This whole Brady at 40 thing.....

[BloodyChamp]

1 hour ago, footballhero1 said:

 

He was a head coach for 7 seasons. His best record was 11-5 twice and one playoff win. Add Brady and he wins 5 Super Bowls, averages more wins a season than he ever has done in a single season without him, and has the record for most playoff wins. There's no comparison with and without Brady, you have to ignore the entire sample size and flat out single out 1 season and 4 games out of 7, where even that comparison falls flat when you actually put the smaller bit of scrutiny to it. 

 

As far as the Giants

 

-wasn't the coach

-played under a HOF head coach

-had the most trancedent defensive talent in history on his defense 

 

It was Cleveland and Vinnie Testaverde for heck's sake, and he might have even been backing up Kosar but I'm not sure. Then they were 4-4 the following season before Art Modell dropped the bomb.

 

As for the Giants

 

-was the DC. You want to crown the Giants defense because of 1 player but dis the stacked Pats defense and give no credit to the DC or coach depending on how you want it to reflect on the guy at the time.

-what do you think got him hired in Cleveland

 

[tweezy32]

Brady is a system qb because he even admitted he was..  So "no colonel sanders,  you're wrong"

[2006Coltsbestever]

This is off topic so I apologize Jules but to bring up Defenses again a lot of people love to point to the Colts being Number #1 in 2007 that season. That is deceiving because we lost Dwight Freeney in Week 9 or 10 not sure and he didn't play in the Playoffs. Lost to SD and gave up 28 points in doing so due to no Pass Rush. They just doubled Mathis. Not having Freeney killed us in the Playoffs so like I said that ranking is deceiving. You guys seen what not having Freeney did to us against the Saints too in 2009. Brees tore us a new one in the 2nd Half.

[BloodyChamp]

Speaking of defenses in 2009...the Saints weren't winning jack without their defense. That's another example of misleading stats. They're a little tougher to spot on defense but the Brees homers want to talk about all the yards they gave up or whatever. Even their worst game of the year they came up with a fumble 6 in OT against the Redskins IIRC.

[BloodyChamp]

15 minutes ago, tweezy32 said:

Brady is a system qb because he even admitted he was..  So "no colonel sanders,  you're wrong"

 

I know it seems like I'm going off on 40 different tangents myself but Bill calling Tom the best always comes up eventually when the discussion goes this route. Well he actually said the same thing about Bert Jones. I'd actually forgot that until I checked wiki for a random thing the other day. So good luck figuring all that out lol!

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

Speaking of defenses in 2009...the Saints weren't winning jack without their defense. That's another example of misleading stats. They're a little tougher to spot on defense but the Brees homers want to talk about all the yards they gave up or whatever. Even their worst game of the year they came up with a fumble 6 in OT against the Redskins IIRC.

I know they didn't rank very high statistically if I remember right but caused the most the Turnovers. Turnovers were a huge strength of there's that season. They got timely one's too and turned them into points. Minnesota had 5 in the Title Game and then Peyton's INT too but they did that all season.

[BloodyChamp]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I know they didn't rank very high statistically if I remember right but caused the most the Turnovers. Turnovers were a huge strength of there's that season. They got timely one's too and turned them into points. Minnesota had 5 in the Title Game and then Peyton's INT too but they did that all season.

 

And if anybody wants to shoot that down then we can talk about this other little thing they had going on, because 1 or the other was definitely happening (both tbh but that's another post). There's no way around both.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

And if anybody wants to shoot that down then we can talk about this other little thing they had going on, because 1 or the other was definitely happening (both tbh but that's another post). There's no way around both.

Yeah I know we better not even talk about it, it could spark fuel. I felt bad for Favre. Favre was awesome that season too. I know what you are talking about though.

[chad72]

40 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

This is off topic so I apologize Jules but to bring up Defenses again a lot of people love to point to the Colts being Number #1 in 2007 that season. That is deceiving because we lost Dwight Freeney in Week 9 or 10 not sure and he didn't play in the Playoffs. Lost to SD and gave up 28 points in doing so due to no Pass Rush. They just doubled Mathis. Not having Freeney killed us in the Playoffs so like I said that ranking is deceiving. You guys seen what not having Freeney did to us against the Saints too in 2009. Brees tore us a new one in the 2nd Half.

