footballhero1
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by footballhero1
-
-
12 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
Yesterday really shocked me, I thought we could hang with the Rams without Luck and maybe even win. Guess not. Without Luck we are a bad team. Ballard needs to keep building the Defense once the season is over and Luck needs to get to 100%.
The Colts do not have a team without luck. There's really no cohesive overall vision to what the team wants it's identity to be besides "Andrew Luck is a great franchise QB and then he has a bunch of random pieces to play with".
It's not like Pitsburrgh where the concept is you have a tough to take down QB who can survive long enough for x factors like Brown and Bell to make plays in space. Or the Patriots where the concept is Brady gets rid of the ball quick and cuts you to pieces on short throws to guys in the slot or RB's out of the backfield to to wear you down for bigger plays and exhaust you.
It's this is Andrew Luck, here's the guys you have to try to play football with. That's the problem.
-
These reasons are why not Kaep.
The Colts are built around Luck. If Luck isn't there, you aren't going anywhere. Tolzien and Brissett are just there to take up space in a world without Luck. Nobody on your staff actually believes that a Colts team without Luck is going anywhere. Kaep does not really increase your chances to win and he doesn't fit your team's system. The Colts are not built for a QB like Kaep. In fact, they are built the opposite of that. So if you bring Kaep on to pay him a lot more than you are paying your other QB's preventing you from making longterm moves, you also have to restructure the team to fit Kaep more (and Luck less) to have any hope of winning. The Colts are not going to do that. So ultimately you would have a QB that has no place in the system, taking up a lot of money, not winning, and generating a lot of controversial and negative media attention. Oh and then when you release him next year, you are set up to be the bad guys.
-
5 minutes ago, jimmy g said:
Bob irsay would've fired Chuck. Jimmy Irsay's history is riding out the season. Ballard brings something new to the equation. Chuck should be nervous...
Bringing in someone new won't save your season. You guys are in rebuilding mode and the fact is, you aren't going anywhere without Luck on the field. The Colts are not built to handle his absence and the over reliance on Luck is putting to much pressure on a young QB who feels like he has to do everything and ends up leaving himself in harms way.
Polian realized that over a decade ago and starting trying to take the burden off of Manning so he could focus on what he does best and not worry that he has to make up for a dozen other inferior aspects to the team.
now that Luck isn't there, lesser QB's have no idea where to even to start to piece a win together.
-
4 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:
You mean like the last 4 games of 1 year in between NFCCG years? Ok.
You said Favre's play was the reason the Dolphins improved. I have you his stat line for the entire year and the pitfal record of the team's he played.
-
2 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:
Well you just did with Favre's last 4 games in 2008, and you would have in this case if Brady were 1-0 and Brissett 0-1.
No I wouldn't because I don't make sweeping statements off highly selective sample sizes unless I have to argue against one
-
23 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:
12 other teams couldn't outperform the the Dolphins either. Favre was the main MVP as late as week 12 or so before he got hurt, and if you want to use the w/l differential angle then it applies to Favre to with the shoe on the other foot. He improved his team by 5 wins like Bradys absence supposedly hurt his team by 5 wins. That's not exactly my logic...but it's yours so.
Wait so the QB you consider one of the best ever was worth as many games as Brady that year?
-
20 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:
Especially when he's 16-38 with no TDs and 200 yards.
Yeah he had a bad game. Didn't deny it. Not going to define a whole narrative by a tiny sample size though like you are prone to
-
15 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:
So since 11-5 after 16-0 meants Brady was God, does 0-1 after 1-0 mean ah skip it
Well since you like to minimize sample sizes yeah. But Brady finished the year 14-1.
What do I care though, every time a Brady led team starts 0-1 they win the Super Bowl
-
9 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:
I don't know where that whole easy schedule in 2008 keeps coming from. The Dolphins and Jets had winning seasons, winning seasons that weren't considered fraudulent like before because they included Bill Parcels and Brett Favre, and the Bills won 6 or 7 in 4th place iirc.
Every year every divisions is assigned two divisions to play one from the NFC and one from the AFC. The 2008 Patriots played two divisions where only one team between all 8 of them had a winning record. That record was 9-7.
