Let's rank some QBs!

[amfootball]

[Citation needed]

 

NFL.com not ESPN. This was posted on this thread by someone else.

 

"What's more likely: That the quarterback molding art and science as the NFL's 1-minute drill virtuoso is declining in a major way, or that Brady was temporarily disoriented as receivers responsible for 90 percent (!) of his 2012 receptions were out of the picture for a good portion of last season? Once Rob Gronkowski re-entered the lineup at mid-season, the Patriots boasted the NFL's best offense for a five-game stretch before the All-Pro tight end went down with an ACL tear. Via Game Rewind, I recently watched every throw of Brady's 2013 season. No one can convince me he wouldn't have matched Manning's production if he had the Broncos' weapons. Peyton acknowledged as much in December."

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000362711/article/aaron-rodgers-tops-preseason-list-of-nfls-best-qbs

[Superman]

I guess it depends what you are judging it on. If you are talking about volume stats and such then heck yeah, Gronk is instrumental. But if you are talking about winning then Brady didn't miss a beat from two years ago to last season as he led the league in fourth quarter comebacks to help propel the Pats to 12 wins and the second seed. Any other Qb with the exception of Manning, would have been fortunate to win 6-7 games and have half the stats Brady put up given who he was throwing to all season.

 

We're really not talking about winning. If so, Wilson and Kaepernick would be a lot higher.

 

Also, Luck had scrub receivers for half the season, including a couple of stretches where TY Hilton was ineffective. And as was mentioned, Luck's numbers rivaled Brady's. The Colts still won 11 games and won just as many playoff games as the Pats.

 

I think Dustin is being a prisoner of the moment, to an extent, obviously. But Brady is getting a lot of praise for 2013, and he really didn't perform all that well. Yes, they won games, but Brady wasn't spectacular.

 

Wishful thinking: It would be great if this thread didn't turn into another Brady debate.

[amfootball]

[Citation needed]

Brady was ranked number ONE overall by "26 league insiders who were asked to grade every projected starting quarterback on a 1-5 scale, with "one" reserved for the best and "five" for the worst. Eight general managers, two former GMs, four pro personnel evaluators, seven coordinators, two head coaches, two position coaches and a top executive participated."

 

The findings were published by ESPN, http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=11156302&src=desktop&ex_cid=InsiderTwitter_Sando_QBTiers

[amfootball]

We're really not talking about winning. If so, Wilson and Kaepernick would be a lot higher.

 

Also, Luck had scrub receivers for half the season, including a couple of stretches where TY Hilton was ineffective. And as was mentioned, Luck's numbers rivaled Brady's. The Colts still won 11 games and won just as many playoff games as the Pats.

 

I think Dustin is being a prisoner of the moment, to an extent, obviously. But Brady is getting a lot of praise for 2013, and he really didn't perform all that well. Yes, they won games, but Brady wasn't spectacular.

 

Wishful thinking: It would be great if this thread didn't turn into another Brady debate.

I wasn't talking about just winning but the league leading comebacks. Brady's probably biggest asset is his situational play which has really been his hallmark his entire career. That was off the charts last year IMO even if his overall play was inconsistent and his numbers were down.

 

I did not intend on making it a Brady thread as you will see my other posts were related to the overall list and my discussion with you over Rodgers. But Dustin's posts deserve a response as like you say he is being a prisoner of the moment. I will try to reel it in though. ;)

[Superman]

I wasn't talking about just winning but the league leading comebacks. Brady's probably biggest asset is his situational play which has really been his hallmark his entire career. That was off the charts last year IMO even if his overall play was inconsistent and his numbers were down.

 

I did not intend on making it a Brady thread as you will see my other posts were related to the overall list and my discussion with you over Rodgers. But Dustin's posts deserve a response as like you say he is being a prisoner of the moment. I will try to reel it in though. ;)

 

Pats had 5 comebacks, Colts had 4 (with one blown comeback in Week 2; if we complete that one, they're tied at 5, and both have 12 wins last year). Luck is well known, through two seasons, as being very strong in comeback situations, and leads the league through two seasons in comebacks. 