 

You nailed it there. A healthy defense is far more important than a #1 regular season defense that is hobbling going into the playoffs. 

 

2006 - last in ranking vs the run in the regular season, and we are #1 vs the run in the playoffs but Bob Sanders, Rob Morris and Booger McFarland we traded for were all healthy for the playoffs and there in lay the difference.

 

2011 - Giants were second to last in run offense but managed to run at key moments to be tops in time of possession during the playoffs.

 

Playoffs are about controlling tempo and TOP while not turning it over on offense and generating consistent stops and turnovers on D. From the Bills-Giants wide-right SB to the current Falcons-Patriots SB, team winning TOP has had a phenomenal advantage, not to mention how Brees dinked and dunked the Colts to death in the 2009 season SB.

 

2007 & 2011 Giants shrunk the game knowing they cannot get into a shootout with Brady and the Pats; same with 2009 Saints

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

You nailed it there. A healthy defense is far more important than a #1 regular season defense that is hobbling going into the playoffs. 

 

2006 - last in ranking vs the run in the regular season, and we are #1 vs the run in the playoffs but Bob Sanders, Rob Morris and Booger McFarland we traded for were all healthy for the playoffs and there in lay the difference.

 

2011 - Giants were second to last in run offense but managed to run at key moments to be tops in time of possession during the playoffs.

 

Playoffs are about controlling tempo and TOP while not turning it over on offense and generating consistent stops and turnovers on D. From the Bills-Giants wide-right SB to the current Falcons-Patriots SB, team winning TOP has had a phenomenal advantage, not to mention how Brees dinked and dunked the Colts to death in the 2009 season SB.

 

2007 & 2011 Giants shrunk the game knowing they cannot get into a shootout with Brady and the Pats; same with 2009 Saints

Yep, great Post - I agree with everything you said. We ranked last in Run Defense in 2006 but when Bob came back the games began!

[Jules]

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I pick Green Bay a lot to either win the SB or the Conference and get burned too much. I am thinking Dallas in the NFC since Dak will be in year 2. I knew Dallas wasn't doing it last season, no rookie QB's ever win it or go to the SB.

 

I hear ya, it's a tough year to call IMO if you don't want to pick NE. So I am kinda left head scratching to nail the sexy dark horse. 

 

Dallas usually has "things" that alter their course of glory so.......I am hesitant even though that is one talented team.

 

As for the Packers? Safe pick at times just because they are almost a given to win the NFC North and they might be the only NFC team every year a given to do so. If they are going to get back to the Super Bowl I think they need homefield again and Rodgers said as much this offseason.

 

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I know we better not even talk about it, it could spark fuel. I felt bad for Favre. Favre was awesome that season too. I know what you are talking about though.

 

And Favre was........40. 

 

Mmhmmmm see this being 40 thing has not given good luck to QBs in the Super Bowl era to well, start in the Super Bowl. 

 

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

This is off topic so I apologize Jules but to bring up Defenses again a lot of people love to point to the Colts being Number #1 in 2007 that season. That is deceiving because we lost Dwight Freeney in Week 9 or 10 not sure and he didn't play in the Playoffs. Lost to SD and gave up 28 points in doing so due to no Pass Rush. They just doubled Mathis. Not having Freeney killed us in the Playoffs so like I said that ranking is deceiving. You guys seen what not having Freeney did to us against the Saints too in 2009. Brees tore us a new one in the 2nd Half.

 

No problem you guys can go for it in any direction you want, decent discussions here.

 

I said Pats or Brady related threads often end up the best.  

[Jules]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yep, great Post - I agree with everything you said. We ranked last in Run Defense in 2006 but when Bob came back the games began!

 

I think Dungy gave them some tackling 101 drills at the end of 2006 or I remember him saying he was going back to basic fundamentals. I remember since so many were asking if big changes were coming for the defense etc. and he was like "Re-teaching the basics."

 

And whatever it was it worked since in the playoffs with Bob back and company they tackled like bad aazzes. But they did do better in a few games near the end of the season too most forget, I remember the night game we had hosting Cincy and I was quite impressed by the overall team. Most just remember the Jags game etc.