That schedule was so bad the Dolphins jumped from 1-15 to 11-5. That's how big the difference was. The Patriots couldn't outperform a team that was 1-15 a year they were 16-0 the following season without their QB. Oh and Favre was nothing special in 08. He led the league in interceptions and his passer rating was 81.
-
1 minute ago, horseshoecrabs said:
I knew you couldn't resist Your a stat guy but you probably were not old enough to remember Joe Montana's last
bowl game he brought Notre Dame back to at the time in an unexpected last minute come back win in that bowl game
anyone who saw it knew he was someone who would be special and he proved them right sometimes you have to watch the games and not only look at fantasy football facts
That's the thing I'm not too much of a stat guy. A stat guy would maybe argue for Peyton. Joe Montana was not highly rated coming out of college. He was drafted in the 3rd round. Tom Brady did something similar. His whole last season was marked by come from behind wins leading to the game to get into the orange bowl where he came from behind and the Orange Bowl itself where he came back to win. They were both very similar in that regard. More intangibles in college, overlooked by scouts.
That was my whole point. The experts who predicted Manning and botched on Leaf were the same ones who overlooked Brady and Montana despite their intangibles and ability to win in crunch time.
-
8 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:
The problem with your theory again is you keeping leaving out is Manning was an elite top rated QB at Tennessee
Brady was not! and Although yes he did have marvin & reggie ectc... but he also developed players later by his
ability to spread the ball around and make marginal players relevant, on both the Colts and Denver teams. I get it
your a big Brady fan and I understand that But you have your theory and I have mine so for the sake of argument
lets just leave it like that, unless you are one of those people who need to have the last word, and if my theory is right about that( which I hope it isn't) I'll be at least one up on you! that is um um , Theoretically Speaking!
That doesn't mean anything, sorry. There are plenty of top rated QB's coming out of college who busted in the NFL, and plenty of under the radar guys who became great. Brady was 6th round and Montana was 3rd round. Montana led his team to national title and Brady came from behind multiple times to get his team into and win the Orange ball when that actually mattered. He was constantly winning, he was just underrated from a talent perspective, as Joe Montana the same. They were both guys who won a lot in college and physically scouts couldn't see why and they overlooked them despite Montana retiring with the highest passer rating of all time when he hung them up and Brady currently at number 3 all time.
You know who was a highly rated prospect coming out of college. Ryan Leaf. There was actually expert debate over him and Manning. If ratings in college mattered, Leaf wouldn't have been a complete bust. Jamarcus Russell was highly rated. Bradford is a borderline joke getting as many starts as he has.
Regardless, here's my point, there's a big push to say Peyton was automatic while Brady was an experiment. In both college and highschool Brady was low on the depth chart and then all of sudden worked his way into a starting role and helped his team win meaningful games in clutch fashion. When it comes to systems, Brady played in a more versatile and frequently changing system than Peyton Manning who had much more uniformity and less variation most of his career. When it comes to WR talent Peyton Manning was arguably the most fortunate QB of all time in that regard. Brady had one elite WR for 2 years and a few games. He had an elite TE for 7 years who has gotten injured in all but 2 years. Manning had either Harrison or Wayne for his entire 13 year tenure with the Colts and 6 of those years overlapped. Brady's WR corp now is composed of mostly different pieces from 5 years ago. Hell this year of his WR's Hogan and Mitchell came on the team last year, Cooks this offseason, Dorsett just now, and Amendola and Edelman (who is out of the year) were the only ones who had spent several years here.
Brady's played in enough offensive schemes and systems, with enough different talent of variable scale and mostly below high level in the WR corp, to where it doesn't make sense to say a QB who hasn't was more of a lock to succeed anywhere than him.
That comparison is usually based off on exactly what you said. Even if you didn't know who he was in college we were all told by scouts and analysts that Peyton Manning was going to be good. So when he got good we just took it for granted and never really questioned it. We never heard of Tom Brady, so when he got good we just looked for reasons why everybody missed it from the coach to the system etc. Even if those reasons really don't work a whole lot when you critically look at what the actual circumstances was.
