Source
r/nfl•
tenaciousod

Given that Brady's super bowls always come down to the wire, what would be more absurd? 8-0 or 0-8?

Assume that everything else in the nfl is unchanged, with the exception of a few plays in each affected super bowl.

Edit: alternate scenarios

36: Vinatieri misses, rams win in ot

38: same

39: Eagles don't bungle the clock and score gw td

42: Asante makes the pick

46: Welker makes the catch

49: Wilson completes the pass

51: falcons don't choke

52: brady catches his pass, Foles doesn't

0-8 means: rams win another title, panthers have a title, eagles have two, Seahawks have two, Atlanta has one

8-0 means: eagles still have none, giants still have two

Hard mode: how does either scenario (fairly or not) change his legacy?

Posted Jul 17, 2018, 2:53 PM UTC · edited

137198
Spooky_brown_manSeahawks•

0-8 would basically make the '00-'10 Pats the '90s Bills on steroids

374
funkymunniezPatriots•

The greatest dynasty that wasn't.

186
BungoPleaseTexans•

Damn, yall would still be overshadowing the Bills but in a different way.

112
TtarIsMyBroPackers•

"Yeah, 4 is bad, but could you imagine 8? You have it easy."

61
_AmericanPoutineBills•

Stop I can be only so confusingly erect.

54
thatssorightBroncos•

Broncos have lost 5 super bowls. Granted they weren't all in a row, but there was that stretch where we lost 3 in a 4 year span.

On the one hand we can legitimately say we have lost more Super Bowls than most teams have been to, but on the other hand....we have still lost 5 Super Bowls.

2
Totally_PJ_SolesJets•

The greatest coach of all time but everyone could say "yeah but he could never win a super bowl".

10
Boyhowdy107Cowboys•

Between the Bills, the greatest dynasty that wasn't, and Dan Marino... the AFC East would officially be cursed since like 1980.

4
NE_EDPatriots•

The greatest African dynasty

39
Joseph_Blue_PulaskiPatriots•

They'd go from the "Galactic Empire" to Mansa Musa and the Mali.

18
Kenteclothedtiger•

How so? I'm confused

2
Joseph_Blue_PulaskiPatriots•

Mansa Musa was the emperor of the Mali kingdom in West Africa, which made up the area from present day Mali to the coast of Senegal.

I thought it was fitting because the losers of every Super Bowl have their Super Bowl Champion memorabilia sent to Africa.

3
RegurgitatedCumBubleVikings•

Don't forget the Pats also lost in '85 to the Bears and '96 to the Packers

4
CJmmishieVikings•

Imagine having your franchise be in 20% of all super bowls and not winning a single one

298
OwenSixteenLions•

protip: you can't lose a Superbowl if you never go to one

187
heelgreenrangerBrowns•

Oh hey there fellow “Undefeated in Super Bowls” Club Member.

94
KarmasmatikTexans•

Party on, guys!

40
cheeset2Bills•

fuck.

29
IMALEFTY45Vikings•

fuck

17
EchoOrbitJaguars•

Too late to join in the fun?

28
maverick5aliveSaints•

Hi guys!

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-80
OwenSixteenLions•

you made a joke about supporting a loser team to a guy whose username is OwenSixteen.

85
I-H8-GoldenStateAFC•

I like you Owen

21
eag97aPatriots•

Absurd is the fact that the point differential for his 8 SBs is 0.

211
ryanedwards0101Saints•

Absurd that this last one, where Brady had the ball for a midfield Hail Mary on the last play, was the biggest “blowout” in Brady SB history

107
Curse_of_the_Grackle•

Absurd that you can't get good sweetrolls in this skeeverhole of a city.

75
twiggymacPatriots•

and that he threw for over 500 yards and lost

74
nosmokingbanditEagles•

Tell me more.

38
-ShagginTurtles-Patriots•

Lol I don't get why people are downvoting you, it's amazing when your team wins the SB and after SB's 48 & 51 none of us Pats fans should be too bitter, hell even SB 39

It's not like it was 18-1. That one will always sting

40
frogger3344Colts•

Brady was 0/1 receiving

6
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
showyerbewbsBengals•

Every superb owl loss that Brady has suffered has come at the hands of an NFCE team.