 

Also, I was so happy in 2006 that all the attention at times was on Tomlinson and the Chargers. It always helps to be slightly under the radar.

 

It does amaze me at times how bad tackling can be in the NFL........

[Jules]

3 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

I know it seems like I'm going off on 40 different tangents myself but Bill calling Tom the best always comes up eventually when the discussion goes this route. Well he actually said the same thing about Bert Jones. I'd actually forgot that until I checked wiki for a random thing the other day. So good luck figuring all that out lol!

 

Actually many are declaring Brady the best of all time now officially due to the 5th ring. I am of the firm belief you can make many many great cases for several all time great QBs.

 

You can make a solid case for Brady btw. Not saying he is not up there in that small elite group. I am also not someone who really brings up cheating or system QB stuff. I often give the Pats and Brady props after big wins.

 

But it haunts me.......it really does. I mean if the Falcons you know ran the ball in the second half or the Seahawks didn't turn it over in that SB at the end, so then Brady isn't the best if he loses those SBs and they aren't bringing in goats at Patriots camp? And then yes I know people can flip this and say how close the Pats were to beating the Giants in 2007. It can work both ways.

 

There is just this razor razor thin fine line used allllllll the time in sports for these GOAT arguments and especially for the big games and since I have lived through the Brady era as an active fan it can sorta irk me at times since I seen how close all those big games WERE. Live.

 

The margin of error and razor thin line from winning or losing some of these big games and especially in the modern era we are seeing now where so many QBs can pass the ball with ease, makes me wonder if these games are often times coin flips and some are just luckier then others.

 

And then in comes the coaching argument, which yes Brady wins there easily every single time so I do see and believe in that argument now.

[BloodyChamp]

Favre wasn't exactly consistent in his postprime. He was borderline bipolar from week to week from 2006-2008. 2009 was awesome but it was more like a Napoleon at Neman River thing than is was anything else. Peyton, as ace as he looked for most of 2012 and 2013, wasn't exactly consistent since 2009.

 

I'm hesitant to pick Dallas and Green Bay for the reasons given pretty much, and I'm hesitant to pick NE just because no same unit can't possibly repeat twice right...right lol! That's all I got. I mean I can't come up with anything to shoot down NE other than some feeling. On paper it's almost like they got it already. 

[BloodyChamp]

13 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

Actually many are declaring Brady the best of all time now officially due to the 5th ring. I am of the firm belief you can make many many great cases for several all time great QBs.

 

You can make a solid case for Brady btw. Not saying he is not up there in that small elite group. I am also not someone who really brings up cheating or system QB stuff. I often give the Pats and Brady props after big wins.

 

But it haunts me.......it really does. I mean if the Falcons you know ran the ball in the second half or the Seahawks didn't turn it over in that SB at the end, so then Brady isn't the best if he loses those SBs and they aren't bringing in goats at Patriots camp? And then yes I know people can flip this and say how close the Pats were to beating the Giants in 2007. It can work both ways.

 

There is just this razor razor thin fine line used allllllll the time in sports for these GOAT arguments and especially for the big games and since I have lived through the Brady era as an active fan it can sorta irk me at times since I seen how close all those big games WERE. Live.

 

The margin of error and razor thin line from winning or losing some of these big games and especially in the modern era we are seeing now where so many QBs can pass the ball with ease, makes me wonder if these games are often times coin flips and some are just luckier then others.

 

And then in comes the coaching argument, which yes Brady wins there easily every single time so I do see and believe in that argument now.

 

The homers are doing their boy a disservice by insisting he wins all the games, carrys Bill, picked off Wilson, sacked Ryan etc. If they called it straight down the middle you'd still have have a guy with 5 rings, 3 without his INT and sack () and 4 more SB appearances. You don't see to many people disrespecting Terry Bradshaw, and on the other end of the scope you don't see to many people disrespecting Dan Marino. Until Brady is recognized for what he is (It is what it is - Bill Belichik) he'll never truly be where his homers want him to be.

