Hollywood Donahoe

Correct. I confirmed this claim by referencing statistical evidence confirming that in 2004, Brady was third in the NFL in both completions of passes traveling 41+ yards in the air and completion percentage on passes traveling 41+ yards in the air. Clearly one of the best and most consistent in the league at throwing the deep ball, at least during that season. What does that have to do with anything when you, AKC, defined a deep ball as one that travels 45+ yards in the air, not 20 yards?

At this point, it's less an argument and more a cycle of factual reiteration and denial. AKC interests me more as a case study than as a debating partner.

20 != 45+

That was actually a correct call according to the NFL rulebook. Agreed.

Nice. We're discussing Brady's merits as a deep ball (41+ yards past the LOS, as defined by you) passer following the 2004 season. If you would like to discuss that topic, let me know. Otherwise, have fun trolling and posting irrelevant data. It seems to be all you're capable of anyway. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be wondering what it's like to live in a world where three is greater than twenty-five, twenty equals forty-one, and Daunte Culpepper tosses the ball forty yards past the LOS eighty to ninety-six times per season.

You yourself defined "long balls" as passes traveling 45+ yards in the air, not 20 yards. The longest in-air pass measured by most NFL stat services is 41+ yards. In 2004 (the season immediately preceding my comments about Brady's long ball abilities), Brady was third in 41+ yard pass completions and completion percentage on 41+ yard passes. The top three in any group of 30+ are generally considered the best of that group. Please resist the urge to enter irrelevant data - like QB rating on 20 yard passes - into this conversation. Remember, we're talking about deep passes, which you define as traveling 45+ yards past the LOS. Try to focus on the topic and post relevant details.

Perhaps you could start a poll in the OT forum about it. Seriously, though, don't do that.

I'm still workshopping ideas. Fear not, the Roman Gabriel avatar will be changed soon enough.

That claim was backed up by statistics showing that in 2004, Brady was third in the entire NFL in 41+ yard pass completions and completion percentage on 41+ yard passes, and fourth in 41+ yard pass attempts. In 2004, Brady attempted and completed more deep passes than the vast majority of NFL QBs. Thus, he had established himself as one of the game's best active deep passers. How does that claim make me an "idiot?" It was FACTUALLY TRUE. An "idiot" is more along the lines of someone who would claim that the average deep ball QB throws 5 to 6 deep (41+ yards in air) balls per game, despite the fact that the '04 leader threw less than 2 such passes per game. In "idiot" is someone who would confidently state, after misreading a simple stat sheet, that Marc Bulger threw 29 41+ yard passes in 2004, despite the fact that he threw only 3. No, I didn't. Why would I back off of an unequivocally truthful claim? 20 yards? Irrelevant to the discussion. You state here that a "deep pass" is one which travels 45+ yards in the air. The closest statistics are those measuring passes that travel 41+ yards. Your 20 yard figures mean nothing, and isn't even in line with your own determination of what constitutes a "deep pass." Do you realize how deep your intellectual dishonesty must go if you sell out your own beliefs and definitions to make an illogical point out of spite? It's clinical, man. 11-7 > .500 Did you read the math splits wrong?

Just some advice...don't get your hopes up.

Noted above by MDB. But again, I wasn't arguing the difficulty of the feat, just correcting a falsehood.

I know, I just took exception to someone saying that "no one" is talking about the Pats' mistakes. I've certainly talked about them, so negatively affected by them as I was, and people on Pats boards are talking about them as well. The mistakes are certainly not going unnoticed by the fanbase, although I can't speak for other entities.

Be that as it may, I was simply refuting the false claim that the Patriots' attendance "was something like 20,000" when the team was bad. Last time the team was bad (second half '99, '00, early '01), they managed to maintain their sellout streak, certainly staying above 20,000 attendees.

I've talked at length about the mistakes on my Pats board, and have even touched on them here. No doubt, bad calls were a factor, but the turnovers and mistakes were a far larger factor. Anyone who puts the loss squarely on the shoulders of the officials wasn't watching the same game I was. The first one was bad, certainly (one of the worst in Brady's career, given the situation), but the last was just a last ditch, heave-it-up-for-grabs type of thing, and even then, the receiver was dragged to the ground before the ball arrived. I'd call that a product of the circumstances more than a "very bad INT." Those were mistakes in that all fumbles are mistakes, but to call them "unforced" is to deny the Broncos due credit, I think. On all three fumbles, there was a Bronco there to jar it loose (even on Brown's fumble, despite the fact that he had called for a FC...hmmm. ), so they weren't unforced.

That Pats have had a sellout streak dating back to 1994, I believe. That includes the 2000 season, when the Pats were easily as bad as the Bills are now. But don't let facts get in the way of a nice slam.

You mean Belichick doesn't have some royal blood in him? :D

Bravo!

Yeah, it was in the AFC title game in '03-'04. The Bailey INT was actually Brady's third EZ pick in 11 playoff games, but the first one to come back and bite him (the defense largely bailed him out against Indy, and he bailed himself out against Carolina). And it bit HARD.

I'd say neither team outplayed the other, given that it essentially came down to a "who has the ball last?" situation. Their numbers were both very good. They both threw three TDs, both turned the ball over once (Brady threw a pick, Delhomme lost a fumble), and Brady threw for more yards and completed 16 more passes on just 15 more attempts. And my pick is Seattle. I just don't see Pittsburgh or Carolina winning three straight road games, and Seattle is more than capable of handling Denver, I think.

Would a duel have then been in order? Back to back, take ten paces, turn and fire footballs at each other's heads?

Yeah, and he shot Boomer a look that could kill. Not much he could say about it, though. Boomer's statement was thoroughly grounded in reality.

"We?" You and who else? Do "we" also consider three to be more than twenty-five, as you once stated? Do "we" also consider a deep ball passer to throw five to six such passes per game, as you once stated? I don't know if other human beings would appreciate you lumping them in with your inane and frequently wildly inaccurate beliefs.

Three Super Bowl wins in four years = Dynasty. At least to all but a small sect of irrationals.

I like it a lot when those 9 points mean 3 wins.

As I mentioned when this tripe was in your signature, those figures include Super Bowls XX and XXXI, which are most certainly not included in the dynasty years (XXXVI, XXXVIII, and XXXIX). Therefore, your entire premise is based entirely on faulty logic. It's akin to me saying that since the Colts went 3-13 in 1997, they suck now. But intellectual honesty was never you're thing, was it?