You really should be thanking the NYG for breaking the seal on that one.

1
tenaciousodOPPatriots•

It really is.

44
sonfoaPanthers•

It really do be like that sometimes

18
notDAMESaints•

we live in a society

13
Misdirected_ColorsCowboys•

where we don't think it be like it is but it do.

2
A1DickSauce•

r/gamersriseup

1
Kerbonaut2014Patriots•

The point differential in Brady’s 8 appearances is actually +4 Pats (202-198)

The average score is 25.3 Pats to 24.8 opponent

39
eag97aPatriots•

SB 36, 20-17 +3

SB 38, 32-29 +3

SB 39, 24-21 +3

SB 42, 14-17 -3

SB 46, 17-21 -4

SB 49, 28-24 +4

SB 51, 34-28 +6

SB 52, 33-41 -8

Yes your right, math is hard... :(

28
GravyFantasy49ers•

Yes your right

So is grammar.

47
eag97aPatriots•

I'm on a roll, am I?

12
SheltonQuarlesGOATBuccaneers•

I downvoted him because of that cringey grammar, you’re welcome

-7
BakerTDMakerNYJJets•

That isnt what absurd means

2
eag97aPatriots•

You are probably right.

2
SquillsGotSkillsRavens•

I admire the effort/hope your username has

1
BakerTDMakerNYJJets•

we all cant be success stories like u/SaquonBarkleyBigBlue

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
SexySaquonGiants•

It is a revisionist history and literal box-score watching to say that the Eagles could have won that game in 2004. They had to drive 96 yards down the field with like 30 seconds left and no timeouts. The game was over. Patriots dominated that season.

It is more like 8-0 or 1-7.

101
faceisamapoftheworldCowboys•

They wasted so much time on their previous drive. No sense of urgency.

48
funkymunniezPatriots•

That's Andy Reid for ya. I think it was the playoff game they against the Chiefs in recent years, there was a shot of Bill on the sideline towards the end of the game and he's looking at the clock, looking at the Chiefs take their sweet time, and he looks at someone on the sideline and says "What the fuck are they waiting for?"

44
pubeINyourSOUPEagles•

I think McNabb had something to do with it as well. It was clear he was not ready for a no huddle drive at that point in the game. I don't know if it was fitness, illness, nerves, etc. etc. etc, but I am not entirely sure Reid felt like he could have ran a successful no huddle at that point.

All conjecture though. Maybe I just need to believe that because I refuse to believe a Super Bowl HC could play that so poorly.

16
Mexter-DorganEagles•

Another fun moment of Belichick sideline behavior is in Super Bowl 49 when after the Lynch run getting tackled at the 2, it showed Pete Carroll darting his eyes about and chewing on his gum like it was coated in crack, then showed Belichick and he's just standing there no emotion or anything, just waiting.

7
faceisamapoftheworldCowboys•

It was really inexplicable. I didn’t matter if they scored if they were not going to leave themselves enough time to score again. Going 3 and out being too aggressive to try and save time ends with the same result of scoring once and not having time.

3
VonCornholeGiants•

Eagles used a full huddle and took 4 minutes to score their 3rd TD. They could've gotten the ball with 2:30 left if they hurried up on that drive. I don't get how you could say the Eagles had no chance of winning that game when SB LI existed

23
Schrodingers-Tendies•

With this logic you could basically say any team ever had a chance at winning any game ever because "SB LI existed"

22
ghettofalcon08Falcons•

Ugh...

10
JustinwcFalcons•

"No lead is insurmountable! Remember that time the Falcons blew a 28-3 lead!" :(

2
AnExtraordinaireChargers•

and you'd be 100% right in saying that. a chance is just that. a chance. it doesnt mean it's gonna happen, it doesn't mean it's remotely likely to happen.

5
BlooregardQKazoo•

But if they play faster maybe they don't score a TD, or maybe when NE gets the ball back they call a pass play and eat up the clock anyway.

You can't just assume that NE calls their defense and offense the exact same way if you change the context. At the end of the game NE's strategy was 100% dictated by the clock.

5
OOD115Eagles•

They did not have to drive 96 yards down the field. They needed a field goal, and Akers had 60+ yard range. So cut your number roughly in half.

