The Official 2005 NFL Thread

[randhail]

Brady is not that great a quarterback, many guys could have done what he did in that system. The reasons they won so much was, a, the defense, b, the brilliant coaching plans, and c, nobody else did. I do not and will not ever consider the Pats one of the greatest teams ever like the 49ers, Packers and Steelers.

Do you live an alternate reality where there is another quarterback who has led the Patriots to 3 of 4 Super Bowls? I love these "other guys could do it" lines. It's complete crap. We can't know if it's true or not. Give the guy his props. Being bitter that your team hasn't won 3 of 4 isn't the way to go through life.

 

[speedracer]

What does Tom Brady do? He makes good decisions quickly, takes what the defense gives him, and throws an easily catchable ball into the correct space for his receivers.

One would think that any NFL quarterback would be able to do all these things, but one would be wrong.

 

[phanan]

Brady is not that great a quarterback, many guys could have done what he did in that system. The reasons they won so much was, a, the defense, b, the brilliant coaching plans, and c, nobody else did. I do not and will not ever consider the Pats one of the greatest teams ever like the 49ers, Packers and Steelers. I admire the 49ers so much because they did it all without ever trash talking or becoming arrogant. As much as I HATE DALLAS and always have, I have to admit they were a good team and deserved to win 2 of the 3 Super Bowls they got in the 90's.

Thanks - this was quite humorous to read.

You think another QB can just step in and do what he does, huh? Nobody recognizes what the defense is bringing better than Brady, and he's incredible at looking off the safety, has excellent poise, and is extremely accurate. All little things that add up to winning games. He may not have the sexy stats of your boy Peyton, but then again, winning three Super Bowls in four years is something Manning will never accomplish.

 

[U2Kitten]

He may not have the sexy stats of your boy Peyton, but then again, winning three Super Bowls in four years is something Manning will never accomplish.

Don't make that bet too soon.

Brady is NOT the Super amazing QB that Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman were, and never will be. He's more like the fill in the blanks QBs the Joe Gibbs Redskins used to win 3 Super Bowls close together. One with Joe Theismann, one with Doug Williams, one with Mark Rypien. NONE were stellar QB's, good but not great, it was the team, the system, the coach that made them succeed. Those teams had the same front line (HOGS) the same basic defense, and the same coach. The QB's and recievers changed and it didn't matter, it still worked.

Yes I believe there are other QB's who could also have carried NE to the same results as Brady, he's not special. He's more of a Kurt Warner.

 

[phanan]

Don't make that bet too soon.

Brady is NOT the Super amazing QB that Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman were, and never will be. He's more like the fill in the blanks QBs the Joe Gibbs Redskins used to win 3 Super Bowls close together. One with Joe Theismann, one with Doug Williams, one with Mark Rypien. NONE were stellar QB's, good but not great, it was the team, the system, the coach that made them succeed. Those teams had the same front line (HOGS) the same basic defense, and the same coach. The QB's and recievers changed and it didn't matter, it still worked.

Yes I believe there are other QB's who could also have carried NE to the same results as Brady, he's not special. He's more of a Kurt Warner.

I've already made that bet - let's see if he can win one first, eh?

Actually, Brady is quite similar to both Montana and Aikman, not only in how well they manage the game, but how well they deliver under pressure. And all three had an excellent system to work in, as well.

Kurt Warner? Um, if you say so.

 

[randhail]

He's more of a Kurt Warner.

No offense, but that's probably the worst comparison you could have made.

Based on your argument of the defense and the system being the difference, Trent Dilfer would have been a lot better choice than a guy who was the leader of the "greatest show on turf."

 

[speedracer]

I've already made that bet - let's see if he can win one first, eh?

Actually, Brady is quite similar to both Montana and Aikman, not only in how well they manage the game, but how well they deliver under pressure. And all three had an excellent system to work in, as well.

Kurt Warner? Um, if you say so.

Also consider that Montana had Jerry Rice and Roger Craig. Troy Aikman had Michael Irvin and Emmitt Smith.

Tom Brady had Antowain Smith, Corey Dillon, Troy Brown and Deion Branch. Granted, free agency has spread the talent around the league a bit on offense and defense and has evened out the competition...but nonetheless, Brady's working with a lot less here than Montana and Aikman ever had.

 

[U2Kitten]

So again, I compare the recent Pats to the Redskins of the 80's who won Super Bowls with 3 different QBs (and mostly different recievers and running backs) because it was the coaching,the defense and the system that made them successful. You could have had Brady, Bledsoe and some other guy and it would have been the same.

And speaking of free agency spreading the talent around I've seen it said that the Colts are the most complete post free agency team.

