Discipline isn't the word I would use to describe Patriot TEs.
rms can't follow my arguments nor can he keep his replies coherent. Hardly defusing. Bonus points for using the word "spew" though.
NFL 2014
- Thread starter Dak
- Start date
Discipline isn't the word I would use to describe Patriot TEs.
rms can't follow my arguments nor can he keep his replies coherent. Hardly defusing. Bonus points for using the word "spew" though.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Just a thought: is Brady considered the greatest QB of all time now? 4 SB rings, 6 SB appearances, 3 SB game winning drives, plus some amazing regular season performances. Certainly set himself permanently ahead of Manning as the best of this generation.
King Richard
Hello there
I'd still argue in Manning's favor. Peyton has done more to revolutionize the position than Brady, by far. Not to mention his career stats are better, more individual awards, etc.
But if Manning won another Super Bowl, which would put him at four appearances and 2 wins, I think that'd easily put him over the top.
But if Manning won another Super Bowl, which would put him at four appearances and 2 wins, I think that'd easily put him over the top.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Meh, Brady comes through in big moments in a way that is special. Heck, even in 07 vs. The Giants he gave the Pats the lead with 2 minutes left. That ability to come through when it's all on the line makes him special.
Manning is probably the greatest regular season QB of all time, but when facing his greatest opponents, he has typically come up small (07 AFC Ch. being the notable exception). You just can't ignore such a long series of failures to come through in the playoffs.
Manning is probably the greatest regular season QB of all time, but when facing his greatest opponents, he has typically come up small (07 AFC Ch. being the notable exception). You just can't ignore such a long series of failures to come through in the playoffs.
Here we go again. This argument isn't even really debatable anymore.
@ Nou-moron.. you should just go worry bout / bitch about your 'Boys. So much talent on both sides of the ball in recent years and not a sniff of a ring.
think out I'll go back and just lay in the weeds, keep on celebrating and get ready for another parade. ; )
@ Nou-moron.. you should just go worry bout / bitch about your 'Boys. So much talent on both sides of the ball in recent years and not a sniff of a ring.
think out I'll go back and just lay in the weeds, keep on celebrating and get ready for another parade. ; )
rms
Active Member
You haven't countered one of my points and you have no evidence to support yours. Your argument is a joke
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
Depends on what you consider a 'generation of QBs' but Rodgers clearly will be the best of 'this' generation. I see Brady and Manning more as 'last' generation.
SweptbackFlame
twitch.tv/SweptbackFlame
Montana is 4 for 4 in Superbowls and Montana has never thrown an interception in a Super Bowl. That's the greatest of all time.
Arguably in this generation Brady has been the top guy. Post season there's no doubt, but when it comes to Regular season numbers and stats Peyton Manning takes the cake.
They've both had tremendous success. Even if Manning hasn't won many super bowls.
You failed at pretty much every point to correctly comprehend my points, and thusly offered no counterpoint.
The fact that you think I offered no evidence is proof positive of this, and the fact that you are all wrapped around the axle about things I didn't even say. I didn't make up the Dalton line, it's not imaginary, I never said Brady was on the same level as backups, I never said the Patriots could do *just as good* without him, and so on and on and on.
You're going to have to properly analyze my argument and offer actual counter points before I'm going to respond to you.Just going "Brady is better than his backups or Jay Cutler" isn't a response to my arguments, and isn't even something I disagree with. But that assertion about his superior abilities relative to overpaid QBs or backup players provides next to zero support to suggest he is TGOAT, or even of the last decade and a half. You have failed to give any criteria for selecting TGOAT other than "winning" - which depends on more than one player, regardless of how outsized an effect a QB may have to any one other 21 positions. I have demonstrated through both an apriori and a posteriori argument that Brady has much less of an effect on wins than is commonly ascribed. Saying "nuh-uh" is not a counter point, and neither is the wild assertion that I must mean that any scrub could win a Super Bowl under center in New England.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Not for nuttn, but Brady is in the midst of his career as he put it. Yes he's 37 yet he's a total workout freak. Into all that diet and freaky health shit he does with his model wife, all natural supp's I'm sure ; ). He doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon and of course still playing at a high level as we just witnessed in this past reg & playoff season.
With relative young NFL average age on both sides of the ball around him, he very easily could add more to his legendary status / accomplishments... just saying.
With relative young NFL average age on both sides of the ball around him, he very easily could add more to his legendary status / accomplishments... just saying.
rms
Active Member
You equated Brady's value to 1.5 wins I believe, which is assinine in that you totally disregard playoff ablities. Again, terrible point with no merit or evidence to support it.
Never said he was the greatest of all time. You have said this like 4 times and I assume you're having an imaginary argument with an ESPN talking head. I think he's the greatest of the 21st century, and that seems more plausible than him not being the greatest, thus the need for evidence to disprove it. Will Rodgers or Luck turn out better? No idea, it's possible, but I think unlikely.
Again, never made a claim to say he's the greatest ever. I think those arguments are stupid because of league context and historical periods etc etc. Besides the fact that none of us could watch those guys in their hey days except Muz because I think he's an older chap than the rest of us. I negated your idea of a 'team' sport and you chose to not respond. I think the team aspect is overrated, and the most important part to a team is their OL and after that it's a QB and then, as we can see, a QB can make the rest of his offense look amazing if he's elite.