Their 2nd to last drive ate up tons of time for no reason. Andy Reid is a moron. McNabb was not clutch.

Donovan also threw 3 picks that day, two of them in the fourth quarter.

Despite all of that, the Eagles lost on a late interception while only down by 3. And you want to say the Eagles couldn't have won that game? Get fucked.

14
SexySaquonGiants•

So 50 yards down the field, no timeouts, 30 seconds. Unless Rahim Moore was playing safety that game is still over.

11
trinquinPackers•

Aaron Rodgers went down the field for 6 in all of 45 seconds against the Cardinals in 2015. With James Jones, Jared Aberderis, and Jeff Janis. I think McNabb could have gone 50 in 30 seconds with TO.

He ended up with 101 yards passing on that drive. 56 yard pass and 45 yard td pass thanks to a full start penalty.

8
SupahVegettoPatriots•

McNabb ain't no Rodgers and I'd say the 2004 Pats D that shut down 49 TD Peyton and the 15-1 Steelers >> 2015 Cardinals.

5
OOD115Eagles•

Wentz and Pederson gave us a handful of drives this season where we needed to get in field goal range with time expiring and no timeouts. In fact, we did one against you guys in Week 3 at the end of the game.

A better coach and QB ties or wins that game. Fat Andy and Wormburner Donovan weren't clutch enough, but they were definitely in it.

4†
eag97aPatriots•

I feel that Andy and Donovan is a bit underrated by your franchise. They did go to 5 NFCCG and won one. There are only a handful of QB-HC who can match or exceed that in NFL history.

9
BlooregardQKazoo•

So just to be clear, your team was down 10 with 5-7 minutes left (I forget how much time was left when they got the ball), against the best team in the league, and your baseline expectation is that they tie? That isn't reasonable.

If the Eagles score faster NE probably earns a couple first downs and the game is over anyway. But because of the clock situation they were happy with run, run, run, punt.

1
TeeshirtandshortsguyPanthers•

I mean, it’s unlikely, but it’s still winnable. It was just as likely that the Vikings beat the Saints this year, and that turned out pretty well for the Vikings.

It would be the best Super Bowl of all time, hands-down, but more ridiculous things have happened.

12
FootyTitanTitans•

Right, but it was still within one score. It’s possible something crazy could have happened like the Minneapolis Miracle. All it takes is one busted play since we are talking hypothetical.

3
NoFlags-JoeBuckGiants•

The real reason the Eagles lost that game was the early turnovers, they had a chance to jump out in front early.

1
BlooregardQKazoo•

Beyond that, you can't ignore that taking so much time in part allowed them to score the TD that made it a 1-score game. NE was happy to trade yards for time. If Philadelphia plays faster then maybe then NE defends differently and the Eagles might not even score a TD.

Additionally, NE got the ball back with so little time that they were happy to run, run, run, punt. If the Eagles score faster maybe NE passes the ball and gets some first downs.

The notion that the Eagles could just subtract time from their first drive and add it to their second is just absurd.

-2
junkit33•

39 was a reasonably comfortable win for the Pats. They punted up 10 with 5 minutes left, and the Eagles putting up 2 scores was a serious long shot.

Every other game was a true coin flip of an outcome. You can argue the Pats probably should have won both Giants Super Bowls, and you can equally argue the Pats should have lost the Falcons and Seahawks games - all four of those involved crazy shit happening. The other 4 were more "true" outcomes (Eagles x 2, Rams, and Panthers) - the endings didn't come on some highly unlikely play(s) - just clean games that ended the way they ended.

So, long story short, the Pats are 5-3 and should be 5-3, even if I'd swap around 2 wins and 2 losses to different games.

8-0 doesn't really do much more for Brady's legacy, aside from putting him further out of reach. No other QB has even 5 wins, so at that point he's just piling on. 0-8 absolutely does impact his legacy - he'd forever be known as the biggest choke artist in sports history.

88
BlooregardQKazoo•

NE should have won the superbowl in 07, they dropped two easy INTs AND the Tyree catch had to happen. NE should have lost against the Falcons (duh).

