That was then: Celebrating what was

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,721
Hingham, MA
It's a safe bet that the receiver corps was going to be upgraded. IIRC, the traded for Welker early in free agency then signed Donte' Stallworth a few days later. Moss being available was a possibility but hardly a sure thing; Raiders didn't want to trade him initially, and the trade didn't happen until April. So the AFCCG loss may not have had much impact on the receivers that Belichick did acquire.

However, there is one player acquisition that may be doesn't happen if the Pats win that game. Belichick, by losing the AFCCG, was named coach of the AFC Pro Bowl team, where he got to coach Adalius Thomas, the most highly sought after defensive free agent. Thomas signed with the Pats the instant free agency opened.
And while everyone of course remembers how it ended with him, I think a lot of folks forget what a force of nature he was in that 2007 season.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
46,950
Welker had a very good game too IIRC. I’ve blocked it out so much in my mind that I can’t recall anything on defense aside from the final fateful series.
I can remember a fumble that should have been ours deep in Giant territory. Damn you, Pierre Woods.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,070
I can remember a fumble that should have been ours deep in Giant territory. Damn you, Pierre Woods.
Woods had it. But the refs let the Giants pile on him and rip it away. By rule, the moment someone touched him he should have been down by contact. But they often let those pile ups happen. Why, I don’t know.
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
30,956
Boston, MA
I liked the 30 for 30 on the Tuck Rule game, but the narrative that Charles Woodson and others push that the play being called a fumble would have drastically changed the future of the two franchises is a little ridiculous. Brady and Bill would have one less Super Bowl, and maybe the Raiders beat Pittsburgh and St Louis. That’s really it. Gruden and Al Davis had problems, and Gruden still likely leaves an aging Raiders team with a closing window. The Patriots still have great teams after ‘01 and compete (and win) a Super Bowl eventually.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,721
Hingham, MA
Apropos of nothing, but why did the Pats wear white as the home team in 52?
There was like a 12 game winning streak for teams wearing white heading into that game. I think the last team to wear their color and win was the Pats in 2003.

It was a dumb decision and karma bit them in the ass.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,315
There was like a 12 game winning streak for teams wearing white heading into that game. I think the last team to wear their color and win was the Pats in 2003.

It was a dumb decision and karma bit them in the ass.
I believe the Packers were the only team who won wearing dark between 39 and 51. The Steelers were the home team in 40 and wore white since that’s what they’d worn all playoffs (puke) and I don’t remember why the Broncos wore white in 50 - I guess orange didn’t work out in 48.
 
Last edited:

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,804
San Andreas Fault
Woods had it. But the refs let the Giants pile on him and rip it away. By rule, the moment someone touched him he should have been down by contact. But they often let those pile ups happen. Why, I don’t know.
The Eagles got a fumble away from Tom in the same fashion in the first Eagles- Pats SB game. The should have blown the whistle but let the dirty birds keep clawing at the ball.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,721
Hingham, MA
I believe the Packers were the only team who won wearing dark between 39 and 51. The Steelers were the home team in 40 and wore white since that’s what they’d worn all playoffs (puke) and I don’t remember why the Broncos wore white in 50 - I guess orange didn’t work out in 48.
Correct on the Packers.

The Pats wore white when they won in 2004 (as the "road" team), then blue in their 2007 and 2011 losses, and then they were the road team again in the 2014 and 2016 wins, so at that point they had won 3 in a row in white and lost 2 in a row in blue, so they selected to wear white as the home team.

Re: the Broncos, they probably had a similar thought process as the Pats.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,723
Unreal America
I liked the 30 for 30 on the Tuck Rule game, but the narrative that Charles Woodson and others push that the play being called a fumble would have drastically changed the future of the two franchises is a little ridiculous. Brady and Bill would have one less Super Bowl, and maybe the Raiders beat Pittsburgh and St Louis. That’s really it. Gruden and Al Davis had problems, and Gruden still likely leaves an aging Raiders team with a closing window. The Patriots still have great teams after ‘01 and compete (and win) a Super Bowl eventually.
Woodson was utterly FOS. That vaunted Raiders team lost to the Jets in the last week of the regular season, which IIRC is why they were playing at Foxboro to begin with.

Then after the tuck call they completely melted down both in regulation and in overtime.