Exactly. You have given only one piece of evidence to support your claim that Brady is a system QB and that basically a NFL average QB (Cassel) could produce near similar results withe Pats. The stat line you used is out of context and basically terrible in all accounts, and you have offered nothing else. I have never said 'nuh-uh'
rms
Active Member
Rodgers will have a lot of work to do to get there, but it's definitely possible. I don't think it's possible to say a team would rather have any QB other than Brady thus far into the 21st century.
I think it's a good counter point to point out Brady's playoff success without necessarily winning championships. They have the same amount of rings now, but Brady has 1 more playoff season than Montana. Joe has a higher INT % than Brady and also a higher TD %.
Brady has thrown 300 more passes than Montana, I think that means something about the level of importance Tom has on the team versus what Joe had to do. Tom's got 4 more Game Winning Drives, 1 more 4 quarter come back etc. They are pretty comparable on the stat sheet.
SF had two blowout wins out of 4 for their SBowls and Tom's wins were all within a touchdown. I think that means something also.
I also think its dumb to seperate regular season and post season QB's as a HOF category. Peyton just hasn't performed like Tom has, and that could be coaches/D/Kickers etc, but Peyton has usually had better offensive weapons than Brady, at least in my memory, so I think it's clear that Tom is better.
I do consider playoff ability, and normally 10-11 wins is enough to get into the playoffs, but because of the weird year in 08, it wasn't. There is simply no evidence that another QB couldn't have significant (if not quite the same) postseason success somewhat comparable to Brady, if playing in the Belichick run New England organization.
Plenty of people on the interwebs have said this, not only ESPN talking heads. Sure, greatest of the 21st century is certainly arguable, but I don't think it's anywhere near a slam dunk.
I'll go out on a limb and say I think Luck is closer to Eli than Peyton.
Well we can agree generally comparing teams/players out of era is difficult. You didn't negate the idea of a team sport. A coach/coaching staff has at least as much of an impact as a QB. Look at what the Cards were able to hold together starting 3rd and 4th string QBs. Look at what Belichik has done plugging in anyone he wants at RB or riding the unknown Cassel to 11 wins. Also, QBs don't handle drafts. A significant part of sustained success is front office work. Finally, on those rings, not a single Brady win was a smashing victory. They needed a last minute save by someone not named Brady. There was no Super Bowl XXIII moment for Brady. The fact that he couldn't win the Super Bowl with unarguably the greatest receiver of the 21st Century on his team says a lot.
In what way is it out of context? Sounds like "nuh-uh" to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
rms
Active Member
Playoff ability does not equal getting into the playoffs. Dalton can make it to the playoffs every year, apparently, but he does not have any playoff ability yet to his name.
You have never named a comparable to Brady, if you think any QB above the Dalton line is a comparable, then that is basically an elite QB. So moot point. I do not think Garap, Cassel, Mallet or Bledsoe could have had success as much as Brady in the Pats offense. You also negate the fact that Belichick makes his own offense and BRady molded to it, rather than Belichick molded his offense to Brady.
So great we can end this imaginary debate that no one has had in this thread.
Who is better than Brady in the 21st century and why do you feel that way?
I'd rather have Eli than Peyton so not sure that means anything in this sense.
Cards have a really good defense, like the Bills, and can usually get to 8-9 wins with that. I didn't make it clear but i'm talking about the offensive side of the ball, I think defense is very heavily centered on the DL as well, but more of a general talent required than offense, imo.
RB has lost it's notion that it must be filled by a skilled player. RB's short life span and general requirements have been made clear by a lack of 1st round draft picks and a long career. Lynch and AP are probably the last really great skilled ones left, unless i'm forgetting someone.
Cassel might have been a guy to have one great season and then suck, but he's had a couple good seasons so I think that point is moot. Not everyone is consistent for 10+ years like Brady, and Cassel may have just been a 4 year kind of guy. Not any evidence to say he's bad or that Cassel means that basically anyone can succeed in Belichick's offense.
No doubt the Pats FO has done amazing things. They've understood the value of certain positions (WR/RB) in order to bolster the more important positions on the team, which has led to sustained success. Part of my argument is that Brady makes his offensive weapons better because of his skill set which then in turn makes his WR/RB/TE's(outside of Gronk) appear amazing when in reality are not top tier talent.
I posted a stat vs. Montana in reply to the canadian that shows Brady has more 4QComebacks and GWDrives than Montana in the playoffs. Let's move off this point that Brady is not clutch or the team depends on him. He would have a 5th ring if the miracle Giants catch didn't happen and the Seattle game would have had less drama if Jesus didn't come down and put that ball in Kearse's lap. Brady did enough to win in all those games.
I don't understand your argument about Moss. So he won one with Edelman/Gronk but not with Moss. What does this even mean? Teams can definitely shut down a top tier receiver in the playoffs, it happens all the time.
I won't judge a QB's performance off a 5m video, unless that is filtered by every offensive snap, but still. There's more than just one game and the defense means a lot to how a QB plays in the game as well.
How is it a legitimate point that in one season that Cassel debunks the idea that Brady is not a top tier QB? Cassel is not a JaMarcus Russel or a Ryan Leaf, he was a good QB for a few years and lost it. He's not Flynn or Orton or whoever, and neither of us have studied Pats film following Brady's ACL injury(that was it, wasn't it?) and saw how Belichick molded his gameplan to compensate for a different QB. This stat line is not supported by enough data and lacks context of the team's transformation.
SweptbackFlame
twitch.tv/SweptbackFlame
rms
Active Member
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Lions lose devastating game to Cowboys. Cowboys lose devastating game to Packers. Packers lose devastating game to Seahawks. Seahawks lose devastating game to Patriots. Oddly symmetrical.
Similar threads