-
18 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:
Not only is this a terrible statement but how can you overlook his second and third, or any year before the circa 2003 garbage you are saying. mikey already mentioned you could see he was a special talent but stats don't lie and in his second year he had over 4,000 yards passing. The next year just shy of 4,500 yards passing. He did not have two top 5 WR's so how is this possible?? He literally never had less than 4,100 passing yards since his second year.
If your argument is about who had the most talent at WR then make that point. But saying Manning was not Manning before 2003 when he still had nearly 17,000 yards from 1999-2002 defeats your point altogether!
From 98-2002 he had one year where his completion percentage was over 65%. Aside from 2002 62.7 was the highest it's ever been. After 2003 he never had a year below 65 and 65 was a low he only had twice (excluding his final year).
Peyton Manning never had a passer rating above 95 from 1999-2002. He had several years in the 80's as well during that time frame. From 2003 on his passer ratings were 99, 121, 104, 101, 98, 95, 99.9, 91.9 (this was his lowest besides 2015, it was the 2010 season), 105, 115, 101, 67 (his final year on the decline)
So in the two big efficiency stats he was significantly better post 2003 than pre 2003.
His interception numbers were significantly lower and more consistent post 2003 than pre 2003. He had 100 INT from 98-02, averaging 20 a season. Post 2003 in 12 years he threw 151 interceptions, averaging 12.5 interceptions a season. It took 5 years to reach his first 100 interceptions, post 2003 it took 9 years to reach his next 100.
Again significant improvement pre and post 2003.
TD wise he only broke 30 TD's once in 5 years. Post 2003 he only went below 30 on 4 occassions, one obviously being his last season. He also broke 40 once and 50 once in that time period.
Yards are the only stat where he is consistent throughout. And no offense, but guys like Matt Stanford put up large yardage numbers pretty consistently. It's not a great indicator.
I'm not saying he was trash pre 2003, but he was significantly better in a most statistics post 2003 to the point where we wouldn't look at him as being as great if he kept the averages he had in his first 5 years over the course of his next 12. It's a big difference.
-
1 hour ago, horseshoecrabs said:
Manning would have been Manning on pretty much any team that he ended up on when he was drafted
Can't say the same about Brady, he became the QB he was by the system he was in. You can pretty
much say his confidence & play development made him what he is today by New England
There's several problems with this. Manning really became Manning circa 2003 when he had two top 5 WR's on his team. He had that set up the majority of his career in Indy. Manning also for the majority of his career (really from day one on his very last year on the Broncos when Kubiak changed everything) in the exact same system. When he went to Denver he played in a very similar system and had strong receiving corp yet again (arguably the strongest in the NFL). He arguably has always had the strongest receiving corp in the NFL from 2003-2008 and 2012-2015.
Brady didn't really. His system and offensive schemes changed more frequently than Manning's did. He never routinely had the continuity at WR that Manning did and he never had the consistent quality of WR play that Manning did.
There's alot of places Manning could have went where he would have been in a scheme he had never been in (there's less for Brady) and just as many if not more places where Manning's receiving corp would have been a downgrade (less than Brady would experience on average).
There's really nothing to back that up besides Manning was viewed as somebody who should be good when he came into the league and Brady was more of a revelation.
-
2 hours ago, horseshoecrabs said:
So reverse the situation how many could Brady from the beginning have won on the colts remember Peyton
was drafted as a franchise QB Brady was not so Manning's expectations were a lot higher
I think he'd win at least one out of the 03-09 Colts. Peyton realistically had 7 good shots at a title in Indianapolis. He had his issues, the team had it's issues, sometimes they just got unlucky. Personally I do think Brady probably at least leads a comeback against the Saints and forces Brees to win the game or take the L in that crucial final drive. I also think Brady wouldn't have went out on downs like Peyton did in 05 and he probably has the same shot Peyton did in 06 once the defense came alive in the playoffs (it wouldn't have taken that much for Brady to match Peyton's output in the playoffs). Regardless of what happened against the Chargers in 07, he would not have got by New England in 07. Also Brady has always had the Steelers numbers.