But that team was going to win in Pittsburgh, then beat the Rams in the Super Bowl, and then win it all again the next season?

Puh-freakin’-leeze.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,315
Correct on the Packers.

The Pats wore white when they won in 2004 (as the "road" team), then blue in their 2007 and 2011 losses, and then they were the road team again in the 2014 and 2016 wins, so at that point they had won 3 in a row in white and lost 2 in a row in blue, so they selected to wear white as the home team.

Re: the Broncos, they probably had a similar thought process as the Pats.
The Broncos actually did it since they were 0-4 in orange, including the blowout in 48. The one they won in color was in blue - as an aside, those blues were the best jerseys in the league while these oranges might be the worst.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
The Broncos actually did it since they were 0-4 in orange, including the blowout in 48. The one they won in color was in blue - as an aside, those blues were the best jerseys in the league while these oranges might be the worst.
Right, and the Patriots wore white in 52 because EDIT instead of going with initial memory: I believe they were (at the time) 3-0 in Super Bowls in white ('04, '14, '16) and 2-2 in blue (‘01, '03, Scottish Game, '11).

Now during Belichick its 4-1 in white and 2-2 in blue? (They also got wrecked in red against the Bears and lost in white against the Packers... almost like the uniform color didn't matter...)

Anyway, I always have childhood nostalgia for the Elway orange uniforms. I still think they look good:

 
Last edited:

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,501
South Boston
In the first Rams SB, did they ever explain why the clock ran out and there was no kick-off? TB spiked the ball with 7 seconds left. No way it took that long to cross the FG.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,315
Right, and the Patriots wore white in 52 because I believe they were (at the time) 4-0 in Super Bowls in white ('01, '04, '14, '16) and 1-2 in blue ('03, Scottish Game, '11).

Now during Belichick its 5-1 in white and 1-2 in blue. (They also got wrecked in white against the Bears and lost in blue against the Packers... almost like the uniform color didn't matter...)

Anyway, I always have childhood nostalgia for the Elway orange uniforms. I still think they look good:

They wore blue in '01.

The Elway oranges were fine. The modern ones are hideous.
 

grsharky7

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,239
Berlin, PA
Right, and the Patriots wore white in 52 because I believe they were (at the time) 4-0 in Super Bowls in white ('01, '04, '14, '16) and 1-2 in blue ('03, Scottish Game, '11).

Now during Belichick its 5-1 in white and 1-2 in blue. (They also got wrecked in white against the Bears and lost in blue against the Packers... almost like the uniform color didn't matter...)

Anyway, I always have childhood nostalgia for the Elway orange uniforms. I still think they look good:

They wore the red against the Bears in 85.

I was rewatching SB 51 this morning (still have it on the DVR). My wife passed through the room and said, "oh that's the one you turned off". For 6 years I've had to correct her that I didn't turn it off, I just turned the sound off. I was pissed off and didn't feel like listening to Buck and Aikman when they got down big so I just muted it. However, the game was still on, then when they started coming back she was bugging me to turn the volume up and I being the superstitious person that I am refused until she grabbed the remote away and did it herself.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,721
Hingham, MA
Right, and the Patriots wore white in 52 because EDIT instead of going with initial memory: I believe they were (at the time) 3-0 in Super Bowls in white ('04, '14, '16) and 2-2 in blue (‘01, '03, Scottish Game, '11).

Now during Belichick its 4-1 in white and 2-2 in blue? (They also got wrecked in red against the Bears and lost in blue against the Packers... almost like the uniform color didn't matter...)

Anyway, I always have childhood nostalgia for the Elway orange uniforms. I still think they look good:

They wore white against the Packers.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,804
San Andreas Fault
Watching some of the half hour Patriots Super Bowl highlights, in a way, gave me greater realization how great Brady is, in going through progressions, moving around in the pocket, getting off passes in milliseconds, etc. Thing is, watching him live, you were worried about whether or not the Patriots were going to win the game, so you didn't take the time to smell the roses, so to speak. This is not to even mention what a great leader he was, on and off the field. Mahomes needs to calm down. He's not getting close to Tom's passing or game winning statistics.
 

