AKC

Yeah, Brady's passer rating on his throws over 20 yards would have NOTHING to do with whether your idiotic statement that he had become "one of the biggest deep threats in the league" is accurate! You keep up with the unsupportable and football-free nonsense you spew around here, don't let any of us who recognize your little Troll game interfere ;-)

Irrelevant- simply because it proves you to be the lying sack of garbage you've been exposed as? In case you forgot, here's your post acknowledging that Brady was only able to muster a rating of 54 on his passes over 20 yards: Trollywood acknowledging Brady's poor long ball rating of 54 Now if you will simply retract your idiotic premise we can move on to more important issues- like your whining about the refs in the Denver game!

Tsk tsk , continuing to perpetrate your own lie won't make you look any smarter! The completely inaccurate statement you made in the off-season, claiming under a picture of your love interest that "Brady has become one fo the league's best long ball threats" was proven false when in fact I posted the splits showing that only Kyle Boller had a lower QB rating on his throws over 20 yards than Brady among all NFL starters. Maybe you're not smart enough to find the stats. Here- let me link it again for you: Trollywood's Folly- Brady's anemic passing numbers over 20 yards Perhaps now, in the interest of "accuracy", you'd like to retract the idiotic, unsupportable and inaccurate position you insisted on just few short months ago?

It sounds as if you're calling for us to accept a cast-of with known flaws instead of looking at a Rivera or Trgovac who have their defenses on the top of the league right now. Don't forget that of the 3 DCs we interviewed in 2001, two have gone on to take doormats as far as the Super Bowl, with Fox knocking on the door again. Since 66% of those we interviewed are already NFL "succesful", we shouldn't get gunshy just because we screwed the pooch on our decision then. We're in the AFC East in a cold weather city, the odds are we're better served with a DC at the top rather than an OC.

The Pats played with a lack of confidence in Denver and now their "fans" are showing their own confidence crisis in the whining post Denver loss. It's clear even among the Pat's Trolls here that they subconsciously believe the party's over- the flashpoint of the collapse will be marked by the awful Belichick decision to lay down in the Fins game in order to dodge the Steelers in the Wild Card round. He single-handedly drove the stake right through his own team's former strength.

I'll be a bit more confident if the search is left alive long enough to get an interview with Mike Trgovac.

You're hardly a beacon of anything but garbage spew- you can spare Bill's fans your sermons on "accuracy". Let's not overlook that you're the same idiot who insisted this past off-season that Brady had become "one of the best deep ball" threats in the league. I notice you backed off that completely when I proved statistically that the worst passer ratings among starters in the league for all passes over 20 yards were Kyle Boller and your manlove skittish-in-the-redzone can't-break-.500-without-a-top-3-defense blowup doll.

You can't possibly suggest that www.trollsbilldrive.com is less amiable a place for football fans than 8433 Sunset Blvd.? My god, methinks you need 20 minutes in the Belly Room to recover from the miasma.

That's kinda' like calling Kraft Mac and Cheese an "entree". Since the Yankees have won 5 Championships in a row, and also 4 Championships in a row, and also 3 Championships in a row, should we also count their multiple 2 consecutive Championships as "Dynastys"? If accuracy is the standard, it's more accurate to say that Tom Thumb was a full grown man than to describe the 3 point squeakers the Pats won in just two consecutive years a "dynasty".

Here in America we consider a Football Dynasty to be a team who has dominated their opponents for some extended period of time, not merely eke out a couple of 3 point squeakers and then declare themselves "A Dynasty". One thing no one will ever argue (rationally) is that the Pat's "dominated" their Super Bowl opponents. Not after your FG kicker had to bail you out in each game. But do try to press your losing argument forward since you clearly believe that little run of squeakers has come to an end.

While at the same moment precluding any honest or accurate mention of the label "Dynasty".

What, you like +9 instead- the total that shows how in the most recent three trips it took three field goals to eke out victories? Oh, excuse me, that was what I said in the first place!

VIOLIN- VIOLIN PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The average margin of score for the Patriot's Super Bowls is MINUS 8 points- the 2nd worst among all NFL champions since the first Super Bowl. This supports the conclusion that the Pats are among the least convincing championship teams in the history of the sport, and no respectable student of the game would ever accept those anemic numbers as an indication of a "dynasty" when they in fact indicate just the opposite. The Pats have eked out these timid victories at a time when their NFC opponents are at their weakest in over 25 years. The fact is there is a tremendous chasm between being "barely good enough by your kicker's foot" and the huge leap from there to being an actual "Dynasty".

The most recent Bill of Goods sold us was the "Steelers of the AFC East" - this sounds like a bit of the ol' Deja Vu?

Gimme' a fleet of vessels run by the Mess Cranks and I'll give you a Navy any non-Mormon would enjoy serving in.