[Jules]

2 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

The homers are doing their boy a disservice by insisting he wins all the games, carrys Bill, picked off Wilson, sacked Ryan etc. If they called it straight down the middle you'd still have have a guy with 5 rings, 3 without his INT and sack () and 4 more SB appearances. You don't see to many people disrespecting Terry Bradshaw, and on the other end of the scope you don't see to many people disrespecting Dan Marino. Until Brady is recognized for what he is (It is what it is - Bill Belichik) he'll never truly be where his homers want him to be.

 

Homers of all the great QBs need to chill out at times in general. None of them are winning or losing everything on their own.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

Favre wasn't exactly consistent in his postprime. He was borderline bipolar from week to week from 2006-2008. 2009 was awesome but it was more like a Napoleon at Neman River thing than is was anything else. Peyton, as ace as he looked for most of 2012 and 2013, wasn't exactly consistent since 2009.

 

I'm hesitant to pick Dallas and Green Bay for the reasons given pretty much, and I'm hesitant to pick NE just because no same unit can possibly repeat twice right...right lol! That's all I got. I mean I can't come up with anything to shoot down NE other than some feeling. On paper it's almost like they got it already. 

FWIW, I have my lists and stuff but not many QB's were better than Favre. He was so durable and won 3 League MVP's in a row from 94-96 and he won a SB. Just need 1 to boost the legacy, JMO. Favre is Top 10 all-time with ease and I loved his game. He threw some silly INT's but he also pulled some big games by gambling with the same throws.

[2006Coltsbestever]

@Jules and Champ. I think accomplishments have to be factored in to rankings like SB Rings, etc.. If we were doing an all-time Draft though I would take Peyton and he only won 2. I just think he was the system of any Offense he was in. Joe Doofus could Coach Peyton and still win 12 games. Tom is just the most accomplished winner.

[Chrisaaron1023]

5 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Joe Doofus could Coach Peyton and still win 12 games

Jim Caldwell is a very excellent coach.. I still remember his freaking face never changing from going 14-0 to 0-14 in two years.. yeah tell me when that'll happen again..

 

We always talk about if Brady had.. if Peyton had.. Well Peyton had a top defense and won the super bowl. Brady had a top WR and broke the TD record.. But we completely forget that Peyton broke it twice.. But let me guess Thomas's and Decker are all Hall of Famers too? Alright.

 

If Brady had Marvin/Wayne it would've looked like.. the only player we can compare is Wes Welker. Who like everyone else in New England killed you with 1,000 paper cuts. In Denver he actually scored TD's but didn't have the receptions (it really looked like he wanted to catch Marvin a few times) or yardage in a few lest games. So he played well with both just did different things for both. 

 

Quote

Despite the season-ending injury to quarterback Tom Brady in Week 1, he continued to amass receptions at the same pace through the first half of the season with Matt Cassell: through eight games, he had 56 receptions

 ....interesting

[NorthernBlue]

I don't deny that Brady is legend, and as someone who doesn't think rings define who the GOAT is, my point here might be invalid either way but......

 

If Atlanta and Seattle run the ball near the end of their games, Brady would be 3-4 (and 0-4 in his last 4) super bowls and I doubt anyone would be discussing him as the GOAT or playing till he's 50 or whatever. 

[Synthetic]

On 8/5/2017 at 8:28 AM, Chrisaaron1023 said:

I'm still salty from the super bowl.. I'll say this.. the NBA got so much backlash because we knew the two teams in the Finals.. well in the NFL we already knows who's getting the trophy. Nobody can compete with the Patriots. The offense just too quick, and the defense which was good last year as well got better too. Injuries don't really matter either since the pats also apparently teach "next man up" the best. 

 

Yeah he'll probably play 5 more seasons. Lets all just hope it's not all with the Patriots

 

The NFL has far more parity than the NBA has ever had. You can complain about the same team being in the AFCCG, but statistically, it's very hard to sustain success as long as the Patriots have done. 

 

Most dynasty teams get old and wear out. The 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers and 90's Cowboys all reached a point where age caught up with them and tore them down. To be fair, the Patriots did go 10 years between their 3rd and 4th Super Bowl win. 

