Unpopular Opinion thread

[jvan1973]

double post

[GoPats]

I didn't say he sucked. I said he wasn't special. He was not the reason they got to those two superbowls

 

You're flat-out wrong on that, sorry. 

 

He didn't carry them or play lights-out in every game, but Brady is absolutely a huge part of why they made and won those first two Super Bowls. 

[BOTT]

Bruce Arians is the best coach in the nfl

[amfootball]

Bruce Arians is the best coach in the nfl

I have always been a huge fan of his. Guy just gets it done and his players love him.

[ViriLudant]

Brady wasn't great during those early years. He didn't cost them games. But he wasn't special

Fact: Luck has drastically hurt the Colts in their playoff losses.

Brady NEVER did that in his early years. He was/is a much better playoff QB than Luck.

[jvan1973]

Fact: Luck has drastically hurt the Colts in their playoff losses.

Brady NEVER did that in his early years. He was/is a much better playoff QB than Luck.

You should take some classes to bolster your self confidence. You are a very pathetic individual FACT

[Gavin]

Fact: Luck has drastically hurt the Colts in their playoff losses.

Brady NEVER did that in his early years. He was/is a much better playoff QB than Luck.

Fact: Andrew Luck has thrown for 43 more pass attempts through his first 3 playoff games then Tom Brady his first 3 years

 

Fact:Tom Brady threw 1 td his first 3 playoff games to Andrews 6.......Brady only topped 150 yards passing in those first 3 games once as well.....312 in his first game.....Luck has topped 280 yards in all 3 games

 

Fact: Luck has 490 more passing yards through his first 3 playoff games then Brady did.........Think about that.......490.....Fact....Brady made some nice throws in his first 3 playoff games but he never carried those teams in his 1st 3 years

[amfootball]

Fact: Andrew Luck has thrown for 43 more pass attempts through his first 3 playoff games then Tom Brady his first 3 years

 

Fact:Tom Brady threw 1 td his first 3 playoff games to Andrews 6.......Brady only topped 150 yards passing in those first 3 games once as well.....312 in his first game.....Luck has topped 280 yards in all 3 games

 

Fact: Luck has 490 more passing yards through his first 3 playoff games then Brady did.........Think about that.......490.....Fact....Brady made some nice throws in his first 3 playoff games but he never carried those teams in his 1st 3 years

I think the point was more situational football rather volume. Of course Luck would have more volume given the new rule changes and the design of each offense.

 

Brady threw 11 Tds to 3 picks in the three championship runs. Luck had 4 picks alone vs the Pats last playoff game. And of course Brady had five 4th quarter comebacks/GW drives in those three years including two to win the Super Bowls. Luck has one comeback and two losses in his first two appearances.

[Valpo2004]

I think the point was more situational football rather volume. Of course Luck would have more volume given the new rule changes and the design of each offense.

 

Brady threw 11 Tds to 3 picks in the three championship runs. Luck had 4 picks alone vs the Pats last playoff game. And of course Brady had five 4th quarter comebacks/GW drives in those three years including two to win the Super Bowls. Luck has one comeback and two losses in his first two appearances.

 

Their situations can't be compared because one is trying to carry a team that for the first 2 years was very flawed and the other was trying to not screw things up for a rather complete team.

 

Just being asked to not screw things up is way easier then being asked to carry a team.  And when you are asked to carry a team you are naturally going to end up screwing things up because everyone is gunning for you.  

[amfootball]

Their situations can't be compared because one is trying to carry a team that for the first 2 years was very flawed and the other was trying to not screw things up for a rather complete team.

 

Just being asked to not screw things up is way easier then being asked to carry a team.  And when you are asked to carry a team you are naturally going to end up screwing things up because everyone is gunning for you.  

Luck has had MUCH better offensive weapons than Brady had in '01 ...Brady the better defense so really a wash. Still, Brady was the steadier and better situational football player not only than Luck but any other QB. No one in the history has ever begun a career at 10-0 in the post-season with 5 comebacks/GW drives to boot. That is a lot more than not screwing up, that is carrying the team.

[Blackhawk4]

Just a reminder for everyone, there's no need to take personal shots. 

[jvan1973]

Luck has had MUCH better offensive weapons than Brady had in '01 ...Brady the better defense so really a wash. Still, Brady was the steadier and better situational football player not only than Luck but any other QB. No one in the history has ever begun a career at 10-0 in the post-season with 5 comebacks/GW drives to boot. That is a lot more than not screwing up, that is carrying the team.

