NFL 2009-2010: Part The Second

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

you've proven my entire point about super teams right there... steve young. today a team could never afford to keep a steve young and joe montana on the same roster, because of the salary cap... not to mention the fact that their third quarterback was steve bono, who was pretty good in his own right.

Yeah I realized that as soon as I typed it. But Young wasn't known to be great while he was riding the bench, and in the end they could NOT keep both and Joe left for KC, resenting Steve.

also... joe montana had his worst statistical season the year he came back from his back injury. the 49ers went 10-5-1 that season, and montana didn't win another super bowl until 3 years after montana was injured. in fact, montana almost lost his job after the back injury to steve young. he didn't win another ring until the 49ers beat the bengals in the super bowl in '89. who's to say tom brady won't win two more super bowls three years down the line?

The season and stats you describe were not the year after, it was THE year he left with the injury.('86) The year after, the strike shortened (by 2 games) '87 season, they steamrolled to a 13-1 record but were knocked out in the first round of the playoffs by the Vikings. The following year, the '88 season,(two years after his surgery) they were only 10-6 but beat the Bengals in the Super Bowl in Jan. '89. The '89 season they went 15-1 and ended with the 55-10 blowout of the Broncos in SB XXIV (Jan. '90) So actually Joe did NOT have a bad season after returning from back surgery, because you're counting the '86 season, which was the season he was injured, played hurt, and was out of the lineup for 8 weeks but managed to come back by the end. He was back strong making the NFC #1 seed the very next year,(87) and had great success for 3 in a row including the two more Super Bowl championships (88,89 seasons) in the second and third years after his surgery. All this from a guy who was told to give up football, and has been quoted as saying since the surgery he can no longer feel the lower half of his left leg. And back surgery is much worse than knee surgery.

again... i hold joe montana to be better than tom brady. but if there was anyone who i would consider to be closest to montana, it would be brady. the comparisons are impossible to ignore... brady even has a dan marino... a quarterback who, in reality, is more skilled and has better stats, but doesn't have that "it" factor, and doesn't have the rings to compete.

brady has become less joe montana/regular guy and more flashy, hollywood uber-celebrity in the past few years... i will give you that. but their careers are very similar.

Joe was always very humble and honorable, Brady brash, bragging and smug. Because the details are so different there's no way to compare the careers based on rings any more than you could compare either of them to Terry Bradshaw and his rings. No one has the 'it' factor like Joe, and there's really no way to use rings to compare since there are so many factors involved in that, not always the fault or the sole credit of the QB. Look at the Redskins, they went to 4 Super Bowls in 9 seasons, winning 3, and had many other successful seasons in that time period using THREE different QB's! If it had been only one, say, Theismann, would you put him in the glory category? Marino had the stats and field presence, but he never had a running game or a defense that makes a truly great team, as was exposed in SB XIX and other years in the playoffs. Considering how Miami was in there every year despite the weaknesses is a real credit to Marino's true greatness, even with no rings. Jim Plunkett has two rings yet no one ever mentions him.

 

[Hewson]

Yeah I realized that as soon as I typed it. But Young wasn't known to be great while he was riding the bench,

.

I'll take umbridge with this fact, Young was considered can't miss coming out of BYU ....

Young's senior season (1983) was spectacular. He passed for 3,902 yards and 33 touchdowns in the regular season, and his 71.3% completion percentage set an NCAA single-season record. He also added 544 yards rushing. With Young at quarterback, BYU set an NCAA record by averaging 584.2 yards of total offense per game, with 370.5 of those yards coming from Young's passing and rushing. The Cougars finished the year with an impressive 11–1 record; Young was named First Team All-American and finished second in voting for the Heisman Trophy (behind Nebraska running back Mike Rozier). Young's record breaking season was honored when he won the Davey O'Brien National Quarterback Award which recognizes the nation's best collegiate quarterback. Young capped his college career by scoring the game-winning touchdown with a flea-flicker in BYU's 21–17 victory over Missouri in the 1983 Holiday Bowl.

and signed a contract that was a record at the time with the USFL's LA Express (and probably played a healthy role in bankrupting the team)

When the USFL folded and he went to a shit Tampa team, he got pummeled and had 2 lousy seasons, but Bill Walsh was quite aware that Young would flourish on the right team (see Headache's post regarding said team).