Cotillion

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
4,881
In the first Rams SB, did they ever explain why the clock ran out and there was no kick-off? TB spiked the ball with 7 seconds left. No way it took that long to cross the FG.
I believe the league made a rule after that setting a specific runoff time for field goals, but there wasn’t one at the time.
Yep there wasn't a specific rule about how much time could elapse on a FG. . I think even the Pats second super bowl was a 6 second clock before the rule was changed
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
13,929
Boulder, CO
Woodson was utterly FOS. That vaunted Raiders team lost to the Jets in the last week of the regular season, which IIRC is why they were playing at Foxboro to begin with.

Then after the tuck call they completely melted down both in regulation and in overtime.

But that team was going to win in Pittsburgh, then beat the Rams in the Super Bowl, and then win it all again the next season?

Puh-freakin’-leeze.
The Rams would have absolutely nuked that Raiders team, IF they could have won on the road at Pittsburgh, which is a coin toss at best IMHO.

FOH with that bullshit about how the Raiders would have been this dynasty. Just stop.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,070
To this day, I don't understand how possession wasn't ruled with the Pats. One of worst calls ever.
Still shots, blah blah blah. It's ok...people can watch it in real time. But here's the sequence of stills...

#1 - the fumble. The ball is on the ground.

60868

#2 - Woods dives for it.

60869

#3 - Woods has it and is completely in control of it and on top of it. Bradshaw is on top of him.

60870

#4 - Woods still has it. Bradshaw still on top of him. Notice his right hand on Woods' back/neck.

60871

#5 - Woods still on top of it. Bradshaw, knowing he doesn't have it, starts to try to dig it out. You will see him needing his right arm to do the work.

60872

#6 - He now pulls his right hand under Woods, while trying to roll him over and using both hands to rip the ball away.

60873

#7 - Bradshaw successfully rolled Woods over and now has the ball in his right hand. The hand that was on top of Woods' back when he first dove on him.

60874

Anyone wanting to see the play as it happened instead of a series of stills, go here and go to the 31:50 mark. It all happens quickly, but it for sure was recovered by Woods, and Bradshaw dives on him, which means that Woods should have been down by contact instantly. Instead, they let Bradshaw try to roll Woods over and rip the ball away. Which he did successfully. But it's so frustrating watching this all over again. The Pats were up 7-3 at that point (about 9 minutes left in the 2nd quarter) and would have had the ball at the Giant 30 yard line in great shape.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QkoOUEgyc&t=6890s
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
46,950
Still shots, blah blah blah. It's ok...people can watch it in real time. But here's the sequence of stills...

#1 - the fumble. The ball is on the ground.

View attachment 60868

#2 - Woods dives for it.

View attachment 60869

#3 - Woods has it and is completely in control of it and on top of it. Bradshaw is on top of him.

View attachment 60870

#4 - Woods still has it. Bradshaw still on top of him. Notice his right hand on Woods' back/neck.

View attachment 60871

#5 - Woods still on top of it. Bradshaw, knowing he doesn't have it, starts to try to dig it out. You will see him needing his right arm to do the work.

View attachment 60872

#6 - He now pulls his right hand under Woods, while trying to roll him over and using both hands to rip the ball away.

View attachment 60873

#7 - Bradshaw successfully rolled Woods over and now has the ball in his right hand. The hand that was on top of Woods' back when he first dove on him.

View attachment 60874

Anyone wanting to see the play as it happened instead of a series of stills, go here and go to the 31:50 mark. It all happens quickly, but it for sure was recovered by Woods, and Bradshaw dives on him, which means that Woods should have been down by contact instantly. Instead, they let Bradshaw try to roll Woods over and rip the ball away. Which he did successfully. But it's so frustrating watching this all over again. The Pats were up 7-3 at that point (about 9 minutes left in the 2nd quarter) and would have had the ball at the Giant 30 yard line in great shape.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QkoOUEgyc&t=6890s
Well, this hurts. I was at the game so never saw these stills. Almost certainly lost at least 3 points because of it. If they score a TD, it’s 14-3 and probably ballgame given how the defense was playing. Just another play in the most frustrating game of all time.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,070
Well, this hurts. I was at the game so never saw these stills. Almost certainly lost at least 3 points because of it. If they score a TD, it’s 14-3 and probably ballgame given how the defense was playing. Just another play in the most frustrating game of all time.
This play.

The fourth down run by Jacobs that got the first down by inches.

The missed Asante INT that would have ended it.

The non-holding on the Tyree play.