How many of those games did the pats offense have to score 28 or more to win?

[amfootball]

How many of those games did the pats offense have to score 28 or more to win?

What does that have to do with anything? Football was different back then with the old rules and a stronger focus on the run game. The Pats had the sixth best scoring offense in '01 so Brady was putting up plenty of points every week.

[BOTT]

Fact: Luck has drastically hurt the Colts in their playoff losses.

Brady NEVER did that in his early years. He was/is a much better playoff QB than Luck.

Fact: the patriots were much more talented

Fact: you are a horrible poster

[GoPats]

Their situations can't be compared because one is trying to carry a team that for the first 2 years was very flawed and the other was trying to not screw things up for a rather complete team.

 

 

Just a point of clarification...

 

Looking back you call the 2001 Patriots a "complete team." But at the time, that was not the reigning prevalent thought. They finished 5-11 in 2000, and were 0-2 when Brady took over. The same goes for the subsequent 2003 and 2004 championship teams... we look back now and call them dominant, but at the time, they were rarely mentioned as the league's best team. 

 

In fact, if I recall right, the Colts were actually favored in the 2003 title game even though it was being played in Foxboro. 

[Valpo2004]

Just a point of clarification...

 

Looking back you call the 2001 Patriots a "complete team." But at the time, that was not the reigning prevalent thought. They finished 5-11 in 2000, and were 0-2 when Brady took over. The same goes for the subsequent 2003 and 2004 championship teams... we look back now and call them dominant, but at the time, they were rarely mentioned as the league's best team. 

 

In fact, if I recall right, the Colts were actually favored in the 2003 title game even though it was being played in Foxboro. 

 

If I had a dollar for every time that people projected an NFL team wrongly then I'd be rich.  

 

2012 Colts where not suppose to sniff the playoffs, however they where there. The 2013 Houston Texans where suppose to be one of the league's best teams, but ended up being the league's worst team and picking #1 overall.

 

How they are viewed and the reality of the situation can be miles apart.  Especially in the NFL when bad teams can suddenly become good teams and good teams can suddenly become bad teams in just one year.  

[GoPats]

If I had a dollar for every time that people projected an NFL team wrongly then I'd be rich.  

 

2012 Colts where not suppose to sniff the playoffs, however they where there. The 2013 Houston Texans where suppose to be one of the league's best teams, but ended up being the league's worst team and picking #1 overall.

 

How they are viewed and the reality of the situation can be miles apart.  Especially in the NFL when bad teams can suddenly become good teams and good teams can suddenly become bad teams in just one year.  

 

The only year the Patriots were truly dominant, IMO, was 2004. 

Without looking it up now, I think the 2003 team won something like 8 or 9 games by less than a TD. It was one nail-biter after another. Winning all those tight, close games actually was good for them. Made them mentally tough.

 

I just think when people look back at it now, they remember those teams being a little better than they really were. 

[amfootball]

Just a point of clarification...

 

Looking back you call the 2001 Patriots a "complete team." But at the time, that was not the reigning prevalent thought. They finished 5-11 in 2000, and were 0-2 when Brady took over. The same goes for the subsequent 2003 and 2004 championship teams... we look back now and call them dominant, but at the time, they were rarely mentioned as the league's best team. 

 

In fact, if I recall right, the Colts were actually favored in the 2003 title game even though it was being played in Foxboro. 

I remember after they won everyone saying that was one of the worst teams to ever win the Super Bowl. They played great as a team but for sure were not picked to do anything after starting 0-2 and then inserting a sixth round pick at QB ...

[wesd2890]

Fact: Luck has drastically hurt the Colts in their playoff losses.

Brady NEVER did that in his early years. He was/is a much better playoff QB than Luck.

Hard to judge after two years.. brady had a way better d when he was winning superbowls.. colts d has never been good

[ram29jackson]

If you actually went to a bull fight, you wouldn't find anything to laugh about. If you did, you're a sick feller.

 

you have a problem with the guy getting hit or the bull getting stabbed ?

[ram29jackson]

Hard to judge after two years.. brady had a way better d when he was winning superbowls.. colts d has never been good

 

how do you equate defense never being good with constantly making the playoffs ?