 

[No spoken words]

Who knows, and, really, who cares about how Montana would do now or how Brady would do then? Brady's obviously an elite QB with a sterling career thus far, why was it necessary for anyone to mention Montana in the first place? I mean, don't get me wrong, if I started a team today my first pick would be Montana but I sure wouldn't complain if I ended up with Brady.

Also, was watching some old footage of Marino the other and, good god, what a fucking arm that guy had. Never seen someone throw a ball quite like that, almost on a line, and it was so often impossible for the defender to even touch but would hit the WR in stride. Phenomenal talent, he was.

 

[Got Philk?]

NSW - Agreed.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

I'll take umbridge with this fact, Young was considered can't miss coming out of BYU ....a

How many other players were considered 'can't miss' and flopped? There are no guarantees and it means nothing until they prove it on the field. Behind the shadow of Joe's legend, even with all his great stats, it took Young years to succeed on the level he was expected, and finally win a Super Bowl. He carried the 'monkey on his back' until SB XXIX. It happened, but it might not have. He could have been a failure. He could have been injured. Just having him on the bench did not prove or mean a thing because nothing had happened yet.

 

[speedracer]

How many other players were considered 'can't miss' and flopped? There are no guarantees and it means nothing until they prove it on the field. Behind the shadow of Joe's legend, even with all his great stats, it took Young years to succeed on the level he was expected, and finally win a Super Bowl. He carried the 'monkey on his back' until SB XXIX. It happened, but it might not have. He could have been a failure. He could have been injured. Just having him on the bench did not prove or mean a thing because nothing had happened yet.

The point that Headache and Hewson were making was that Young was expensive. Of course, Young never actually saw the field with Montana -- the reason he was brought up was because the star players who did play with Montana were also expensive (or at least would be if they played today), and such a team can't be kept together for very long in today's NFL.

The 2006 Patriots traded Deion Branch -- Deion Branch! -- because of salary concerns. Think about that for a moment.

Montana may well still be the best QB ever, but it's impossible to deny that he had significantly more offensive talent on his team than Peyton Manning has now or that Tom Brady ever had (except for 2007).

 

[lazarus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYi7W5nB80s&feature=player_embedded


Next year, Tom's buying.

 

[phillyfan26]

How many other players were considered 'can't miss' and flopped? There are no guarantees and it means nothing until they prove it on the field. Behind the shadow of Joe's legend, even with all his great stats, it took Young years to succeed on the level he was expected, and finally win a Super Bowl. He carried the 'monkey on his back' until SB XXIX. It happened, but it might not have. He could have been a failure. He could have been injured. Just having him on the bench did not prove or mean a thing because nothing had happened yet.

That's a lot of thought you're putting into this discussion, especially since you're simply trying to make it about Tom Brady and how much you dislike him.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The season and stats you describe were not the year after, it was THE year he left with the injury.('86) The year after, the strike shortened (by 2 games) '87 season, they steamrolled to a 13-1 record but were knocked out in the first round of the playoffs by the Vikings. The following year, the '88 season,(two years after his surgery) they were only 10-6 but beat the Bengals in the Super Bowl in Jan. '89. The '89 season they went 15-1 and ended with the 55-10 blowout of the Broncos in SB XXIV (Jan. '90) So actually Joe did NOT have a bad season after returning from back surgery, because you're counting the '86 season, which was the season he was injured, played hurt, and was out of the lineup for 8 weeks but managed to come back by the end. He was back strong making the NFC #1 seed the very next year,(87) and had great success for 3 in a row including the two more Super Bowl championships (88,89 seasons) in the second and third years after his surgery. All this from a guy who was told to give up football, and has been quoted as saying since the surgery he can no longer feel the lower half of his left leg. And back surgery is much worse than knee surgery.

