Did we play better in 36 or 38?

[TrueBeliever]

The Associated Press made the following statement in their story about the game:

It was a more masterly performance than in 2002, when Brady, then a first-year starter, helped New England upset St. Louis 20-17. Vinatieri also won that game on a late field goal, from 48 yards.

That's interesting - which game did we play better in? I'm tempted to say 36 - what do y'all think????

 

[Guest]

...which game did we play better in? I'm tempted to say 36 - what do y'all think????

I would say this one, simply because in SB 36 the team we beat didn't have a great defense, they had a great offense and a decent defense. This Panthers team can play "D", they can kill you on the ground, and they have that same "comeback" gene that the Pats have. In some ways it was like playing ourselves. We had to EARN every yard. It was a battle.

 

[bideau]

I go with this one also. This was a hard fought physical battle. Both teams played with heart.

Defensively, the Pats played better in 36. This was by far the worst performance by the DB's (Poole and Wilson) all season. Ty Law was never a factor because they never once threw a pass in his direction.

Offensively, the Pats were outstanding. Brady wasn't sacked, the Pats outgained Carolina on the ground and the receivers came up with big catches.

Overall, Carolina was a much more difficult opponent than St. Louis.

 

[Leovigild]

Re: Re: Did we play better in 36 or 38?

I would say this one, simply because in SB 36 the team we beat didn't have a great defense, they had a great offense and a decent defense. This Panthers team can play "D", they can kill you on the ground, and they have that same "comeback" gene that the Pats have. In some ways it was like playing ourselves. We had to EARN every yard. It was a battle.

Actually, the Rams in 2001 had the third-best defense in the NFL to go along with the first-ranked offense.

I'd say the Pats played better in 2001 simply because the Rams outclassed them so much at least on paper.

 

[Hawg73]

Welcome to the planet, Leovigild.

An interesting question and I would say that due to the defensive breakdowns in coverage I would have to say that we played better in SB36, but it was pretty close.

You can only lose your virginity once and we lost ours in that game.

Last night was great, no complaints, but upsetting the Rams and shocking the world in the process was unbelievable .

 

[Annihilus]

I think we played better in yesterday's game. I see everyone's points, but I'm not sure the team in 2001 could have taken some of the blows that Carolina delivered last night. Yeah, they wouldn't die, but neither would WE! I think our 'O' played their a** off, and the 'D' did as well (until they wore down a bit towards the end).

But, nevertheless - a HAPPY argument to be having, eh?

 

[Ottawapatty]

Not to be knit-picky, but I really would like to have seen Tom call the time out with 3 or 4 seconds on the clock as opposed to the 8 he chose. It foced us to kick off the ball again. I know it is a small detail and now a moot point, but still at the time it had me worrying. These guys were hard enough to put away as it was. I know he just got excited and caught up in the moment, but it is just something that I noticed.

Matt

 

[Leovigild]

Not to be knit-picky, but I really would like to have seen Tom call the time out with 3 or 4 seconds on the clock as opposed to the 8 he chose. It foced us to kick off the ball again. I know it is a small detail and now a moot point, but still at the time it had me worrying. These guys were hard enough to put away as it was. I know he just got excited and caught up in the moment, but it is just something that I noticed.

Matt

I'm not sure it was deliberate, but was part of the reasoning to leave time to deal with a bad snap? You could toss the ball out of bounds and still leave time for another kick.

 

[Peg]

I'm not sure it was deliberate, but was part of the reasoning to leave time to deal with a bad snap? You could toss the ball out of bounds and still leave time for another kick.

Excellent point, Leovigild...
By the way--Welcome to the Planet, man!
Please introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about yourself... You know--how long have you been a Pats fan and how did you come to be one, etc... I think that you'll be happy that you found this place, as we have a lot of fun around here and right now, it is a GREAT time to be a Pats fan!!
Let's enjoy REVELLING in the AFTER GLOW, eh?!...
p.s.--maybe one of the mods can "bump" up the Official PatsPlanet Tell All thread (or whatever its official name is), to the first page, so that some of our new members can tell their story and introduce themselves...

 

[bideau]

I'm not sure it was deliberate, but was part of the reasoning to leave time to deal with a bad snap? You could toss the ball out of bounds and still leave time for another kick.

I don't think they could have dealt with a bad snap. They were out of timeouts. There would not have been enough time to fall on the bad snap, get up, and spike the ball. Even throwing the ball out of bounds would have been very questionable if 8 seconds was enough, not to mention the intentional grounding penalty that they probably would have gotten. BB was questioned about it afterward and he said it was a mistake to leave that much time. But, alls well that ends well.

 

[Leovigild]

Excellent point, Leovigild...
By the way--Welcome to the Planet, man!
Please introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about yourself... You know--how long have you been a Pats fan and how did you come to be one, etc... I think that you'll be happy that you found this place, as we have a lot of fun around here and right now, it is a GREAT time to be a Pats fan!!
Let's enjoy REVELLING in the AFTER GLOW, eh?!...
p.s.--maybe one of the mods can "bump" up the Official PatsPlanet Tell All thread (or whatever its official name is), to the first page, so that some of our new members can tell their story and introduce themselves...

Thanks for the welcome, Hawg73, Peg.

I was born in Lincoln, Nebraska. I've been a Patriots fan since 1990, when I was an undergraduate at Boston University, so I've seen some of the bad times. Now I live in Columbia, MO where I have just received my Ph.D. in archaeology. I hope to make it back to New England someday!

 

[SkinTheCat]

Re: Re: Re: Did we play better in 36 or 38?

Actually, the Rams in 2001 had the third-best defense in the NFL to go along with the first-ranked offense.

I'd say the Pats played better in 2001 simply because the Rams outclassed them so much at least on paper.

I was about to answer this one roughly the same as Leovigild, that our defense was dominating throughout the game in 36 against an explosive offensive team. Then, though, I thought of the counterargument that the refs were sensitized this time around to Belichick's strategy of heavy contact with receivers off the line. When the refs started to call this, I thought the Pats did a pretty good job of adjusting, though by the end of both halves, the Panthers passing game seemed to have us figured out.

It's a close call, but I'd vote for 38 because we were playing a more physical team, were more limited in roughing up he receivers, and because Brady and the offense moved the ball so well when they had to.

 

[DeaconPanther]

I say 38. 36 was exciting to watch but 38 just seemed to have some extra emotion to it.