 

you cant-period. Because Manning-is a cliché none logical typical, pointless sports answer.

 

they don't have a defense but they always make the playoffs but its Mannings fault in the playoffs....lots of pointless rambling in that

[wesd2890]

Z

how do you equate defense never being good with constantly making the playoffs ?

you cant-period. Because Manning-is a cliché none logical typical, pointless sports answer.

they don't have a defense but they always make the playoffs but its Mannings fault in the playoffs....lots of pointless rambling in that

We make the playoffs because we are in the weakest division in the nfl.. period.. what happens when we go against a good offense?..... we lose... why? Because our defense.. our division hasnt been competitive in 20 years

[thedude]

you have a problem with the guy getting hit or the bull getting stabbed ?

Really? Is this a real question?

[ram29jackson]

Really? Is this a real question?

 

yes its a real question. I'm glad we aren't a backwards country and this would look really silly happening here but we rope cattle and that isn't a problem unless you are a tree hugger. But stabbing a bull that ends up being meat or what ever anyway, isn't a problem. The *s/bullfighters  end up getting stabbed by horns. I'm not dumb enough to bother trying that LOL

[thedude]

Really?

[amfootball]

Z

We make the playoffs because we are in the weakest division in the nfl.. period.. what happens when we go against a good offense?..... we lose... why? Because our defense.. our division hasnt been competitive in 20 years

10 games are played outside the division so you have to win a fair share of those to make the post-season.

[Blue Horseshoe]

10 games are played outside the division so you have to win a fair share of those to make the post-season.

 

Not at all.  You just have to win more of them than your division rivals (or win the right ones to win on a tie breaker).

[amfootball]

Not at all.  You just have to win more of them than your division rivals (or win the right ones to win on a tie breaker).

Sure. But it is not like the colts sweep their division every year. And Manning was winning on average 12 games a year and securing the #1 or 2 seed most of the time.

[thedude]

10 games are played outside the division so you have to win a fair share of those to make the post-season.

Not at all.  You just have to win more of them than your division rivals (or win the right ones to win on a tie breaker).

Yep, you don't need to win them all, just a "fair share" of those games.

[sweetsurrender]

Z

We make the playoffs because we are in the weakest division in the nfl.. period.. what happens when we go against a good offense?..... we lose... why? Because our defense.. our division hasnt been competitive in 20 years

You really don't know Colts history very well, do you? A good chunk of our playoff losses were because the offense failed to put up enough points to win. Rarely iwere the Colts blown out of the playoffs except vs the Jets but then again the O put up zero.

[thedude]

I think most losses are due to not scoring enough points to win the game.

[Yehoodi]

Fact: Andrew Luck has thrown for 43 more pass attempts through his first 3 playoff games then Tom Brady his first 3 years

 

Fact:Tom Brady threw 1 td his first 3 playoff games to Andrews 6.......Brady only topped 150 yards passing in those first 3 games once as well.....312 in his first game.....Luck has topped 280 yards in all 3 games

 

Fact: Luck has 490 more passing yards through his first 3 playoff games then Brady did.........Think about that.......490.....Fact....Brady made some nice throws in his first 3 playoff games but he never carried those teams in his 1st 3 years

I would be very careful throwing around the words "carried those teams" because the Playoffs are a Team Accomplishment Police will be at your door and arrest you for thinking that a single player can have an impact on a playoff win . . . :wave:  . . . just given you fair warning . . .

 

As for pass attempts you might want to check your first "fact" there in regards to Luck and Brady pass attempts, not sure where you are looking at . . . in Lucks three games his attempts are 54, 45, 41 and Brady's first nine games are 52, 18 (injured played half game), 27, 41, 37, 48, 27, 21, 33 . . .  

 

Luck may have more yards and thrown TDs, but he has a lot more INTs than Brady . . . the most important of all stats for a QB

 

You must also look at the conditions they played in and how the game was played . . . Brady's first game was in a blizzard, and two of his games against Indy were in the snow and the Tenn game was in the single digits temperature . . . and he missed half of his second game against Pittsburgh ('01). . . so five of his first nine games were in harsh weather and the sixth one in Pittsburgh ('04 AFCCG) was no picnic either . . .  when you look at the three games (SBs) played indoors you will see a different result . . .