i'm sorry... where did you see in my original post that i said he had his worst statistical season the year after he came back? seems to me i said the year he came back from injury.

and secondly, your instance on making it seem like montana's injury was worse than brady's is just silly. yes, montana had an injury. yes, he came back from that injury and had a sub-par season in his first year back, and yes he bounced back into form after that, while playing in pain.

ok. nobody ever denied that.

but he had his worst statistical season upon returning from injury. the following season he got bounced in the 49ers first game. the following season they won the super bowl. by my count, that's the three seasons. if you want to say 2 1/2 seasons because he was injured at the start of the first season and came back the same year, hey... go ahead.

also... montana's injury was worse. fine. but it's not like we're talking about a broken leg vs. a sprained ankle here... brady's injury, while not a disc, was also very serious, and in injury that takes about a full calander year to recover from.

tom brady got bounced from the playoffs in his first full season after his injury. he also threw for over 4,000 yards, close to 30 TD's, had a QB rating over 90, made it to the pro bowl and won the NFL comeback player of the year award... much like montana won it after returnign from back surgery.

so fine... montana's really really good. probably better than brady. but brady is very very good as well, one of the greats of all time, and just because you don't like him isn't a reason to just hate on him and put down what he's accomplished.

your original statement, which brought this on, was that joe montana would have "smoked" the ravens. joe montana got bounced from the playoffs in one game after he returned from injury, just like brady...

hello? mcfly?

 

[phanan]

Actually, it was toscano who originally brought this up, but it's obvious they both agree.

Anyway, there have been plenty of Montana/Brady comparisons, and for good reason. They have the same style of play, they never had crazy stats (except for Brady's 2007 season), they were more about championships than anything else.

Does that mean that Brady is better? Absolutely not, and I for one would rank Montana ahead of him, and I'm a Pats fan. And I think most others would say the same thing.

But Brady having one bad game certainly doesn't change things, either. And he's going to be around for at least another five years, so he has plenty of time to get that fourth Super Bowl.

 

[jesseu2]

YouTube - You Play To Win The Game (INFL Mixtape)

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

i'm sorry... where did you see in my original post that i said he had his worst statistical season the year after he came back? seems to me i said the year he came back from injury.

You were making it seem like it was the next year, it's not fair to count the year he was injured because he played hurt, then missed 8 games! Of course he had bad stats, he wasn't in there half the season!

but he had his worst statistical season upon returning from injury.

But it's not the same thing, because he came back very late in the season and only had like 2 or 3 games left before it ended. The bad stats are due to his playing hurt earlier and again, missing 8 games.

the following season he got bounced in the 49ers first game. the following season they won the super bowl. by my count, that's the three seasons. if you want to say 2 1/2 seasons because he was injured at the start of the first season and came back the same year, hey... go ahead.

Injured in '86, came back very late '86. Won the SB following the '88 season. That's two years.

tom brady got bounced from the playoffs in his first full season after his injury. he also threw for over 4,000 yards, close to 30 TD's, had a QB rating over 90, made it to the pro bowl and won the NFL comeback player of the year award... much like montana won it after returnign from back surgery.

joe montana got bounced from the playoffs in one game after he returned from injury, just like brady..

No the big difference is, Joe and the 49ers were the number one seed with only one loss in '87, and lost due to a long pass by the Vikes the defense was unable to cover. Tom and the Pats were 10-6, LUCKY to be the number 3 seed, and lost badly, mainly because Tom himself stunk the place out with his inept play and mistakes.

Really, really, though there is NO way it's fair to compare any two QBs because every person and situation is different. I would like to see your comments on the things I said about Marino, Redskins and Plunkett if you have time. Thanks.

 

[speedracer]

You were making it seem like it was the next year, it's not fair to count the year he was injured because he played hurt, then missed 8 games! Of course he had bad stats, he wasn't in there half the season!

But it's not the same thing, because he came back very late in the season and only had like 2 or 3 games left before it ended. The bad stats are due to his playing hurt earlier and again, missing 8 games.

You do know that passer rating is based on rates, not total stats, right?

One of these top-5 QBs of all time posted a 80.7 rating during his injury-hampered year, while the other posted a 96.2.