 

It's not fair to compare this to the NBA though, cause the NBA definitely has a parity problem and has always been that way. I know everyone on this board hates the Patriots (except me!! I owe you all one for beating the Falcons!) but they are an exception to the rule of sustaining long term success. 

[Synthetic]

16 hours ago, Jules said:

Brady turns 40 and somehow we get into Brady vs. Manning yet again? I mean if you want to I am not holding you all back, feel free, It's an "open thread".

 

I know most expect the Pats to repeat and believe me I want to pick them too. But it's tough to repeat.......especially in the NFL. Pats are the clear faves and I don't know who else to pick in the AFC but to me thats the beauty of the NFL too and the parity. You just don't know who is going to go on some huge tear......

 

A few teams will shock us this year.

 

It turned into Brady vs Manning and arguing over Brady being a "system QB"

 

What's with the term "system QB"??? Practically EVERY Hall of Fame quarterback runs their own "system". For some odd reason, Brady is the only one who gets bashed for this, but pretty much ALL great statistical quarterbacks have their own system. 

 

Manning in Denver brought his own system there and didn't want to run Kubiak's offense (I don't blame him)

 

Brees was running his own system in New Orleans for 2012 when Sean Payton was wrongfully suspended. 

 

Anyone remember Favre in Minnesota? He brought his own play book and ran his own offense. 

 

Dan Marino had his own "system". He did not get along with coach Jimmy Johnson at all due to them clashing over the differences on offense. 

 

Joe Montana and Steve Young had the 49ers West Coast style system at their hands that greatly helped their abilities and talents at QB. 

 

Every quarterback has their own "system" or whatever one wants to call it. 

 

As for the whole "Matt Cassell won 11 games in 2008" I don't even get how that is still a knock on Brady. Matt Cassell had only one decent season outside NE, and people always leave out that it was essentially the same Patriots team that went 16-0 the year before. He still struggled in big games vs Miami and Pittsburgh where he looked awful. 

 

If anyone is going to bring up "any QB can win in that system" well, you better play fair and bring it up regarding the 49ers. Steve Young won several games in 1987 and 1988 as a backup. In the 90's, Steve Bono and Elvis Grbac became star names due to winning a few games and looking amazing in the 49ers offense when Young was injured. I guess if internet existed back then, people would've been quick to call Young or Montana "system QB's". 

[Synthetic]

52 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:

 

If Atlanta and Seattle run the ball near the end of their games, Brady would be 3-4 (and 0-4 in his last 4) super bowls and I doubt anyone would be discussing him as the GOAT or playing till he's 50 or whatever. 

 

But they didn't...And the rest is history. 

 

The "what if" scenarios can be played for many Super Bowls, including the ones the Pats lost. What if Assante Samuel actually catches that gifted INT that Eli threw directly to him that he dropped? 

 

I'm sure if it was any other QB not named Brady, this board would be praising them for those comebacks and not making excuses for the Falcons and Seahawks....He's the only one that is overly criticized on here. Brady does amazing things, he's just a "system QB" or some excuse to ignore his greatness. 

 

The Falcons blew 5 games where they had a lead in the 4th quarter, including 3 of them where they were up by 10 or more points...Seattle in 2014 had serious issues that were clearly demonstrated with the NFCCG that Green Bay choked away. It's not like these teams handed the Pats SB's like many on this board seem to suggest. They screwed up and lost. It happens...

[bluebombers87]

1 hour ago, Synthetic said:

 

It turned into Brady vs Manning and arguing over Brady being a "system QB"

 

What's with the term "system QB"??? Practically EVERY Hall of Fame quarterback runs their own "system". For some odd reason, Brady is the only one who gets bashed for this, but pretty much ALL great statistical quarterbacks have their own system. 

 

Manning in Denver brought his own system there and didn't want to run Kubiak's offense (I don't blame him)

 

Brees was running his own system in New Orleans for 2012 when Sean Payton was wrongfully suspended. 

 

Anyone remember Favre in Minnesota? He brought his own play book and ran his own offense. 

 

Dan Marino had his own "system". He did not get along with coach Jimmy Johnson at all due to them clashing over the differences on offense. 

 

Joe Montana and Steve Young had the 49ers West Coast style system at their hands that greatly helped their abilities and talents at QB. 