 

And also, passing stats are not the end of the story . . . the league is different now for one, and two, when one team is down early one is going to be passing more than when a team is up, and so on . . . so its not a yard or yard, or attempt for attempt, comparison . . .

 

and regardless it does not change the point that VL was driving at which was that Luck has thrown for INTs in his games which hurt his team . . . yes the colts came back against KC, partly due to the fact that half of that team got injured in the game, but they were not able to do so against the Pats a week later . . .  

[sweetsurrender]

I think most losses are due to not scoring enough points to win the game.

Sure but the OP was insinuating it was the defense's fault. The defense, not counting the 41-0 debacle vs the Jets have let up on average 22 points a game in the Colts post-season losses in the Manning era and that average does no reflect Manning's pick sixes or ST scores. If you were to take those out, it would be 20 or under. Hard to blame the defense based on those numbers.

[wesd2890]

You really don't know Colts history very well, do you? A good chunk of our playoff losses were because the offense failed to put up enough points to win. Rarely iwere the Colts blown out of the playoffs except vs the Jets but then again the O put up zero.

This makes no sense at all.. im sorry but if were not scoring enough points to win that means our defense has been giving up to many points for our offense to over come. Our defense put peyton and our offense in to many game winning drives or "score now" drives which usually leaded to peyton manning classic turnovers. The same with andrew and his playoff games. If you can honestly say that the colts have a "good defensive history" then you dont know colts history very well.

[chad72]

Facts to chew on:

 

Peyton throws picks or turns the ball over in the playoffs though he has relatively gotten better compared to the pre-2005 years.

 

Brady does not do that and thus does not put his team in bad positions, so nine times out of 10 you have to go the whole distance to score TDs vs the Patriots, big difference in a playoff game where margins are smaller thus increasing win probability.

 

Colts fans wanted another Peyton or better, Luck has established he can throw picks like Peyton in the playoffs, so we got part of what we wished for . But Luck has also shown us he can use his legs better than Peyton and there in we Colts fans feel will be the difference in winning all those close games when the Colts team is truly good and established that Peyton lost (Peyton has lost 6 games by 6 pts. or less and flip 3 of them, you have a respectable 13-8 in the playoffs instead of 10-11).

[sweetsurrender]

This makes no sense at all.. im sorry but if were not scoring enough points to win that means our defense has been giving up to many points for our offense to over come. Our defense put peyton and our offense in to many game winning drives or "score now" drives which usually leaded to peyton manning classic turnovers. The same with andrew and his playoff games. If you can honestly say that the colts have a "good defensive history" then you dont know colts history very well.

Read my post #228. Colts D gave up on average 22 points a game not counting Manning's pick sixes or STs scores so closer to 20 or under.

 

In terms of Luck. He put up 9 vs the Ravens. That will not get it done in any playoff game.

 

Last year vs the Chiefs was a terrible defensive performance that was also aided by the offense turning over the ball multiple times. The Pats game was a disaster from beginning to end but the D had it at least close going into the fourth but hard to overcome 4 INTs in the post-season. 

[jvan1973]

I think most losses are due to not scoring enough points to win the game.

100% of all games are lost if you don't score more than the opponent

[Blue Horseshoe]

100% of all games are lost if you don't score more than the opponent

 

Not at all.... You could also tie. ;)

[jvan1973]

Not at all.... You could also tie. ;)

good call

[amfootball]

Read my post #228. Colts D gave up on average 22 points a game not counting Manning's pick sixes or STs scores so closer to 20 or under.

 

In terms of Luck. He put up 9 vs the Ravens. That will not get it done in any playoff game.

 

Last year vs the Chiefs was a terrible defensive performance that was also aided by the offense turning over the ball multiple times. The Pats game was a disaster from beginning to end but the D had it at least close going into the fourth but hard to overcome 4 INTs in the post-season. 

Someone, I can't remember who, probably Yehoodi if I had to guess, had a breakdown of this in terms of defensive points allowed for Manning and Brady in the post-season. The difference was very slim if I remember correctly but the belief has always been that Brady had these superior defenses when Manning had some of his own as well. I think it easy to look back on era with colored-glasses, I know I am guilty of that at times but absolute statements like the Colts lost in the playoffs because there defenses stunk every year is patently untrue. Just as it is also patently untrue to say the Pats O was not good those years. You don't get to the playoffs every year like Brady and Manning have without having good teams around you, period.