 

If Dustin's argument is that Luck and Brady were basically the same in 2013, I have to side with him. Their numbers, gross and adjusted, are almost identical, they both suffered from losses in their supporting casts, etc. Of course, Brady gets credit for his body of work, which is far more extensive an impressive than Luck's, but let's not be so dismissive of his troubles in 2013.

[Dustin]

Brady was ranked number ONE overall by "26 league insiders who were asked to grade every projected starting quarterback on a 1-5 scale, with "one" reserved for the best and "five" for the worst. Eight general managers, two former GMs, four pro personnel evaluators, seven coordinators, two head coaches, two position coaches and a top executive participated."

 

The findings were published by ESPN, http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=11156302&src=desktop&ex_cid=InsiderTwitter_Sando_QBTiers

 

Oh, well that doesn't mean anything to me lol.

[amfootball]

Pats had 5 comebacks, Colts had 4 (with one blown comeback in Week 2; if we complete that one, they're tied at 5, and both have 12 wins last year). Luck is well known, through two seasons, as being very strong in comeback situations, and leads the league through two seasons in comebacks. 

 

If Dustin's argument is that Luck and Brady were basically the same in 2013, I have to side with him. Their numbers, gross and adjusted, are almost identical, they both suffered from losses in their supporting casts, etc. Of course, Brady gets credit for his body of work, which is far more extensive an impressive than Luck's, but let's not be so dismissive of his troubles in 2013.

And let's also not pretend that the biggest reason for Brady's numbers being down were his receivers turning over by 90 and then missing his best weapon in Gronk for 6 games to start the season only to lose him again after week 12. I mean come on already with this argument that Brady was somehow in decline and is at the same level of Luck. Luck's numbers were down because there was an offensive change in philosophy to run the ball and have him throw less down field because when they put it all on him two years ago they got 23 turnovers and when the did it again this past post-season they got 7 picks. It is not just that Brady has a better body of work, he is a better QB than Luck even at this point at age 37. Luck still needs a ton of improvement with his reading defenses, not starting down receivers and knowing when to take a sack vs forcing the ball. He is going into this third season, just a baby still. He may eventually be in the same league as Brady and Manning but he is not there now.

[Dustin]

 Luck's numbers were down because there was an offensive change in philosophy to run the ball

 

A decrease in volume stats, which are useless in judging players. Every single one of his effieciency stats were on par, or better than Brady's were.

 

 

He may eventually be in the same league as Brady and Manning but he is not there now.

 

This is under the presumption that Manning and Brady are in the same league (which I guess is technically true because they're both in the NFL), when they're not. 

[amfootball]

Oh, well that doesn't mean anything to me lol.

Of course it doesn't.

[amfootball]

A decrease in volume stats, which are useless in judging players. Every single one of his effieciency stats were on par, or better than Brady's were.

 

 

 

This is under the presumption that Manning and Brady are in the same league (which I guess is technically true because they're both in the NFL), when they're not. 

You keep telling yourself that Luck is on par with Brady. What is funny is you are trying to disparage Brady by saying how bad is 2013 season was and yet at the same time saying Luck had the same season. lol. It only took Brady's worst statistical season since his first season starting for Luck to be on par with him.

[Dustin]

You keep telling yourself that Luck is on par with Brady. What is funny is you are trying to disparage Brady by saying how bad is 2013 season was and yet at the same time saying Luck had the same season. lol. It only took Brady's worst statistical season since his first season starting for Luck to be on par with him.

 

"disparage" yeah that explains why I put him in tier 2 lol. 

 

[sweetsurrender]

And let's also not pretend that the biggest reason for Brady's numbers being down were his receivers turning over by 90 and then missing his best weapon in Gronk for 6 games to start the season only to lose him again after week 12. I mean come on already with this argument that Brady was somehow in decline and is at the same level of Luck. Luck's numbers were down because there was an offensive change in philosophy to run the ball and have him throw less down field because when they put it all on him two years ago they got 23 turnovers and when the did it again this past post-season they got 7 picks. It is not just that Brady has a better body of work, he is a better QB than Luck even at this point at age 37. Luck still needs a ton of improvement with his reading defenses, not starting down receivers and knowing when to take a sack vs forcing the ball. He is going into this third season, just a baby still. He may eventually be in the same league as Brady and Manning but he is not there now.