So 05, 06, 08, 09 would be the 4 where I think Brady has his best shot if he's on the Colts. I can see him winning potentially 2 out of that, as low as 1 and as high as 3. I also think if you go to the Broncos Brady would have made the 2013 Super Bowl more competetive and would have cake walked the 2015 title in the same situation. He would have loved a receiver like Sanders.
He wouldn't win all of those, but I see the final tally's looking a bit different. I just trust Brady a lot more in big games at crunch time. Even when he loses, he generally gets pretty close. A good defense could usually psyche Peyton out in big games at bad times, mostly because his offense was so timing based that he had to be perfect and had alot of pressure on him to be that way.
-
18 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:
Mad ^
^ mad enough to make thread
-
15 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:
My question would have been how many super bowls could Peyton have won with the patriots?
It honestly is unknowable. Belichick would put Manning through entirely different circumstances.
-Manning was the defacto OC on most of his teams, Belichick would never cede that much authority to Peyton, and Belichick has Kraft's backing.
-Belichick would never stack an offense with Harrison, Wayne, and Clark and pay them all for years the way the colts did, he'd play most of his career with guys like Edelman, Welker, Branch, and Troy Brown.
-Belichick really doesn't like Brady zoning in on one receiver too much and has chewed him out for it. Peyton did that a lot with Harrison and Wayne.
So yeah maybe he could win as many, he's still really good, it's just you wouldn't talk about him the same way, he'd be viewed more like Brady.
-
Favre was a good QB but he is highly overrated for his best years being in a so-so QB era. Peak Warner, Montana, Brady, Manning, Marino are all better
-
21 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:
He named the last 2 examples. If you want to bring other seasons over 20 years old into it then tell the whole story (extremely selective hmmm). The Browns were 11-5 and 4-4 the last 2 seasons of that run which only ended badly because they basically moved the team in the middle of the year. I guess there is 1 legit gripe. Bill can't win when the owner decides to move the team in the middle of the season. Fraud!
Then you tell the whole story too. You said Bill had the Browns trending in the right direction he had a 6 win, 7 win, and 7 win season. That stagnation. He had one 11-5 win season, which wasn't enough to win the division that year (funny how Belichick's two best years without Brady came in years where he still couldn't win the division). And then any chance of seeing if he could build on that was hurt when Belichick by his own admission completely lost control of the team (part of that is on his ability to maintain control) so no. He had 3 very similar subpar seasons, and one above average one.
Again im not the person who jumps through hoops to only count a season and a quarter out of a 7 game sample size. I'm not the one who makes excuses for his lack of excuses on the Browns, I'm not the one who makes excuses for why he was terrible with Bledsoe, I'm not the one who ever refuses to address that Belichick went from 16-0 to 11-5 with virtually the same team with a schedule that featured 2 divisions where the best team was 9-7 and their division rival was able to play virtually the same schedule to jump from 1-15 to 11-5 to win the division. Im not the one who ignores that Cassell left Belichick and had double digit wins somewhere else. I'm not the one who can't explain why Belichick has one single playoff win in 7 years without Brady and holds the record with him.
Again in its dubious to accuse people of not telling the whole story when the only story you want to talk about is 15% of it where Belichick actually had a worse record than the previous year and was still below his average with Brady despite playing one of the worst schedules he ever had and having one of the best teams he ever had.
-
34 minutes ago, mikey287 said:
Yeah, I think that's really a "surface level" view for lack of a better term...it needs some more context. It's also very difficult to evaluate coaches as most people have no idea what coaches do (not the job description itself, but the actions themselves). Just dusting your hands at win-loss records and going 'well, that settles that" is just as disingenuous as anointing a player to be the greatest anything because he won more team titles in a span that only seems to really count from the 1966 or 1970 and on despite pro football existing for several decades prior.
The coach and the QB aren't the only two pieces on the field. I'm always looking to learn, so if we want to take a deeper dive on things, I'd be more than happy to participate but...wins and losses is a playground level argument whether you're for or against the situation. Let's look at the player himself, the team around the coach and the player and the respective situations...ought to be a year by year breakdown of scenarios, as opposed to just spitting up two decades worth of W-L as if all those wins and losses are congruent somehow...