No the big difference is, Joe and the 49ers were the number one seed with only one loss in '87, and lost due to a long pass by the Vikes the defense was unable to cover. Tom and the Pats were 10-6, LUCKY to be the number 3 seed, and lost badly, mainly because Tom himself stunk the place out with his inept play and mistakes.

One guy posted a stat line of 12-26-109-0-1-42.0 in his playoff flop that year against a mediocre defense, while the other posted a 23-42-154-2-3-2-3-49.1 against an elite defense in his playoff flop.

Look, I'm sure Montana had to pop an ungodly amount of painkillers and did long-term nerve damage to his body just to play that year, but Brady missed an entire season of mental and physical work and played on one leg for several games after he came back. It's pretty hard to argue that Brady's injury was significantly less catastrophic than Montana's.

By the way, there's another fine QB -- a 2-time Pro Bowler! -- currently playing who suffered a blown ACL-MCL combo. You can see exactly how the setback has affected him as well.

Again, the point is not to minimize Montana's setback or magnify Brady's; the point is that it takes a while for them to get back into form. Montana got back into magnificent form in 1988-90; hopefully Brady can do so in the next few years.

 

[speedracer]

One guy posted a stat line of 12-26-109-0-1-42.0 in his playoff flop that year against a mediocre defense, while the other posted a 23-42-154-2-3-2-3-49.1 against an elite defense in his playoff flop.

Actually, the 42.0 was from Montana's (excellent) 1987 season. Montana's playoff game in 1986 was even worse, though it was against the Giants.

 

[Hewson]

Tom and the Pats were 10-6, LUCKY to be the number 3 seed, and lost badly, mainly because Tom himself stunk the place out with his inept play and mistakes.

.

While Brady did play quite poorly, the Pats lost "mainly" due to horrendous play on both lines. The Pats were down 7-0 before Brady took the field courtesy of an 83 yard run. Then Brady fumbled giving the Ravens an easy 14-0 lead...please try and tell me the fumble was Brady's fault...it was Matt Light's fault, no QB is gonna hold onto the ball when your hand is hit like that, even Dr. J with his super ginormous hands would have been strippped. The rest of the day Brady was heavily pressured, fault of the offensive line, and the Ravens rushed for 234 yards and 4 TD's, fault of the defensive line "mainly".
Brady threw 3 picks, 2 were tipped balls, but balls that shouldn't have been thrown cause the receiver was covered. The other was possibly the worst pass he's ever thrown. He's been playing with a bad finger for a while (not to mention ribs) and its quite likely the Suggs hit may have aggravated that further, though he nor Belichick would admit to the fact.

So was he bad, certainly, especially by his standards,. Was he the "main" reason NE lost..not really, the line play on both sides should take far more responsibility, thats plain to see for even a novice football fan.
Everyone here knows you hate Brady and worship Pey-Pey, so just give the Brady bashing thing a rest till he's on the field again and root for your boy Saturday night.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

so... marvin harrison's some sort of scumbag, eh?

The Dirtiest Player: Profiles: GQ

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

You were making it seem like it was the next year, it's not fair to count the year he was injured because he played hurt, then missed 8 games! Of course he had bad stats, he wasn't in there half the season!



But it's not the same thing, because he came back very late in the season and only had like 2 or 3 games left before it ended. The bad stats are due to his playing hurt earlier and again, missing 8 games.



Injured in '86, came back very late '86. Won the SB following the '88 season. That's two years.



No the big difference is, Joe and the 49ers were the number one seed with only one loss in '87, and lost due to a long pass by the Vikes the defense was unable to cover. Tom and the Pats were 10-6, LUCKY to be the number 3 seed, and lost badly, mainly because Tom himself stunk the place out with his inept play and mistakes.