As for the Seahawks game, everyone remembers the Butler pick but forgets the Kearse catch that got them inside the 5. The defender tipped the ball and Kearse, already on the ground, had the ball bounce off both legs and into his arms. Another defender actually could have broken it up but he jumped over Kearse because hitting him there would have been a penalty.

Take away that fluke play (might as well if you're taking away the Butler pick) and the Seahawks have 2nd and 10 at the NE 40, down 4 with 1:10 left. That's hardly a situation where either team should win.

39
SheltonQuarlesGOATBuccaneers•

Nobody remembers the Kearse catch because they choose the narrative of the Butler pick being the sole reason for the victory

36
putinspenisPatriots•

Fewer people remember that it was Butler who made the Kearse catch happen. He actually made an incredible play to tip the ball, just a freak turn of events that it ended up in Kearse’s hands.

22
WolfHero13Patriots•

Best part about the Kearse catch was that the defender that tipped the ball was Malcolm butler and you can see him beating himself up over it.

21
arem0719Patriots•

Yet still had the wherewithal to get back in the play and make the tackle

13
SkiAMonkeyBears•

Benching him is the dumbest thing Bill has ever done

1
roboticbees•

If you're changing one play to alter the outcome, how about if Jeremy Lane had taken the touchback instead of trying to return the pick. The Patriots were only able to come back from that deficit by attacking Tharold Simon, who was injured, out of position, and not good in the first place.

4
BlooregardQKazoo•

because in this scenario the people who say Seattle should have won are already changing the result of the Butler play. it's silly to say "if Butler didn't jump the route" while ignoring "if the ball didn't fall into the hands of a guy on the ground two plays prior."

also, yours requires presuming what happens afterwards and injuries are a normal, common part of the game. it's a lot different to say that a play with a minute left was a fluke than to say that if an injury in the first half didn't happen the game would have turned out differently.

0
twiggymacPatriots•

the way i think of it is if every single matchup was played 100 times over with no injuries transferring between games. Pats most likely win 2007 and 2011 with ease, 2014 and 2001 lose. I think the Pats-Falcons matchup was a lot closer than it looked even at halftime, just look at ToP and drive summaries. Brady was fine, the team just couldnt produce stops until the 2nd half and shitty turnovers made the score lopsided.

17
NoFlags-JoeBuckGiants•

You saying they would win in 2007 and 2011 with ease is what everyone was saying before those games. Those Giants teams were good enough to at least hang with them.

5
pWheffGiants•

In 2011 the Giants were even odds if not favored against that Pats team. 2007 was a huge upset but that Giants team in '11 was on fucking fire and the Pats were a seriously flawed roster with one of the worst defenses ever to make a superbowl.

20
NoFlags-JoeBuckGiants•

Yeah. Which is why saying the Pats would win with ease both times is dumb. 2007 you could make a better case, but if you watch the first game you knew the Giants were capable of beating them.

1
Galactapuss•

Pats fan, agree re 2011. Miracle that they were in even in the SB.

1
twiggymacPatriots•

tyree catch is a literal 1/1000 catch, so yes i will say they'd win in 2007 with ease. 2011 would probably be a lot closer but hell i have no idea. if i had the time i'd run through what if sports and "play" each SB matchup 100 times and see the results. that would also show us the absurdity of 0-8 or 8-0

15
NoFlags-JoeBuckGiants•

Dude you realize that if Tyree doesn’t make that catch the the Patriots still wouldn’t have won “with ease.” Giants had the lead 10-7 in the 4th when Brady had to make a drive. The narrative from that game would have been how the Patriots escaped the scare of their life. Anyone who watched that season knew after week 17 when the Giants and Pats played that the Giants could beat them. You also brought up injuries in your original reply but ignore that earlier in the 2011 season the Giants went into New England and beat the Pats without their number 1 receiver and best running back. Those teams were evenly matched. If you are going to bring up injuries you have to account for injuries of the Giants as well, where in 2007 the Giants would have had Shockey and in 2011 would have had healthy starting TE’s the whole game.

-10
Blackout2388Patriots•

He's saying that the tyree catch was insane and that it wouldn't likely happen more often than not in 100 games. Not that the defense couldn't hang. Just that catch was that unreal.

5
NoFlags-JoeBuckGiants•

When he says the Pats would win in 2007 and 2011 with ease it seems like he’s saying that.