 

[U2Kitten]

Also consider that Montana had Jerry Rice and Roger Craig.

Montana won his first 2 Super Bowls with Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon at wide reciever, and running backs whose names I can't even remember. It wasn't a 'triplets' type situation like Dallas, or even like Manning, Harrison and James. Joe used a lot of different guys who came and went over the years. I have a Sports Illustrated from Jan. 1982, right after the "Catch" game that sent them to their first Super Bowl. Dallas coach Tom Landry, who had just lost, was quoted as saying "Montana has to be the key. There really isn't anything else there." I would go so far as to say there was nothing else there, but I will say it was Montana that made the difference, he was truly special and great himself.

 

[Hewson]

The reasons they won so much was... c, nobody else did.

This is laughable...the reason tha Pats won 3 Superbowls is because nobody else did. What kind of argument is that?

 

[Hewson]

Brady is NOT the Super amazing QB that Terry Bradshaw were, and never will be.

C'mon...you're using Bradshaw?
Yes the man won 4 SuperBowls, but if you wanna argue about a QB being on a team with a great D and winning, Terry's your guy.
We went through this last year when you argued that Brett Favre wasn't one of the top 10 all time QB's and I asked you 10 better and one of the names you listed was Bradshaw. I threw every QB's career stats out for you, Bradshaw's were the worst in the bunch by a longshot. The man has a career 51.9 completeion percentage, 212 TDs to 210 INTs. Brady's completeion percentage for his career stands at 61.7 and his TD-Int ratio is 105-56.
So Bradshaw threw 1 TD for every 1 int and Brady throws 2TDs for every 1 int.

You gotta do better than that.

 

[Hewson]

So again, I compare the recent Pats to the Redskins of the 80's who won Super Bowls with 3 different QBs

Except for one small issue, the Pats have done it with one QB...Tom Brady.

And speaking of free agency spreading the talent around I've seen it said that the Colts are the most complete post free agency team.

By who? In the free agency/salary cap era, lets call it the last 10 years, the Colts have zero championships, and zero appearances in the Super Bowl.

 

[randhail]

Montana won his first 2 Super Bowls with Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon at wide reciever, and running backs whose names I can't even remember.

I guess Roger Craig, Jerry Rice, and John Taylor didn't contribute much to the other super bowl wins? I think those are some pretty good guys around him. Not to mention Ronnie Lott, the 49ers were a dynasty because the teams they assembled were awesome due to the lack of a salary cap. They could spend money how they wanted. Montana was great, but he wasn't doing it alone.

 

[Hewson]

Craig played in Montana's 2nd SuperBowl. So he only had 1 without a high profile RB (though Earl Cooper was a tremendous fullback)
And I wouldn't exactly call Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon chopped liver.

And lets not forget Brady's first 2 wins came with Antowain Smith as RB.

 

[U2Kitten]

Craig played in Montana's 2nd SuperBowl. So he only had 1 without a high profile RB (though Earl Cooper was a tremendous fullback)

He was a rookie of not much acclaim at the time. They also used Carl Monroe.

And I wouldn't exactly call Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon chopped liver.

Oh, I am certainly not, just saying they were different guys, it wasn't the same thing as a team having the same ones like Bradshaw having Stallworth and Swann the whole time.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

u2kitten... i'm trying to defend the colts, but you're killing me with your bashing of tom brady.

is all of what you said true? maybe, maybe not. maybe it really was all about charlie w's system and so forth.

but that hasn't been proven.

the only thing about tom brady that has been proven time and time again is that he's as cool under pressure as they come. he's not flashy, he's doesn't put up gaudy numbers... he simply wins. there's something to be said for that. he's already a hall of famer, no matter what else he does in his career.

is he joe montana? no... i think montana was better, but then again, montana also had better weapons. but when you think montana, you think 4th quarter last minute drives going 90+ yards for a touchdown... not 4th quarter last minute drives leading to a field goal. thus why brady's last minute drives are great, and montana's game winning drives are legendary. not to take anything away from brady... IMO he's the second most clutch player in the NFL today... #1 would be vinatieri.

peyton manning is very much in the marino role. marino is probably the most skilled QB of all time, but he could never get it done in the clutch... thus why people always put montana in front of him. the point of the game is to win... and montana won better. until manning wins a super bowl, the same must be said about brady. brady simply wins better. and not for nothing, peyton manning has better weapons than dan marino ever had.

tom brady has very good stats and 3 super bowl rings. he has already earned his place amongst the pantheon of NFL quarterbacks based soley on this.

peyton manning has unbelievable numbers... and no rings. he was even "un-clutch" in college. if he continues to put up these kind of numbers over his career, he will eventually join the pantheon, right next to marino. but you can't put him there now, because he doesn't have a ring.

to quite the worst coach in the NFL... "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME."

in order to place peyton up with the greats of all time, he needs to win THE game. he needs to win the super bowl. the second he does that, he immediately shoots towards the top of that list, much the same way elway did. but until that point, brady is higher on the all time list than peyton manning.