That would be fine if the argument I wasn't constantly replying to wasn't entirely based off win-loss record.
I think if someone is arguing based off of 11-5 and 3-1 it is perfectly fair to point out that is an extremely selective sample that is packaged into an overall 55-63 record. I think it's also worth pointing out the 11-5 followed up a 16-0 year and the 3-1 was followed by a Brady going 14-1 including a Super Bowl run.
-
4 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:
Maybe he's not a SB champ without Brady, but say what you want but every single time Belichick has had to do without Brady he came away with a winning record.
11-5 With Cassel and 3-1 with Garrapolo and Brisset.
How many coaches in this league have winning records with their backup quarterbacks?
How many of them have won 70% of their games with their backups??
And yes that 11-5 team was loaded but Belichick also was GM so he created that team. And he did it with Matt Cassel who's not been a great QB anyplace else.
And also while Brady has put up good stats they have not been out of this world stats. Rogers arguably has had better stats for example.
On top of that, and I'd have to go back through but I remember checking and every year except 1 that the Pats won the SB they had a top 5 defense. And in that one where they didn't have a top 5 defense I think they where still top 10. Again this defense is assembled and coached by Belichick.
I give the Belichek more credit then Brady for those championships. Don't get me wrong he's a good QB, but there are a lot of good QB's out there. There is nothing "special" about Brady that makes him somehow better at winning games then all of those others. But Brady has always had a good team around him.
The problem is that's not even remotely true.
This has always been the problem. Belichick's career without Brady is always boiled down to a little over 1/7 of his actual career without him at QB to prove his greatness. Imagine if I took Peyton's first couple of years and last season and said "look he's not really good when he's taken out of his system and doesn't have super high quality offenses". It's not a fair comparison because it's such a small sample size based off what actually exists to compare it to.
Belichick didn't have 1 season and 4 games without Brady. He had 7 seasons and 5 games without him.
His record without Brady is 55-63. .466 win percentage. 1 playoff win.
With Brady it's 183-52. .773 win percentage. 25 playoff wins (NFL record)
He has over 10 more losses in 7 years without Brady than 15 with him.
Theres no spin factor that accounts for how big that discrepancy is. Someone said he was righting the ship on the Browns. He started with a 6 win season, then had two 7 win seasons (hardly an improvement) he has a single good 11 win season, then dropped all the way back to 5 after the Modell ball. One winning season out of five seasons isn't righting a ship. 6, 7, 7, 11, 5, 5, 11, then two losses without Brady to start 2001 and 3 wins and 1 loss to start 2016 without Brady (who went 11-1 and then 3 playoff wins). That's not good. Now you can jump through hoops and try to take away 5 losing seasons and all the good stuff but that's not reality.
He simply is either her mediocre or outright bad without Brady. He spent most of his time without Brady with two pretty good quarterbacks in Kosar and Bledsoe. He didn't do well with them. He took one of the best offenses of all time with Brady, against a crap schedule that allowed the 1-15 Dolphins in 2007 to go 11-5 in 2007, with a QB who won 10 games on a much lesser Kansas City team a couple of years later and only won 11 games off that. It's not that good in context. Yeah he went 3-1 last year without Brady on a team where Brady went on 14-1 run when he came back. 4 of his 5 Super Bowls came down Brady leading game winning drives. The latter two being two of the best 4th quarter QB performances in Super Bowl history.
Again you can make all the excuses you want, there is a massive gulf of Belichick's performances with and without Brady. And it is telling that the only way someone can make it look good is to spin it and make excuses why 5 of the 7 seasons shouldn't count.
-
Luck is still there, so the easiest part is over. If I'm management my biggest commitment is building the offensive and defensive lines up and finding cheap yet capable receivers that you can upgrade once everything else is in order.