 

Every quarterback has their own "system" or whatever one wants to call it. 

 

As for the whole "Matt Cassell won 11 games in 2008" I don't even get how that is still a knock on Brady. Matt Cassell had only one decent season outside NE, and people always leave out that it was essentially the same Patriots team that went 16-0 the year before. He still struggled in big games vs Miami and Pittsburgh where he looked awful. 

 

If anyone is going to bring up "any QB can win in that system" well, you better play fair and bring it up regarding the 49ers. Steve Young won several games in 1987 and 1988 as a backup. In the 90's, Steve Bono and Elvis Grbac became star names due to winning a few games and looking amazing in the 49ers offense when Young was injured. I guess if internet existed back then, people would've been quick to call Young or Montana "system QB's". 

System QB means that their results are laregely a result of their surrounding cast, in Brady's case, Bills belichick.

 

Matt Cassel is brought up because even (as you pointed out) a sub par QB can succeed in that system. WhIke Brady is very very good, I don't think he can be hailed as the GOAT when without you, your team is 16-6.

 

And I'd be happy to bring up Montana and Young. They're not immune from scrutiny.

[bluebombers87]

1 hour ago, Synthetic said:

 

But they didn't...And the rest is history. 

 

The "what if" scenarios can be played for many Super Bowls, including the ones the Pats lost. What if Assante Samuel actually catches that gifted INT that Eli threw directly to him that he dropped? 

 

I'm sure if it was any other QB not named Brady, this board would be praising them for those comebacks and not making excuses for the Falcons and Seahawks....He's the only one that is overly criticized on here. Brady does amazing things, he's just a "system QB" or some excuse to ignore his greatness. 

 

The Falcons blew 5 games where they had a lead in the 4th quarter, including 3 of them where they were up by 10 or more points...Seattle in 2014 had serious issues that were clearly demonstrated with the NFCCG that Green Bay choked away. It's not like these teams handed the Pats SB's like many on this board seem to suggest. They screwed up and lost. It happens...

Every team loses a game just as their opponents win a game. To what degree is the discussing point.

 

And if you're coming to a Colts board expecting us to lavish praise on Brady, sorry if some of us disappoint you.

[BloodyChamp]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

FWIW, I have my lists and stuff but not many QB's were better than Favre. He was so durable and won 3 League MVP's in a row from 94-96 and he won a SB. Just need 1 to boost the legacy, JMO. Favre is Top 10 all-time with ease and I loved his game. He threw some silly INT's but he also pulled some big games by gambling with the same throws.

 

Favre is my GOAT. There were some valid excuses for some of what happened in his postprime (some...not all for every loss) and his prime is untouchable. There are a couple guys I don't argue weren't better out of respect when they come up but only a couple. 

[footballhero1]

1 hour ago, bluebombers87 said:

System QB means that their results are laregely a result of their surrounding cast, in Brady's case, Bills belichick.

 

Matt Cassel is brought up because even (as you pointed out) a sub par QB can succeed in that system. WhIke Brady is very very good, I don't think he can be hailed as the GOAT when without you, your team is 16-6.

 

And I'd be happy to bring up Montana and Young. They're not immune from scrutiny.

And Cassell being bright up is a horrible example that relies on putting no thought into the argument you are making. Cassell played somewhere else and played better. Cassell was a massive step down the year he took over for Brady. I could write a thesis at this point on why it's dumb to bring up Cassell. 

 

Especially when he's often used as a comparison to Painter's time on the Colts. No offense but Cassell was 10 times whatever the heck Painter was. So that comparison should be thrown out the window. 

 

Also Young is a great QB. So I don't even know why we are talking about him. 

 

If Brady is a system QB then you are basically saying a system QB can have a top 3 all time season, the most SB's at his position, multiple MVP's and largely regarded as the most successful players of all time. In which case, at that point, who cares? Not being a system QB is unimpressive at that point because a system guy can be better than you ever could. It's just dumb, it literally diminishes everyone at the position. Who cares whose the GOAT if a system QB can do more?

 

[chad72]

The only thing definitive to me is Brady has had better Ds in terms of ppg allowed in all of his SB winning years, better O-lines during his initial 3 SB time frame, and hands down the best coach in the salary cap era by far in Belichick. 

