minds most likely because they all played together.

Because Walsh was able to continue it with Steve Young...I think the genius (if there ever was one) label fit a little better.

 

[PatsFan2003]

True but there were plenty of years that Manning was about the only thing that made the Colts a winning organization. So I would say this last year's Super Bowl just makes up a bit for all the terrible decisions made by that FO while having one of the best to ever do it.

No question. You have to give Manning his due even if I don't like him.. (Do love that face though)

They've been trying to do the same with Luck but they may kill the poor kid first.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Nothing is true in that statement.

I believe the untrue

 

[cdumler7]

Brady has certainly given Belichick a huge buffer but considering that the rest of the team has been rebuilt several times is a credit to Belichick

At the same time though we have seen that if you find that franchise QB it makes life much easier to rebuild those teams. I mean the Colts year in and year out with Manning were playoff contenders. The Packers haven't missed the playoffs in how long? Where I will say Belichick has been a huge difference though is in winning Super Bowls. There again though is that in part because Brady is willing to take a very cheap contract allowing the Pats to add more talent to the roster?

 

[PatsFan2003]

Just two. I forgot how bad that game started for Indy. Kickoff return for a TD and a Manning interception on the next drive. And then even when they do score, Vinatieri misses the extra point.

It didn't matter. It was the equivalent of us playing Houston this year. The game was never in doubt even when they spotted the Bears 7 points.

 

[cdumler7]

No question. You have to give Manning his due even if I don't like him.. (Do love that face though)

They've been trying to do the same with Luck but they may kill the poor kid first.

Luck is just a showing to me of how terrible that FO has truly been. Manning covered up a lot of mistakes that franchise made over the years. Luck while a very good QB isn't at that level and doesn't have the same type of game that can cover those mistakes up. Manning could cover up the entire OL issues and his quick passing game could make up for a mediocre run game. And of course when a team is winning sometimes teams will gloss over the issues on the team like a very mediocre defense to help back up the offense.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Brady has certainly given Belichick a huge buffer but considering that the rest of the team has been rebuilt several times that's a credit to Belichick

No question...but the big question is...would there be as many or any rings w/o Brady?

FWIW...the same applies to Tomlin or any HC...would he have a ring w/o Ben and the answer is pretty easy...no! But we're not looking at those guys in the same light as BB.

But when you've had so much success and you've had a 1st ballot QB the entire run, it take a little bit of the shine off imo.

 

[PatsFan2003]

At the same time though we have seen that if you find that franchise QB it makes life much easier to rebuild those teams. I mean the Colts year in and year out with Manning were playoff contenders. The Packers haven't missed the playoffs in how long? Where I will say Belichick has been a huge difference though is in winning Super Bowls. There again though is that in part because Brady is willing to take a very cheap contract allowing the Pats to add more talent to the roster?

The Colts could never punch it in except for 2006. In fact they had a good number of one and dones. While I would like to blame Manning entirely for those chokes, it was most definitely a team effort.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Because Walsh was able to continue it with Steve Young...I think the genius (if there ever was one) label fit a little better.

Young didn't get the starting job until Bill Walsh was gone. Seifert was even there for the final Montana Super Bowl

 

[PatsFan2003]

Luck is just a showing to me of how terrible that FO has truly been. Manning covered up a lot of mistakes that franchise made over the years. Luck while a very good QB isn't at that level and doesn't have the same type of game that can cover those mistakes up. Manning could cover up the entire OL issues and his quick passing game could make up for a mediocre run game. And of course when a team is winning sometimes teams will gloss over the issues on the team like a very mediocre defense to help back up the offense.

I agree. It's definitely an interesting contrast between Manning and Luck. So while Luck might still get into the HOF, Manning is a lock.

Luck may not get there because he end might up like Romo. Perpetually hurt.

 

[soxfan1468927]

At the same time though we have seen that if you find that franchise QB it makes life much easier to rebuild those teams. I mean the Colts year in and year out with Manning were playoff contenders. The Packers haven't missed the playoffs in how long? Where I will say Belichick has been a huge difference though is in winning Super Bowls. There again though is that in part because Brady is willing to take a very cheap contract allowing the Pats to add more talent to the roster?

Packers missed in Rodgers first season as the starter. Been there every year since.