 

[Hewson]

Very reasonable points Headache. The one thing you have to remember with Brady is that he has been in the NFL for 5+ seasons, playing in 4 (he basically held the clipboard in 2000) and he's already won 3 titles. So he has the potential to exceed Montana in terms of titles, although that obviously remains to be seen.

Is Brady the sole reason the Pats have won 3 titles...of course not. But those who discount him as a replaceable part really don't pay attention to how he plays the game. I always liked Drew Bledsoe, but I know full well that if he had been the Pats' starting QB all along until present day, the Pats probably still have zero titles.

 

[U2Kitten]

u2kitten... i'm trying to defend the colts, but you're killing me with your bashing of tom brady.

Okay, I'll stop!

peyton manning is very much in the marino role. marino is probably the most skilled QB of all time, but he could never get it done in the clutch... thus why people always put montana in front of him. the point of the game is to win... and montana won better. until manning wins a super bowl, the same must be said about brady. brady simply wins better. and not for nothing, peyton manning has better weapons than dan marino ever had.

Marino never had a defense. If Miami ever had a defense to match their offense, they'd have done more. It's like the old saying goes, offense sells tickets, defense wins titles.

tom brady has very good stats and 3 super bowl rings. he has already earned his place amongst the pantheon of NFL quarterbacks based soley on this.

I know you are a Giants fan, what about Phil Simms? He has 2 Super Bowl rings but nobody considers him one of the greats of all time. Is it because the Giants are remembered more for their defense?

peyton manning has unbelievable numbers... and no rings. he was even "un-clutch" in college. if he continues to put up these kind of numbers over his career, he will eventually join the pantheon, right next to marino. but you can't put him there now, because he doesn't have a ring.

to quite the worst coach in the NFL... "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME."

in order to place peyton up with the greats of all time, he needs to win THE game. he needs to win the super bowl. the second he does that, he immediately shoots towards the top of that list, much the same way elway did. but until that point, brady is higher on the all time list than peyton manning.

I know, he knows it, and he's working on it!

But in a way, to me it's sad to see somebody like Brady get more praise than Marino or Fouts or Tarkenton because he won the ring and they didn't. He's really not as good as they were (oops that's right I have to stop bashing!)

 

[U2Kitten]

While the spectre of the 80's Dolphins and 49ers has been raised, I have been wanting to bring this up to some football people who would understand.

I feel that Super Bowl XIX was the greatest matchup ever of reciever vs. DB. SF had the awesome backfield of Lott, Wright and Williamson, (which is another reason for their rise to power) and Miami had the infamous 'Marks Brothers' Duper and Clayton.

Duper and Clayton were very flashy, trash talkers and arrogant. The 49ers never were, Bill Walsh would not allow it, but the players themselves were just not that way. They were so humble they would even give after game interviews saying 'we' instead of "I" and you never heard any crap from them in the press.

So anyway, in the SB XIX hype, Duper and Clayton were shooting off their mouths, sitting around in 'fly' type shades with their feet up bragging how many catches and touchdowns they were going to get, and that they were going to put the tally in an envelope to be opened after the game to see if they weren't right.

All this time, Lott and co. were watching, and stewing, but never said a word. They let their actions speak on the field. It was total flats. The Marks brothers were mainly shut down. There is one famous shot in NFL films of Lott hitting one of them in midair, he turned on his side and spun like a windmill before falling to the ground. Then they show Lott with a look on his face like 'there you go buddy!'. Showing the fallen WR's the film quoted 'Fire and Rain', "sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground." After the game, Lott was still not loud or bragging, but said the SF defense got so tired of hearing about Miami's recievers, and they felt they had no respect and had something to prove. They dominated in perhaps the best matchup of WR vs. DB of any batch of excellent players in their prime in the SB.

 

[Hewson]

I know you are a Giants fan, what about Phil Simms? He has 2 Super Bowl rings but nobody considers him one of the greats of all time. Is it because the Giants are remembered more for their defense?

Jeff Hostetler QB'd the Giants to their 2nd SB win. Simms was out injured.

 

[Hewson]

While the spectre of the 80's Dolphins and 49ers has been raised, I have been wanting to bring this up to some football people who would understand.

