|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 24, 2017 9:51:35 GMT -5
Thus beginning the Patriots run.
Clearly they still would have been a good team, but do you think maybe they wouldn't have achieved the greatness they attained. I.E. do you think there's a chance that Brady/Belichick don't have the leeway/support if they didn't pull of the then upset? Maybe Brady doesn't become the GOAT.
Sub-question, say the tuck against the Raiders was a fumble, do the Pats then go on to have the run they have had?
Now given the talent involved, it's likely that they attain greatness either way; it's just interesting to me to wonder in a thought experiment sort of way if they'd lost that first Superbowl or that Raider game if they'd have had less ultimate success.
Consider it kind of a football butterfly effect.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,769
|
Post by BRV on Jan 24, 2017 17:07:04 GMT -5
First and foremost, if Adam Vinatieri hooks that kick at the end of Super Bowl XXXVI, I think the Rams win it in overtime. The Patriots defense was running on fumes late in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl and up until that final drive to set up Vinatieri, the offense wasn't exactly moving the ball with ease.
Now, on to the more pressing question, if we're looking at everything in a vacuum, even if the Patriots lost Super Bowl XXXVI, I still think they win Super Bowls XXXVIII and XXXIX. Those 2003 and 2004 Patriots are historically underrated but I watched them every Sunday and they were flat-out dominant. There wasn't a franchise standing in their way during either of those years.
But even if Vinatieri misses that kick, the Patriots still trade Drew Blesode and stick with Brady going into 2002 because going into the 2001 season, Bill Belichick was looking for any reason to go with Brady over Bledsoe, it just so happened that earlier that spring, Bledsoe had inked a 10-year, $103 million contract and that was keeping Belichick from making the move he wanted to make. Mo Lewis bowling over Bledsoe in week two of the 2001 season was all the reason he needed to go with Brady.
Ultimately, I think the Patriots are still a dominant franchise even if Vinatieri misses the field goal. We've learned over the past decade-plus that Tom Brady's the best quarterback in the league and Bill Belichick is the best coach in the league. All of the other pieces would have fallen into place even if they didn't have that Super Bowl XXXVI Champions banner hanging inside Gillette Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Jan 24, 2017 17:19:41 GMT -5
First and foremost, if Adam Vinatieri hooks that kick at the end of Super Bowl XXXVI, I think the Rams win it in overtime. The Patriots defense was running on fumes late in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl and up until that final drive to set up Vinatieri, the offense wasn't exactly moving the ball with ease. Now, on to the more pressing question, if we're looking at everything in a vacuum, even if the Patriots lost Super Bowl XXXVI, I still think they win Super Bowls XXXVIII and XXXIX. Those 2003 and 2004 Patriots are historically underrated but I watched them every Sunday and they were flat-out dominant. There wasn't a franchise standing in their way during either of those years. But even if Vinatieri misses that kick, the Patriots still trade Drew Blesode and stick with Brady going into 2002 because going into the 2001 season, Bill Belichick was looking for any reason to go with Brady over Bledsoe, it just so happened that earlier that spring, Bledsoe had inked a 10-year, $103 million contract and that was keeping Belichick from making the move he wanted to make. Mo Lewis bowling over Bledsoe in week two of the 2001 season was all the reason he needed to go with Brady. Ultimately, I think the Patriots are still a dominant franchise even if Vinatieri misses the field goal. We've learned over the past decade-plus that Tom Brady's the best quarterback in the league and Bill Belichick is the best coach in the league. All of the other pieces would have fallen into place even if they didn't have that Super Bowl XXXVI Champions banner hanging inside Gillette Stadium. I think if they lose that and say Vinatieri misses in 38, that one could argue, Brady's GOAT status is more like LeBron's where people talk about what he's done, but always point to his losses in these games, fair or unfair. (2-4 record instead of 4-2, interesting how much those two kicks meant for Tom's career) That being said, they would win 39 and win against Seattle. My wishful reality is that Vanderjagt was the Kicker for the Pats instead, but that reality also has Vermeil staying with Al Saunders as OC and us winning the Super Bowl in 2003 as well. Truthfully though, as much as the Patriots were on fumes, Mike Martz' playcalling is a bigger reason behind that loss on the Rams end. Marshall should have been given the ball more. It should've been his time to shine like SB 34 was Kurt's time.
|
|