Then the other missed INT on 2nd and 11 from the 25 yard line - Eli threw a duck to the left sideline that Brandon Meriweather could have (won't say SHOULD have because it would have been a really good play, but definitely COULD have) caught for an INT.

The 70+ yard bomb by Brady to Moss that was BARELY tipped away, or it would have been the most spectacular touchdown in NFL history.

So many frustrating plays.

But that's how a better team loses to a lesser team.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
46,950
This play.

The fourth down run by Jacobs that got the first down by inches.

The missed Asante INT that would have ended it.

The non-holding on the Tyree play.

Then the other missed INT on 2nd and 11 from the 25 yard line - Eli threw a duck to the left sideline that Brandon Meriweather could have (won't say SHOULD have because it would have been a really good play, but definitely COULD have) caught for an INT.

The 70+ yard bomb by Brady to Moss that was BARELY tipped away, or it would have been the most spectacular touchdown in NFL history.

So many frustrating plays.

But that's how a better team loses to a lesser team.
I never agreed with Belichick not letting Gost kick in the first half.

I’ve watched that Samuel play a few times and I think he comes down with it maybe 7-8 times out of 10. The sideline’s proximity clearly messed with him but that’s a play that probably haunts him to this day. Or maybe not. Maybe athletes get over those things easier than fans do.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,070
I never agreed with Belichick not letting Gost kick in the first half.

I’ve watched that Samuel play a few times and I think he comes down with it maybe 7-8 times out of 10. The sideline’s proximity clearly messed with him but that’s a play that probably haunts him to this day. Or maybe not. Maybe athletes get over those things easier than fans do.
Eli really wasn't good in that game to that point. If Asante comes down with it, here's Eli's final stat line:

16-30 (53.3%), 198 yds (6.6 y/a), 1 td, 2 int, 57.4 rating

While leading his team to only 10 points.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,931
NH
Still shots, blah blah blah. It's ok...people can watch it in real time. But here's the sequence of stills...

#1 - the fumble. The ball is on the ground.

View attachment 60868

#2 - Woods dives for it.

View attachment 60869

#3 - Woods has it and is completely in control of it and on top of it. Bradshaw is on top of him.

View attachment 60870

#4 - Woods still has it. Bradshaw still on top of him. Notice his right hand on Woods' back/neck.

View attachment 60871

#5 - Woods still on top of it. Bradshaw, knowing he doesn't have it, starts to try to dig it out. You will see him needing his right arm to do the work.

View attachment 60872

#6 - He now pulls his right hand under Woods, while trying to roll him over and using both hands to rip the ball away.

View attachment 60873

#7 - Bradshaw successfully rolled Woods over and now has the ball in his right hand. The hand that was on top of Woods' back when he first dove on him.

View attachment 60874

Anyone wanting to see the play as it happened instead of a series of stills, go here and go to the 31:50 mark. It all happens quickly, but it for sure was recovered by Woods, and Bradshaw dives on him, which means that Woods should have been down by contact instantly. Instead, they let Bradshaw try to roll Woods over and rip the ball away. Which he did successfully. But it's so frustrating watching this all over again. The Pats were up 7-3 at that point (about 9 minutes left in the 2nd quarter) and would have had the ball at the Giant 30 yard line in great shape.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QkoOUEgyc&t=6890s
Mad about it all over again. There's like 0 chance they rule that the same way in any other scenario. There are some calls I can see what the ref was thinking, but man this was some hideous nonsense. Woods clearly has it and is clearly down.

Man just watching two plays after that and seeing Logan Mankins forget how to play football. gaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,931
NH
It's actually amazing how awful Mankins is in 42. I just watched maybe 10 offensive snaps in the 2nd quarter and he's getting beat 8 or 9 of the times. That game is going to cost him and Light (and probably Welker....and maybe a couple others) a hall of fame spot.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
46,950
Eli really wasn't good in that game to that point. If Asante comes down with it, here's Eli's final stat line:

16-30 (53.3%), 198 yds (6.6 y/a), 1 td, 2 int, 57.4 rating

While leading his team to only 10 points.
Yup. History is written by the winners. I will say that the Pats letting Giants drive down the field in first drive was an ominous sign but the defense was very good after that drive. The big issue, of course, was that the offense got completely shut down after our first drive. Pats front 7 was tenacious in that one.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,346
Pittsburgh, PA
Is this Celebrating What Is, or Lamenting What Almost Was?