I feel that Super Bowl XIX was the greatest matchup ever of reciever vs. DB. SF had the awesome backfield of Lott, Wright and Williamson, (which is another reason for their rise to power) and Miami had the infamous 'Marks Brothers' Duper and Clayton.

Duper and Clayton were very flashy, trash talkers and arrogant. The 49ers never were, Bill Walsh would not allow it, but the players themselves were just not that way. They were so humble they would even give after game interviews saying 'we' instead of "I" and you never heard any crap from them in the press.

So anyway, in the SB XIX hype, Duper and Clayton were shooting off their mouths, sitting around in 'fly' type shades with their feet up bragging how many catches and touchdowns they were going to get, and that they were going to put the tally in an envelope to be opened after the game to see if they weren't right.

All this time, Lott and co. were watching, and stewing, but never said a word. They let their actions speak on the field. It was total flats. The Marks brothers were mainly shut down. There is one famous shot in NFL films of Lott hitting one of them in midair, he turned on his side and spun like a windmill before falling to the ground. Then they show Lott with a look on his face like 'there you go buddy!'. Showing the fallen WR's the film quoted 'Fire and Rain', "sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground." After the game, Lott was still not loud or bragging, but said the SF defense got so tired of hearing about Miami's recievers, and they felt they had no respect and had something to prove. They dominated in perhaps the best matchup of WR vs. DB of any batch of excellent players in their prime in the SB.

Sounds eerily reminiscent of Freddie Mitchell and Rodney Harrison this past February doesn't it?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Jeff Hostetler QB'd the Giants to their 2nd SB win. Simms was out injured.

you beat me to the punch. phil simms only lead the Giants to one super bowl. he had two rings, but he was injured midway through the second super bowl season. jeff hostetler and the porn-stach lead the giants the rest of the way. if simms had three super bowl rings, all of which he earned as the starter in the super bowl? yea... he would be considered one of the greatest to ever play.

bill russell's numbers pale in comparison to wilt chamberlain's... but bill russell was the leader and key player for 11 different NBA championship teams... thus many people consider russell to have been the better player, despite not even being close to chamberlain's numbers.

is this fair to wilt? maybe, maybe not... but the point is to win.

and marino also never had a quality running back... something peyton certainly has, and something tom brady has now, but didn't have for his first two rings.



and as for the offense sells tickets, defense wins championships thing... there is no more over-rated saying in all of sports than this one right here. the baltimore ravens are perfect examples of this.

truely great teams have a delicate balance. if you have a great defense, you don't need a great offense... you just need it to be effective. i.e. baltimore with trent dilfer. dilfer is by no means a great QB... but he's effective, and he makes minimal mistakes. he was "good enough." the ravens thought they could get away with just the great defense... but alas, without an effective offense, they suck... despite having 8 pro bowlers on D.


USC is proving in college that if you have a superiror offense, you can still win despite not having a stellar Defense. their defense is simply "good enough."

 

[U2Kitten]

Jeff Hostetler QB'd the Giants to their 2nd SB win. Simms was out injured.

He still has the ring, still helped them get there. It's like Earl Morrall playing in SB V for the Colts because Unitas was hurt.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

simms didn't take a single snap in the playoffs.

unitas was hurt in the actuall super bowl.

and i just looked it up... the only touchdown thrown by the colts in that super bowl? 75 yards... Unitas to Mackey.

 

[Chizip]

people people, enough bickering. lets just all agree that Marc Bulger is better than both of them, combined

 

[Hewson]

But he's no Jamie Martin.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

who is?

 

[phanan]

You could have had Brady, Bledsoe and some other guy and it would have been the same.

We're still talking about this, I see.

I like Bledsoe and hope he does well in Dallas, but there's no way he would've done what Brady has done if he was still in New England. He doesn't have the field vision that Brady has, he's not as accurate, and he certainly holds on to the ball too long. Again, there are a lot of little things that Brady excels at that make that offense work.

I'd take your arguments more seriously if they made sense.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

but alas, without drew bledsoe jumping in to the pittsburgh game, the pats don't make it to that first super bowl victory over chizip's beloved rams, now do they?

don't sell bledsoe short... he did get the pats to the super bowl under parcells, as well.

would he have won all three of the super bowls that brady won? maybe... maybe not. we'll never know for sure.

 

[phanan]

Oh, I don't sell Bledsoe that short. He did a lot of good things while in New England. And coming into that game in Pittsburgh was huge, no doubt.

But I also don't believe he would have worked as well as Brady has these past few years, for the reasons I previously stated. Brady is much better at reading defenses and handles the pressure very well, while time and again Bledsoe has shown that he falters in the same situations.