-
9 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
They will both probably retire together here in a couple of years so we will never know. I think it's 50/50 = both deserve about the same amount of credit but that is how great BB is, normally a QB would get more credit for winning. 50% for Brady is still good. In Manning's case all the teams he's played for, he deserves around 75% of the credit for winning with the exception of his last season because Denver's D carried him. Even having said that I don't think Denver wins the SB without Manning. I just don't think they would've got by the Pats. To Brady's credit, IMO the Pats don't have 5 SB wins without him though. Maybe a couple but not 5.
Realistically without Brady maybe the 2004 team does it. The 2001 team was going nowhere with Bledsoe even if he stayed healthy, Brady wasn't great, but he was a revelation that the Patriots had a smart QB who showed poise, pocket presence, the ability to take care of the ball, and some strong instincts late in games. He was what a scrappy defense needed to keep momentum going. 2003 they absolutely needed him imo to beat Carolina. That was a light show. I'll leave 2004 up for debate, that was a strong team all around. I could make arguments either way. He was the reason they were even in the game vs Seattle and Atlanta and they have no chance without him. He also basically carried the 2011 defense to the Super Bowl and was having his best season ever in 2007.
-
12 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:
It doesn't matter. . . By that time Brady will be 41 or older. Any bad play from him will be blamed on age.
The bigger question at this point is Belichick without Brady. Brady is 40. Any decline in play from here on out will, as you said, be attributed to age, and he'd be compared to every other QB who fell off around the time he did or earlier.
Belichick on the other hand has more of a question mark if he doesn't do as well without Brady.Those teams aren't constant double digit win teams going to at least the AFCCG, then all of sudden it's going to be, he had * poor records without Brady to start his career, Brady fell in his lap and turned them into a Super Bowl dynasty and orchestrated some of the most important comebacks ever, and then fell back down to Earth without him. Then everything gets looked at differently. "Wow Belichick got outcoached by Dan Quinn until Brady started playing lights out, wow Belichick looked like he was about to get blown out by Seattle until Brady started showing up, wow Belichick really didn't have a great gameplan against the Giants, wow Belichick needed a QB who had only been a starter for one year to drive the ball in field goal range twice to seal the deal, wow that 16-0 team Belichick had went 11-5 and missed the playoffs against an easy schedule without Brady, wow Belichick's special team cost them homefield advantage against the Broncos in 2015 and then he got outcoached in the AFCCG until Brady started mounting a comeback and made it look close, wow the Ravens totally dismantled Belichick's team in the playoffs in 2008 and 2012, he got lucky with a missed field goal at home in 2011 and Brady had to come back from 2 different 14 point deficits to win the other one, wow Belichick's coaching blew a huge a lead against the Colts....etc".
Not saying that's true (the truth is more in the middle, it's both Belichick and Brady) but it's a perception thing. If Belichick starts his career mediocre and ends mediocre, and Brady ends up being the difference maker and where all his success comes from.... all of a sudden things get viewed in a different light.
-
46 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I think people are underestimating how great Edleman is. Yeah BB can plug in John Doe or whoever and make it work TO AN EXTENT but I think this is a bad loss for the Pats. I think he is more valuable than Gronk actually with the Roster they have. The Pats can get away with winning without Gronk because a lot of what Tom does he is quick hitters to Edleman and speed guys, Edleman had sure hands too, better than Welker IMO.
The thing with Gronk is that you can't mask him not being there. Gronk is like an x factor. He's a cheat code that only one player in the league (himself) can ever truly have the same amount of impact at that position.
Edelman is crucial. But there are at least three receivers on the team that can fill in for different aspects of Edelman's work. Amendola is a more clutch but less consistent version of Edelman. Cooks is excellent in the slot, an overall better receiver, and significantly faster. Those two guys will get more plays in schemes designed for Edelman.
It won't completely replace him and they are weaker without him. But this was a team that was loaded with fire power already and will still be without him.
pats getting exactly what they deserve for once
in NFL General
Posted
I don't think they care that much. They never look that far ahead enough to really think that. 2007 fell in their lap and they got lucky a handful of times to get that close. Only the Giants game in week 17 was the only time they actively did something to chase it by not resting their starters (Belichick sometimes will rest them the final week, but not before). Aside from that they didn't do anything different. If anything the media has more egg on their face for screaming about it all summer