C'mon guys, that game never happened. Let's talk about all the games that did happen.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,842
Newton
Ehhh, let’s take it from another angle. I used to feel pretty traumatized by the Scottish Game, even as recently as the last year or two. But now with Brady almost certainly retired for good it’s a little like the 2003 ALCS MFYs/Boone walk-off to me. Yes, I still wish we’d won it but now that loss is part of a larger narrative in which my team overcomes the odds to do something unprecedented in sports.

Are used to ask myself what I would’ve given up for the Patriots to have won that game. But as I look back now, there’s no way in the world I would give up Super Bowl 49 or 51 for that. Those moments and the utter dominance they symbolized are way too life-affirming for me and every bit as much a part of sports immortality.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,814
Needham, MA
Without getting into which one I would trade, I would probably rather have 5 Super Bowls with one of them having been an undefeated season instead of 6 Super Bowls, but it's a close call. Either way, these are massive first world sports fan problems to be contemplating.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,721
Hingham, MA
Ehhh, let’s take it from another angle. I used to feel pretty traumatized by the Scottish Game, even as recently as the last year or two. But now with Brady almost certainly retired for good it’s a little like the 2003 ALCS MFYs/Boone walk-off to me. Yes, I still wish we’d won it but now that loss is part of a larger narrative in which my team overcomes the odds to do something unprecedented in sports.

Are used to ask myself what I would’ve given up for the Patriots to have won that game. But as I look back now, there’s no way in the world I would give up Super Bowl 49 or 51 for that. Those moments and the utter dominance they symbolized are way too life-affirming for me and every bit as much a part of sports immortality.
Without getting into which one I would trade, I would probably rather have 5 Super Bowls with one of them having been an undefeated season instead of 6 Super Bowls, but it's a close call. Either way, these are massive first world sports fan problems to be contemplating.
Yeah I am here too. While I don't know which path I would choose for certain, talking about 2007 is becoming less painful as time goes on. It only took 15 years!
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,681
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Without getting into which one I would trade, I would probably rather have 5 Super Bowls with one of them having been an undefeated season instead of 6 Super Bowls, but it's a close call. Either way, these are massive first world sports fan problems to be contemplating.
I used to think this way, but I don't any longer. Winning 3 after that one made it so I can look back at the 2007 season and appreciate it still. I have no trauma from that game anymore. Even the easy stuff, like saying I'd give up Super Bowl 53 for that one means I wouldn't have the same feeling I have when looking back at that Chiefs game (one of the best wins of the dynasty, Super Bowls included) and I'd have to give up another one on top of that. Though if forced to do it, it's 53 and 38 for 42.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,070
The one I’d trade is the last Rams one in exchange for 2007. But listen to us. Talking about which of the SIX Super Bowls we’d trade for that one. Most fan bases would kill to have a discussion anything like this.

Celebrating what is, indeed.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,721
Hingham, MA
The one I’d trade is the last Rams one in exchange for 2007. But listen to us. Talking about which of the SIX Super Bowls we’d trade for that one. Most fan bases would kill to have a discussion anything like this.

Celebrating what is, indeed.
Ah, but then Mahomes might already have 2...
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,814
Needham, MA
I used to think this way, but I don't any longer. Winning 3 after that one made it so I can look back at the 2007 season and appreciate it still. I have no trauma from that game anymore. Even the easy stuff, like saying I'd give up Super Bowl 53 for that one means I wouldn't have the same feeling I have when looking back at that Chiefs game (one of the best wins of the dynasty, Super Bowls included) and I'd have to give up another one on top of that. Though if forced to do it, it's 53 and 38 for 42.
Yeah, like I said it is a close call. That's why I can't say I'd trade 53 or 39 (or whatever) for it, because like you I don't want to lose those memories. But if you started the simulation of the BB/TB era over again and, without knowing which years they were going to win or how or which teams they would face along the way, you got the choice of 5 Super Bowls with one being an undefeated season or six, I'd probably take the 5. Like I said massive first world sports problems.

But like @tims4wins said it only took 15 years but I can at least talk about that game without being massively triggered. It doesn't help that I was there and it was the most painful in-person sports experience of my life, but I at least can look at those still shots of the Pierre Woods play and not vomit.