3†
Bradygaga12Patriots•

0-8 would be more absurd. He and the pats would be a laughing stock if we're being honest.

59
trophy9258Vikings•

Honestly it'd make the entire AFC look more like a joke, they really can't beat the 0-8 Brady just a few more times?

41
Bradygaga12Patriots•

That's a really good point, it would definitely add to the NFC >AFC perception

19
Younghoe_KooBroncos•

It was bad enough from the mid 80s to the late 90s, I couldn’t imagine the NFC smugness if a single AFC team went 0-9 in the SB over 25 years.

16
tastytoenail-0-0•

0-8. A BandB team going 0-8 is statistically more ridiculous.

26
ConsumerAdvisoryPatriots•

For BB/TB to win so many damn playoff games and so many tight regular season games, it really would be absolutely ridiculous if they didn't get a single bounce or lucky call in 8 SB trips.

22
thallusphxLions•

they could just get curb stomped like denver did every game.

7
ConsumerAdvisoryPatriots•

The entire point of the post is that every game they played was extremely close....

13
Younghoe_KooBroncos•

We didn’t get curb stomped every game, just most of them.

2
ward0630Patriots•

Brady and Belichick wouldn't be Brady and Belichick if they went 0-8 in Superbowls. In that universe it would be considered bonkers if you told them that we think of Brady and BB as maybe the greatest HC/QB combo ever.

9
sevaiperPatriots•

In that scenario B and BB have still smashed through the league in the regular season, and taken the rest of the AFC out most of their career, they just can't finish the job against the NFC. It would be a minority view, but there would be people who would still argue at least for BB being the best coach of all time in that scenario, and blaming the players for not executing after being put in a position to succeed.

4
IShouldChimeInOnThisGiants•

Like Marv Levy and Jim Kelly did?

1
DiggingNoMore49ers•

What's funny is that every single Patriots Super Bowl win could've been a loss without Brady's stats being different at all.

1
tastytoenail-0-0•

This is a what if scenario so what's your point?

-2
xkulp8Steelers•

I doubt Brady and Belichick would both be together, and with the Patriots, long enough to go 0-8 in SBs. One or both of them would start looking for a new environment, perhaps egged on by Kraft, the media or the fanbase.

1
tastytoenail-0-0•

What makes you say this?

1
xkulp8Steelers•

For example, I think one of them would start looking for an organization in "win now" mode that's missing a top-tier QB or coach. Similar to Peyton Manning joining the Broncos, or Patrick Roy in hockey. Lebron taking his talents to South Beach. Or baseball every year with aging superstars at the trade deadline.

Or the club wants to try something different -- well Brady hasn't won a SB yet so let's try this Garappolo guy. Then Brady who's obviously still talented wants to be a starter.

Then consider Brady takes a pay cut to stay with the Pats. An 0-5 Brady may not feel the same way.

Just three hypotheticals I can come up with.

2
tastytoenail-0-0•

Makes sense.

2
what_u_want_2_hearVikings•

0-8 would be more absurd.

  • Pats have had truly great teams both win & lose the SB. It'd be hard to believe ALL of those great teams losing every SB they were in.
  • After awhile, I'd think losing that many would make Brady a different QB...and maybe retired by now.
  • Same for Belichick.
  • The 1st Eagles SB? Pats were whipping their ass most of the game.

I can count a handful of plays that would make them 8-0. I'd need maybe 30 plays to make them 0-8.

Good offseason post, OP. I give 9/10.

16
OOD115Eagles•

The 1st Eagles SB? Pats were whipping their ass most of the game.

Ok, this is like the 4th person in this thread to claim this. Where does this come from? The game was tied at the end of each quarter, including the third. Pats were up 10 with about 6 minutes left in the game. Eagles scored, Pats were only up 3, and the Eagles got the ball back late, still only down 3.

4†
rowdyrodneyharrisonPatriots•

I think people mis-remember because of the rough start the Eagles got out to. First drive, Bruschi sacks McNabb for a 10 yard loss on 3rd down. Second drive, Harrison picks off McNabb in the redzone. Third drive, Randall Gay forces LJ Smith to fumble. It was an ugly 1st quarter for Philly.