I pretty much agree with this. Luck just isn't there yet in terms of the elite. He is right there with the new guys - Wilson and Kaep who are all poised to take over the league in the next few years. The end of last season was horrible to watch. Luck still needs to improve many facets of his game but his intangibles like Brady are very high. I feel he finally has the weapons this year to really have a potent offense but I worry about the TOs if they should let him air it out more. I still expect more of a balance with the run game.

[Dustin]

Btw, if anybody wants a full statistical analysis here is the thread:

 

 http://forums.colts.com/topic/24717-which-of-these-players-has-a-better-case-for-mvp/

 

You'll note on page 4 where am is quoted as saying:

 

We already established that Luck was the MVP of this two person race.

 

[Dustin]

Of course it doesn't.

 

I mean, it doesn't say anything lol. The Pats had the highest scoring offense in the like 6 games that Gronk played. And then it's some useless speculation. And the offense was bad-to-average without him. Great, Andrew Luck had like the 2nd or 3rd highest passer rating in the NFL with Reggie Wayne in the lineup. 

[Shane Bond]

If Brees and Peyton had the WRs and TEs that Brady had last year, they'd be in the 4 th tier.

But haterz gotta hate.

Why can't you just praise Brady, you have knock down Brees and Manning to enhance Brady?.

We can't just blame the WRs, Brady had some pretty awful throws during clutch moments too.

Who is the hater here?.

[amfootball]

I mean, it doesn't say anything lol. The Pats had the highest scoring offense in the like 6 games that Gronk played. And the offense was bad-to-average without him. Great, Andrew Luck had like the 2nd or 3rd highest passer rating in the NFL with Reggie Wayne in the lineup. 

It says that the Pats would have had the number one offense overall had Gronk been there for more games like he was in previous seasons. Of course the Pats did rank 3 in scoring offense despite only having him for 6 games while the Colts were ranked 14 which yet again throws another money wrench into your straw man argument that somehow based on one season Luck is on par with Brady.

[Dustin]

It says that the Pats would have had the number one offense overall had Gronk been there for more games like he was in previous seasons.

 

 

So the Patriots were going to have the highest scoring offense in NFL history? Ok.

[amfootball]

So the Patriots were going to have the highest scoring offense in NFL history? Ok.

No, never said that. But nice job of deflecting away from the Pats being ranked at 3 with no Gronk for most of the season and the Colts at 14.

[Dustin]

No, never said that. 

 

Uh, yes you did?

 

It says that the Pats would have had the number one offense overall had Gronk been there for more games like he was in previous seasons.

 

 

You realize the Broncos absolutely shattered the scoring record right? 

[amfootball]

I pretty much agree with this. Luck just isn't there yet in terms of the elite. He is right there with the new guys - Wilson and Kaep who are all poised to take over the league in the next few years. The end of last season was horrible to watch. Luck still needs to improve many facets of his game but his intangibles like Brady are very high. I feel he finally has the weapons this year to really have a potent offense but I worry about the TOs if they should let him air it out more. I still expect more of a balance with the run game.

Right on. Luck right now is a lot of potential. Have to see more from him consistently especially when the coaches put the offense in his hands. I agree that he has a nice set of weapons to make hay with.

[Superman]

And let's also not pretend that the biggest reason for Brady's numbers being down were his receivers turning over by 90 and then missing his best weapon in Gronk for 6 games to start the season only to lose him again after week 12. I mean come on already with this argument that Brady was somehow in decline and is at the same level of Luck. Luck's numbers were down because there was an offensive change in philosophy to run the ball and have him throw less down field because when they put it all on him two years ago they got 23 turnovers and when the did it again this past post-season they got 7 picks. It is not just that Brady has a better body of work, he is a better QB than Luck even at this point at age 37. Luck still needs a ton of improvement with his reading defenses, not starting down receivers and knowing when to take a sack vs forcing the ball. He is going into this third season, just a baby still. He may eventually be in the same league as Brady and Manning but he is not there now.