Really, really, though there is NO way it's fair to compare any two QBs because every person and situation is different. I would like to see your comments on the things I said about Marino, Redskins and Plunkett if you have time. Thanks.

i don't know why i continue to argue with you, because it's pointless, but hey... what the hell.

montana hurt his back in the first game of the season. he played the entire second half of the season... not 3 or 4 games. try 7. his stats in this shortened season were not good. not fair? how is it not fair? if it's not fair to montana to question his stats, then it's not fair to question brady after he returned from injury... a very serious injury that you're trying to sell short, and one that specificly effects your ability to step into the pocket and throw the deep ball, which makes it a very serious injury for a QB. as serious as montana's? medicaly speaking, no. but very serious none the less.

1986 season
1987 season
1988 season

that's three seasons... count '86 as a season, that means montana won the super bowl at the end of his second full season back, and at the end of 2 1/2 seasons since he was hurt. you're playing symantics with the wording, which is fine, 'cause honestly, who gives a shit? fine... discount the '86 season. montana's stats in '87 were stellar, and he was bounced in the first round by a team that didn't win the super bowl. brady's stats were stellar this year, and he was bounced in the first round by... time will tell. again, failing to see a point.


i don't know what your points on marino or the redskin QBs were, and i don't feel like going back to search for them. post them again and i'd be happy to give you my feelings on whatever you're trying to prove there.

 

[phillyfan26]

i don't know what your points on marino or the redskin QBs were, and i don't feel like going back to search for them. post them again and i'd be happy to give you my feelings on whatever you're trying to prove there.

I'm sure the intended point is "Tom Brady sucks and is a douche."

 

[Hewson]

so... marvin harrison's some sort of scumbag, eh?

The Dirtiest Player: Profiles: GQ

Quite an interesting read, thanks for posting the link.

I like this part:

And Harrison, although he had no record, was a piece of shit, too.

 

[coolian2]

I'm sure the intended point is "Tom Brady sucks and is a douche."

aka the resident stuck record.

 

[phanan]

Apparently the Patriots just fired Pees, their DC. Interesting, coming one day after Romeo Crennel accepted the KC job.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Perhaps they should replace Pees with Poops.

 

[Dalton]

Perhaps they should replace Pees with Poops.

I laughed.

 

[Screwtape2]

The Dirtiest Player: Profiles: GQ

Maybe the worst piece of journalism that I have ever seen. Two sources with no credibility and the author's own wild speculation make up the entire article. The whole thing is trying to paint Marvin Harrison in a negative light with NO facts to support that. The author should be fired on the spot.

The most pathetic line was when he said that Suzy Kolber rode "shotgun" when riding with Harrison. Nice way wording there jackass.

 

[BEAL]

Perhaps they should replace Pees with Poops.

Best line of the decade so far!!!

 

[speedracer]

Maybe the worst piece of journalism that I have ever seen. Two sources with no credibility and the author's own wild speculation make up the entire article. The whole thing is trying to paint Marvin Harrison in a negative light with NO facts to support that. The author should be fired on the spot.

Explain to me why you find Robert Nixon's testimony incredible?

 

[PhilsFan]

Explain to me why you find Robert Nixon's testimony incredible?

(He's a Colts fan.)

Honestly, though, I've talked to people who generally know these things (i.e. the people who informed me about Donaghy) and pretty much everything in that article rings true.

 

[Hewson]

(He's a Colts fan.)

.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Maybe the worst piece of journalism that I have ever seen. Two sources with no credibility and the author's own wild speculation make up the entire article. The whole thing is trying to paint Marvin Harrison in a negative light with NO facts to support that. The author should be fired on the spot.

The most pathetic line was when he said that Suzy Kolber rode "shotgun" when riding with Harrison. Nice way wording there jackass.

actually quite a good peice of journalism, considering as most of the key things that are incriminating towards harrison are of public record... like the fact that he admits to constant posession of the gun that has been scientificly proven to have been used in the shooting.

that.. um... yea... that's pretty much fact.

and honestly, when someone sits in the passenger seat, i always say they're riding shotgun. that's one of the most common phrases around for one who sits in the passenger seat.

and if they sit between the driver and the passenger seat, well, they're riding bitch. now if they said suzy kolber was riding bitch, now that woulda been funny.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Perhaps they should replace Pees with Poops.

i LOL'd