But the Eagles scored first and then after two quick Brady TD drives they tied it up again at the end of the 3rd quarter. TO was playing out of his mind that night and if they had recovered the onside kick it could've gone very differently.

11
SupahVegettoPatriots•

People get the perception it wasn't close because it was 24-14 in the 4th. While I can't agree with them in the slightest, it was definitely the most breathing room at the end of the Pats 5 SB wins.

2
BlooregardQKazoo•

But to be fair, NE's defense was happy to trade yards for time at the end and their final "drive," allowing the Eagles to get the ball back, was three runs to drain the clock. The situation completely dictated NE's end-of-game strategy.

That game is a classic example of the final score being closer than the game. When Philadelphia scored their TD everyone not in their fanbase knew the game was over. They scored 7 points but in doing so lost the game.

1
JordyM14Eagles•

Why is this down voted? Did anyone in this thread watch that game?

1
funkymunniezPatriots•

I'm not sure that 8-0 would be much different than right now, to be honest. Just a lot more leg humping of Brady and Bill.

13
henryhydePanthers•

8-0, it is really hard to win one (as my Panther and the early 90's Bills can attest), much less 8.

9
thatdudeman52Falcons•

It's that last quarter that gets you. The first 3 arnt to bad

5
henryhydePanthers•

In that, Panthers and Falcons fans can find solidarity.

1
Dread_Pirate_Westly•

0-8.

Every super bowl certainly was close, but they weren't losing in '05. Probably best team they've gotten to the SB.

8
OOD115Eagles•

They won by 3. How can you say they weren't losing?

-2†
tastytoenail-0-0•

Lol the game was over before the last touchdown.

5
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
Dread_Pirate_Westly•

It's said before me. Philly had 30 seconds with no timeouts to go 90 yards.

Obviously they had a chance, but in that sense, I had a chance to play in the NFL...

3
hjs24gl2814Bears•

Have you never seen a team drive down the field in 30 seconds? Its rare but its is 100% possible and happens more than you seem to think

2
thatdudeman52Falcons•

Takes 1 second on the clock to get a play off to score. I've seen stranger things happen

2
BlooregardQKazoo•

How often does that happen against the Patriots, though? The defense has to really fuck up in that situation and NE tends to ace the exam when it comes to situational football. And unlike recent editions that defense was really good. Let's say the Eagles needed to get to the NE 45 for a 62-yard prayer FG. That's 50 yards in 30 seconds with 0 timeouts, against a great defense. And then they'd need to make a really hard kick. They might as well buy a lottery ticket in that situation.

1
pubeINyourSOUPEagles•

Also, they should have had a lot more time if Andy and Donovan showed any sort of urgancy on their prior drive. The Patriots absolutely won the game, but to say that the Eagles couldn't have won is pretty unfair. I mean fuck, the 18-0 Pats lost to Eli Manning. You're telling me that monster Eagles team couldn't have beaten the Pats?

-1†
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
ShoutOutTo_CaboosePatriots•

90s Bills would look like kindergarteners.

8
rowdyrodneyharrisonPatriots•

At 8-0 he and Belichick would untouchable by even the saltiest of haters. They'd rename the Lombardi Trophy for Belichick and name the SB MVP for Brady while they were still in the game. At 0-8 his legacy would take a big hit from no longer having those comebacks and game-winning drives, though his stats would still be excellent. Belichick's legacy at 0-8 would be in shambles. His defenses would have given up over 30 points per game on average. Kraft probably would've gotten rid of him after Super Bowl 42.

The question really highlights the parity in the NFL. You can have two of the greatest of all time on your team and still have every single championship come down to a sole possession. Fans who expect their teams to win more than two Super Bowls a decade are probably being unrealistic.

6
Number__NineEagles•

I agree with your points about dynasties. After 2011, everyone was saying the packer were going to dominate with Rodgers for the next decade. After 2014, the Seahawks were the next great dynasty. Neither have won since. Rodgers continues to drag mediocre teams to the playoffs when healthy and the LOB (close to a second ring, but no cigar) has been dismantled.

2
CAESARSIRUSPanthers•

i think if a team went to 8 superbowls and lost all by a close margin, i like to believe at least 90 percent of engaged fans would defend it as a great dynasty anyhow. i'm sure some people will disagree but i'd rather have that kind of perennial success than be one and done for two decades like a few teams that have won a ring.