 

I never said Brady is in decline. If I did, I didn't mean it that way.

 

The point is that Brady didn't have a great year in 2013, certainly not one worthy of Tier 1. Of course the supporting cast had a lot to do with that, but the link you posted stated that Brady missed a ton of throws in the first half of the season, which he did. He's still Tier 1, to me, but he wasn't a top performer in 2013.

 

Also, I'm not arguing that Luck is as good as Brady. The argument is that he had the same supporting cast issues as Brady, and they still had basically the same numbers, across the board. Yeah, Brady is better, but he didn't perform better than Luck in 2013, and he didn't face greater adversity either.

[amfootball]

Uh, yes you did?

 

 

You realize the Broncos absolutely shattered the scoring record right? 

Forgot. Probably a solid 2 then right behind the Broncos. But what about your Colts at 14? Still got nothing there?

[amfootball]

I never said Brady is in decline. If I did, I didn't mean it that way.

 

The point is that Brady didn't have a great year in 2013, certainly not one worthy of Tier 1. Of course the supporting cast had a lot to do with that, but the link you posted stated that Brady missed a ton of throws in the first half of the season, which he did. He's still Tier 1, to me, but he wasn't a top performer in 2013.

 

Also, I'm not arguing that Luck is as good as Brady. The argument is that he had the same supporting cast issues as Brady, and they still had basically the same numbers, across the board. Yeah, Brady is better, but he didn't perform better than Luck in 2013, and he didn't face greater adversity either.

Gotcha. My rankings were based more on a totality anyway of the players not just on 2013.

[Dustin]

Forgot. Probably a solid 2 then right behind the Broncos. But what about your Colts at 14? Still got nothing there?

 

A ton of injuries, bad line play, bad oline, bad coaching, ect.... It's a miracle we were even ranked that high. 

 

Regardless, I'm bowing out.

 

[amfootball]

A ton of injuries, bad line play, bad oline, bad coaching, ect.... It's a miracle we were even ranked that high. 

 

Regardless, I'm bowing out.

 

 

[Valpo2004]

Like I said before guys you have to look at the whole picture.  Otherwise you are forced to concluded that last season Nick Foles was the best QB in the NFL by far.

 

His efficiency stats are so far ahead of everyone else that it's not funny.  

 

No one believes that Nick Foles is the best QB in the NFL because of sample size.  Quite frankly having one really good season doesn't make him a top level quarterback.

 

Also having one not so good season doesn't make Brady average.

[RGIII]

No anti-Eli bias there? ;)

 

He's tough to grade. I thought about where I would have ranked Eli a year ago, two years ago. And I thought about the reasons he played so poorly last year. I think he's on the fence between 2 and 3, for sure, but decided to give him more credit for his highs. (Your mileage may vary, as I mentioned.)

 

Not sure why you default to me being biased toward Luck. Look around the Internet at the way non-Colts fans talk about him. The ESPN study from yesterday put him at #5. I put him at #8 overall. I think he's better than Newton, Foles, and Romo, and I don't think there's much question about that; there was lots of pushback when Newton was ranked above him in the NFL100. I guess it's arguable, but it's not simple bias that I'd call him better than those guys. You'll notice I put Wilson in Tier 2 as well, right behind Luck. My opinion, they're better than the other young guys.

 

I probably did get a little ambitious in suggesting that they could be Tier 1 by next year; it would likely take an MVP type season from either of them to even be close, and I'd probably still hold them back. 

 

Palmer has definitely been solid the last two years. Never called him a riser. He might be on the fringe.

 

I wouldn't call Stafford inconsistent. I wouldn't call Flacco a volume passer. But I do agree that there are several guys who are inconsistent, with the ability to play really well at times, but also sometimes completely self-destruct. I chose to use a "body of work" approach, but they typically get a little bit of a ding for repeated wild fluctuations like that. Everyone has a dry spell every now and then, but some of these guys hit a wall two or three times a year. 