I've always been a fan of Marvin Harrison's, a hyper-reliable speed guy without the ego of his contemporaries at the position. When Indy took him just before EMoulds oh so many moons ago this was one fan who was severly disappointed. On the reception totals I missed some the first time through and among the Indy top 4 WRs there were 15 more grabs than among the NE top 4 while NE threw 25 more balls to their RBs. I'd say that's really only significant to the difference in strategy between the two offenses and less significant as some indicator of a major difference in the quality of the receivers.

That's what this is all about. Help me to fully understand your opinion because it's a bit confusing to me right now- Outside of red zone production, something I'm sure you'll concede has far more to do with QB play and offensive philosophy, Harrison and Branch have little separating them statisically in 2005. There's a gap of from 83 catches to 59 between Wayne and Givens but with similar YPC, etc., but Troy Brown has 25 more grabs than Indy's #3, and I'm not even counting the catches by Tim Dwight against your presumption. Overall, during the 2005 regular season, statistics make it unsupportable to claim the Indy WR rotation is more talented than NE's, in fact just the opposite appears to be the case. The only statistical category where Indy kicked butt among the WR corps is in TD production, and anyone wanting to make some point ultimately in favor of Brady would want to steer clear of this fact that simply is more evidence of his career long red zone difficulties. Manning, as always, holds the edge over Brady on hitting his WRs in the Red Zone. Brady has a nasty little habit of hitting defenders instead in the red zone if you haven't noticed. Here's where I think the difference is between a lot of media and fans and those of us who like to consider the full skill package of players versus the system they are playing in. You've used the phrase "much better" to describe the all-around skills of Edgerrin James. You'll get no argument from me that he's better in the passing game, both as a receiver and blocker, so calling him "much better" as an all-around back could be fair. At the same time Edgerrin James is not a runner in the same class as Corey Dillon, one of the better pure runners of the past decade. And in fact Dillon's receiving numbers have only become anemic since joining the Pats- in Cincy he saw far more passes come his way. The bottom line is that Belichick wants a feature guy with power and hardly cares whether he can contribute in the passing game. And that's exactly what he got in Dillon, a guy who fits his system perfectly. Is Edgerrin James a BETTER running back than Corey Dillon? It's all based upon the system you play in and I think both would be diminished if playing for the other's team in systems that don't take full advantage of the exceptional skills each bring to the table. So for my money this is exactly the same place that the "Brady is the greatest QB" argument simply fails- of all the offenses on the winning side of NFL Championships and Super Bowls, Brady has the type of skills that might have allowed him to effectively run 15, or maybe at the high end 20% of those offenses. If you look at the more pure QBs with the more complete toolboxes- in the modern era guys like Elway or Steve Young- their skills would allow them to play in 60 or 70 percent of those championship offenses. And as a measure of the "greatest of all time" I think this must be a primary consideration- could you go to another team and have the same success?

I'll leave a menu from the mess decks on your rack and pencil you in for Midrats until you get settled in. The bad news is that having just boarded you will be required to do a 2 week tour in the skullery.

So Corey Dillon "pales in comparison" to Edgerrin James and Deion Branch "pales in comparison to old man Harrison? Add to this the fact that you've got to ignore that you have NEVER during the Brady regime seen the NE blocking scheme repetitively ignore the edge rusher as happened to Manning yesterday in crunch time on consecutive plays. Just how many of you are there in that Barrel LA mentioned?

In your haste to make excuses, don't forget Corey Dillon (the leading rusher for the Pats on Saturday and #3 league-wide in 2004), or Super Bowl MVP Deion Branch!

Ruben had only 2 false starts in the 2005 season. He is credited with giving up 1.5 sacks. Bennie Anderson saved us a bunch of money while allowing 6 sacks and being called 5 times for false starts.

Methinks you don't even know what you are on to here- I've always held the same position, that Brady will play like he did Saturday just like other QBs when he's pressured. The problem with most media and fan positons about Brady is making him out to be "one of the great" talents at the position WHEN HE IS UNDER NO PRESSURE AT ALL. They've done a great job giving him plenty of time to run their scheme in the past, Saturday they didn't. And he looked like I've seen him loook against the Fish last year when he got a little pressure on him and earlier this season when Indy put a little presure on him. What's been typical for the guy is to stand in the pocket for 4-5 seconds as he needs it on most game days. No one else around the league has had the same consistency in protection.

You inspire an interesting question- would the Pats have won Sunday with Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer at QB?

Succinctly put. For fans not to recognize that the Brady skill set is far more Drew Brees than John Elway is amusing- and I have little doubt the slightly stronger armed but equally adept at reading the field Brees would have had similar success to Brady given the great defense they've played complimented by the best protection scheme in the NFL on the O side of the ball for the past 4 seasons.