6
nvr_frgt_ATL28_NE3•

It would all depend on how the games were lost.

Assuming all thing being equal, but 1 or 2 plays...

01 - He's a rookie aginst the greatest show on turf. not supposed to win.

03 - vinatieri missed the FG, not his fault.

04 - (not sure which play would be switched....)

07 - We already know about the fluky stuff on defense

11 - the defense was bad, another lead lost by the defense

14 - another lead lost by the defense, another fluky catch

16 - An againg brady just didn't have enough gas in the tank, the defense wasn't that good

17 - defense let him down...bigly.

I think in that scenario, The peyton fans with their 2 wins would be all about how rings mean everything, and Brady always choked when it mattered. More neutral people would be like,: how many more leads does his defense need to squander away? How many more yards does need to throw for (he's already done 350+, 400+, and 500+).

I almost wonder if Belichick would be fired. All those roster moves to not sign guys like collins, jones, asante samuel, law, milloy...right on down the line. I think the narrative would be how Belichick constantly gutted the defense.

5
IShouldChimeInOnThisGiants•

I think in that scenario, The peyton fans with their 2 wins would be all about how rings mean everything, and Brady always choked when it mattered.

I think in that scenario, Peyton's fans don't say anything because nothing needs to be said. Brady has no argument.

0
nvr_frgt_ATL28_NE3•

I don't disagree totally. Jim Kelly took his team to 4 strait superbowls and he's nowhere near the top of the list for greatest QBS. I think Brady would slot himself somewhere near Marino and Favre on the all time greats.

That said, I find it interesting that now, in this hypothetical scneario (with brady having none), superbowl rings have value as a determinaton of greatness. When the ring argument is brought up in favor of brady over peyton, rings and wins are a team stat. But in this scenario, as you said, "Brady has no argument."

If Brady has no argument in the hypotheical, then neither peyton nor anyone else, has any argument now.

2
IShouldChimeInOnThisGiants•

Brady would have no argument in this scenario because Manning would be ahead everywhere instead of just everywhere but team success. If Brady's fans try to make the argument for Brady, where do they go other than team success?

1
PM_ME_CONSP_THEORIESPatriots•

52 should be the fumble not the QB catches IMO

6
tenaciousodOPPatriots•

I considered it, but felt like removing the Philly special takes 7 off the board for the eagles, and Brady's catch would continue that (likely) scoring drive (and not give the eagles a short field for the Blount td)

3
thallusphxLions•

0-8 would be more absurd

I'm pretty sure after losing their 4th, 5th or 6th superbowl, bill Bellichick might even be fired.

5
funkymunniezPatriots•

I sincerely doubt it. Especially if the games were all within one score. Getting to 8 superbowls is huge for a franchise. Losing them all would suck, but having a coach that can get you to 8 isn't something worth firing over. There are scores of coaches through the league that can't even get to one.

10
NoFlags-JoeBuckGiants•

0-8 would be in my opinion. Not only would they be 0-8 in this era, but they would also be 0-10 all time in Super Bowls.

4
SupahVegettoPatriots•

8-0: churches of Brady and Belichick erected in New England and the Patriots circle jerk would be the largest in sports history.

0-8: definitely a difficult one. Brady will still be HOF player all though his legacy would be in shambles as the unluckiest player of all time. Bill will get in the hall too but he'd be heavily scrutinized for not ever winning the big one and moves like getting rid of Chandler Jones or Lawyer Milloy would have a huge backlash without the rings to shield it.

3
tenaciousodOPPatriots•

This might be my favorite subplot; how do all of bill's ruthless trades and cuts shape his reputation if he never manages to win a super bowl and justify them. You wanna fire him eventually cause he can't win and keeps making these aggressive trades that don't work, but what other coach could continuously make such a competitive team year after year?

1
uhhhhNahFamIdontwann•

0-8 just because that means my panthers finally get a SB win... please

3
AlsoCurrentlyPoopingPanthers•

0-8 Pros:

The Panthers have a super bowl.

0-8 Cons:

The Falcons have a super bowl.

I'm so conflicted.

3