 

I try to give rival players credit where it's due even though I still revel in their failures.  I always thought Romo gets WAY more flack than he deserves and would have been thrilled to have him as our QB even with his obvious shortcomings in the clutch.  He's a really quality QB that (thankfully) doesn't get enough help from his supporting cast or coaches.  I've never felt that way about Eli, whose play on the field has never overly impressed me.  For most of his career he was propped up heavily by a fantastic offensive line, top notch run game, the most lethal pass rushing front four in football, and receivers who thrive off of making plays on questionable throws.  You NEVER fear Eli, you fear Tiki or Plaxico or Jacobs or Bradshaw or Shockey or Nicks or Cruz or Strahan or Umenyiora or Tuck.  He is basically the QB equivalent of how I used to feel about ex-Cowboy Roy Williams (the safety).  At the height of their popularity people only recalled the big hits/throws and forget how maddeningly limited the player is in certain facets (Eli's decision-making and accuracy are suspect, Roy Williams couldn't tackle properly and was atrocious in coverage).

 

Regarding Luck, I think Wilson is a clear step ahead.  Even if he is more of a system guy on the whole he plays too flawlessly with just enough innate playmaking ability not to be considered a cut above.  All of the T2 guys have really polished games, in fact.  Luck has more room for development (which is absolutely a good thing, I'd say) that needs to be exploited to really fit that group or even push it beyond.  He could conceivably step up big and play at a T1 level next season, that's not totally unreasonable, although it'd take a repeat season or two for me to officially put him or anyone else on that elite level.  It's just a case where I think that the difference between Wilson and Luck is bigger than the difference between Luck and Cam.  Foles actually might prove to be better than all of them with how his 2013 season went but we need to see more of him to really know where he stands.

 

You could probably argue that I grade out inconsistent play unusually harshly, I suppose, given that all of these players I'm talking down fit under that umbrella.  I could see that.  I am the kind of guy who valued prime-Matt Schaub way more highly than prime-Mike Vick.  I guess it depends on what you're looking for in a QB.

[Superman]

I try to give rival players credit where it's due even though I still revel in their failures.  I always thought Romo gets WAY more flack than he deserves and would have been thrilled to have him as our QB even with his obvious shortcomings in the clutch.  He's a really quality QB that (thankfully) doesn't get enough help from his supporting cast or coaches.  I've never felt that way about Eli, whose play on the field has never overly impressed me.  For most of his career he was propped up heavily by a fantastic offensive line, top notch run game, the most lethal pass rushing front four in football, and receivers who thrive off of making plays on questionable throws.  You NEVER fear Eli, you fear Tiki or Plaxico or Jacobs or Bradshaw or Shockey or Nicks or Cruz or Strahan or Umenyiora or Tuck.  He is basically the QB equivalent of how I used to feel about ex-Cowboy Roy Williams (the safety).  At the height of their popularity people only recalled the big hits/throws and forgetting how maddeningly limited the player is in certain facets (Eli's decision-making and accuracy are suspect, Roy Williams couldn't tackle properly and was atrocious in coverage).

 

Regarding Luck, I think Wilson is a clear step ahead.  Even if he is more of a system guy on the whole he plays too flawlessly with just enough innate playmaking ability not to be considered a cut above.  All of the T2 guys have really polished games, in fact.  Luck has more room for development (which is absolutely a good thing, I'd say) that needs to be exploited to really fit that group or even push it beyond.  He could conceivably step up big and play at a T1 level next season, that's not totally unreasonable, although it'd take a repeat season or two for me to officially put him or anyone else on that elite level.  It's just a case where I think that the difference between Wilson and Luck is bigger than the difference between Luck and Cam.  Foles actually might prove to be better than all of them with how his 2013 season went but we need to see more of him to really know where he stands.

 

You could probably argue that I grade out inconsistent play unusually harshly, I suppose, given that all of these players I'm talking down fit under that umbrella.  I could see that.  I am the kind of guy who valued prime-Matt Schaub way more highly than prime-Mike Vick.  I guess it depends on what you're looking for in a QB.

 

Good points all around.

 

On Luck vs. Wilson, I think Wilson shows polish and poise that the other young guys don't right now. But I think Luck plays a bigger role than the other young guys. It's a matter of perspective at this point, and we'll see how things go in the years to come.

[Gavin]

I agree with the list for the most part though Romo should be at least tier 2 and probably Tier 1, Yeah he has had his issues at times but the production he puts up is on level with the top tier and better in some cases with no defense, Simply no way does he belong in a group with Griffin III, Stafford even, Alex Smith and the massively overrated Joe Flacco. Schaub while he struggles at times is far better at this point then any Quarterback in Tier 4, I think he belongs in Tier 3

[ViriLudant]

So... what you're trying to say is that you're a crazy person?

Nah, just being a bit facetious.

But please, name for me one great WR that Brady threw to last year.

[Superman]

Nah, just being a bit facetious.

But please, name for me one great WR that Brady threw to last year.

 

Why?

 

Before the season started, all the talk was about how Brady doesn't need great receivers. He doesn't even need good receivers. He basically makes them himself, like a WR master architect. All they have to do is step on the same field as he does on Sunday, and great receiving is born. Greatness oozes from Brady's pores; he hooks his bummy receivers up to him intravenously on the sideline, and suddenly they produce like HOFers. Then, when they leave New England and can no longer suckle the teat of the great Tom Brady, their skills wither away, never to return, and we all wonder just how it is that Brady can take such unimpressive specimens and will them to victory, year after year.

 

That's what Pats fans said would happen with Brady and his receivers in 2013. No Hernandez? No problem. No Welker? Good riddance, the traitor. Gronk might not be healthy? Brady will make another Gronk. Brady's production wouldn't suffer, no matter what, because he'll adapt like he always does, and everything will be okay. 

 

Now, after Brady has a substandard statistical season (for Brady, that is), you want to talk about his receivers?

 

[Shane Bond]

Why?

Before the season started, all the talk was about how Brady doesn't need great receivers. He doesn't even need good receivers. He basically makes them himself, like a WR master architect. All they have to do is step on the same field as he does on Sunday, and great receiving is born. Greatness oozes from Brady's pores; he hooks his bummy receivers up to him intravenously on the sideline, and suddenly they produce like HOFers. Then, when they leave New England and can no longer suckle the teat of the great Tom Brady, their skills wither away, never to return, and we all wonder just how it is that Brady can take such unimpressive specimens and will them to victory, year after year.

That's what Pats fans said would happen with Brady and his receivers in 2013. No Hernandez? No problem. No Welker? Good riddance, the traitor. Gronk might not be healthy? Brady will make another Gronk. Brady's production wouldn't suffer, no matter what, because he'll adapt like he always does, and everything will be okay.

Now, after Brady has a substandard statistical season (for Brady, that is), you want to talk about his receivers?

LOL

[Synthetic]

A topic like this is bound to turn into a walk to the playground of "Muh quarterback is better than yours" and the typical 'Muh Manning and Brady argument" that tends to dominant this forum.

 

I don't feel like arguing who's better, I'll just post a picture of this guy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[amfootball]

Why?

 

Before the season started, all the talk was about how Brady doesn't need great receivers. He doesn't even need good receivers. He basically makes them himself, like a WR master architect. All they have to do is step on the same field as he does on Sunday, and great receiving is born. Greatness oozes from Brady's pores; he hooks his bummy receivers up to him intravenously on the sideline, and suddenly they produce like HOFers. Then, when they leave New England and can no longer suckle the teat of the great Tom Brady, their skills wither away, never to return, and we all wonder just how it is that Brady can take such unimpressive specimens and will them to victory, year after year.

 

That's what Pats fans said would happen with Brady and his receivers in 2013. No Hernandez? No problem. No Welker? Good riddance, the traitor. Gronk might not be healthy? Brady will make another Gronk. Brady's production wouldn't suffer, no matter what, because he'll adapt like he always does, and everything will be okay. 

 

Now, after Brady has a substandard statistical season (for Brady, that is), you want to talk about his receivers?

 

Do you have actual quotes from Pats fans saying of this? Gross hyperbole Superman I think. I had said that I thought Amendola would be able to replace Welker in terms of being a solid contributor at the slot - not 100 receptions like Welker but more big plays given he is faster and bigger. And of course I predicated all of this on him staying healthy which did not happen. Pats fans, myself included also knew that losing Hernandez was huge given the timing of his arrest which left the Pats unable to replace him so late in the off-season. And then of course you had Gronk recovering from back surgery

 

I believe it was you that said even with all the turnover at receiver position that the Pats offense would be good enough. And actually it was more than good enough as it ranked 3 in points scored. And of course the Pats still matched their win total from the previous season at 12 and secured the second seed which could have been the first seed had they been able to finish their last drive versus the Dolphins late in the season.

 

There was not one Pats fans that believed Brady was going to light it up last year but that he would, as he always does, find a way to win games with the supporting cast around him. As I said to you in a previous post, he led the league in 4^th quarter comebacks with five which easily could have been seven if not for the refs picking up the PI call at the end of the Carolina game and if Amendola holds on to the ball in the Miami game late. Brady’s hallmark has always been his situational play which was on display in spades last year even if his overall stats were down which like I said most Pats fans expected. Our expectations in NE is to WIN and that is what Brady always delivers.

 

So you and others can revel all you want in his stats be in the same neighborhood as Luck and incessantly mention it as though he somehow has declined (not you specifically but others on this board) but the reality is the Pats really didn’t miss a beat last year and that was the expectation Pats fans had not fantasy numbers from Brady.

[ViriLudant]

Why?

Before the season started, all the talk was about how Brady doesn't need great receivers. He doesn't even need good receivers. He basically makes them himself, like a WR master architect. All they have to do is step on the same field as he does on Sunday, and great receiving is born. Greatness oozes from Brady's pores; he hooks his bummy receivers up to him intravenously on the sideline, and suddenly they produce like HOFers. Then, when they leave New England and can no longer suckle the teat of the great Tom Brady, their skills wither away, never to return, and we all wonder just how it is that Brady can take such unimpressive specimens and will them to victory, year after year.

That's what Pats fans said would happen with Brady and his receivers in 2013. No Hernandez? No problem. No Welker? Good riddance, the traitor. Gronk might not be healthy? Brady will make another Gronk. Brady's production wouldn't suffer, no matter what, because he'll adapt like he always does, and everything will be okay.

Now, after Brady has a substandard statistical season (for Brady, that is), you want to talk about his receivers?

Show me ONE such post. I guarantee that you can't.

No Patriots fan has ever said that losing Gronk and Hernandez would not be a problem.

Welker, yes; Edelman was his replacement.

Face it: neither Peyton nor Brees has ever lacked weapons. Brady has, and has been amazingly successful regardless.

[Shane Bond]

Face it: neither Peyton nor Brees has ever lacked weapons. Brady has, and has been amazingly successful regardless.

 

Statements like this makes it very hard to take you seriously.

 

All you do is diminish other players to enhance Brady. Brady doesn't need your sympathy. He is a great player on his own. He has lot of intangibles. It is getting old of you accusing other players for him.

[ViriLudant]

Statements like this makes it very hard to take you seriously.

All you do is diminish other players to enhance Brady. Brady doesn't need your sympathy. He is a great player on his own. He has lot of intangibles. It is getting old of you accusing other players for him.

Way to 1000% miss the point.

If Brady had a "down year" last year, perhaps there are factors involved that others with whom Brady is compared do not have to worry about?

How is that difficult to comprehend? This is a ranking , after all, and people are comparing QBs.

[Shane Bond]

Way to 1000% miss the point.

If Brady had a "down year" last year, perhaps there are factors involved that others with whom Brady is compared do not have to worry about?

How is that difficult to comprehend? This is a ranking , after all, and people are comparing QBs.

 

I dont believe Brady had a down year. Thats your own statement. I think he did great.

 

Lets not forget, he made some bad throws too. We keep missing that. Edelman was wide open on several occasions last year. Amendola is not a bad receiver. He is better than Blair White. You got to make it work.

 

Brady also has Josh Mcdaniels and Belichick his entire career. Those are so valuable.

[ViriLudant]

BB, yes. McDaniels has been Brady's OC for all of two years.

[Poster X]

Come on, internet(s).