 

Other than that, like I said before, a few things that have defined playoff wins and losses in favor of Brady and against Peyton to my eye test:

 

1. Brady's better arm strength against Ds that play press coverage thus resulting in more incompletion than INTs in the case of Peyton, plus post snap pocket presence which I felt was better than Peyton
2. QB sneaks that have helped Patriots control tempo by converting several 3rd & 1s, 4th & 1s, and even 4th & goal sometimes

 

1. Peyton's O-lines getting stuffed in the run game with teams daring him and the Colts to run not allowing him to dominate TOP while the opposite was true against Peyton's Ds with teams able to leave him on the sidelines in playoff games. Lo behold, they can run well once and they win the SB on the heels of the run game. 
2. Colts' special teams in the Polian era costing him precious field position time and time again in playoff games against the better Ds in the playoffs where points come at a premium, not to mention putting the O and D in a bad spot (I have numerous examples from Ellis Hobbs' kick returns in the 2006 AFCCG, Scifres punting show combined with Sproles' show vs Chargers, Dante Hall return TD in Chiefs 2003 divisional round, Devin Hester SB KR TD, Hank Basket muffed onside kick vs Saints, way more cases in the regular season).

 

None of it takes away what each QB has accomplished with their "systems" but it is hard to deny Brady has made the most out of his opportunities. The biggest difference in the last 2 SBs is the honorable mention of Julian Edelman. With Wes Welker in the slot, they are 0-2 and with Edelman, they are 2-0. Wes Welker was just as quick but he wasn't big enough to take the punishment that Edelman could take, neither was he as fiesty. You take Edelman out of the squad, they don't win either SBs.

 

[NorthernBlue]

4 hours ago, Synthetic said:

 

But they didn't...And the rest is history. 

 

The "what if" scenarios can be played for many Super Bowls, including the ones the Pats lost. What if Assante Samuel actually catches that gifted INT that Eli threw directly to him that he dropped? 

 

I'm sure if it was any other QB not named Brady, this board would be praising them for those comebacks and not making excuses for the Falcons and Seahawks....He's the only one that is overly criticized on here. Brady does amazing things, he's just a "system QB" or some excuse to ignore his greatness. 

 

The Falcons blew 5 games where they had a lead in the 4th quarter, including 3 of them where they were up by 10 or more points...Seattle in 2014 had serious issues that were clearly demonstrated with the NFCCG that Green Bay choked away. It's not like these teams handed the Pats SB's like many on this board seem to suggest. They screwed up and lost. It happens...

True. Fair point. All I'm saying is that (and I understand this is the case with all sports) but there are a number of scenarios outside Brady's control that have led to his success. Which is why I personally think that the GOAT discussion is kinda silly, but whatever. 

 

And btw this is a colts forum. Obviously we got our biases against Brady. Are you honestly gonna think we're all gonna lavishly praise the player who is literally the biggest rival to this city's best athlete?

[bluebombers87]

32 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

And Cassell being bright up is a horrible example that relies on putting no thought into the argument you are making. Cassell played somewhere else and played better. Cassell was a massive step down the year he took over for Brady. I could write a thesis at this point on why it's dumb to bring up Cassell. 

 

Especially when he's often used as a comparison to Painter's time on the Colts. No offense but Cassell was 10 times whatever the heck Painter was. So that comparison should be thrown out the window. 

 

Also Young is a great QB. So I don't even know why we are talking about him. 

 

If Brady is a system QB then you are basically saying a system QB can have a top 3 all time season, the most SB's at his position, multiple MVP's and largely regarded as the most successful players of all time. In which case, at that point, who cares? Not being a system QB is unimpressive at that point because a system guy can be better than you ever could. It's just dumb, it literally diminishes everyone at the position. Who cares whose the GOAT if a system QB can do more?

 

 

What world do you live in where Cassel played better than he did in NE? I found one year where he had a better rating than his time in NE and that was after he'd been in KC for a a bit. That's it. One time.

 

No ones comparing Painter to Cassel.

 

I said I'd be happy to discuss Young. 

 

And im saying he's a system QB.

[BloodyChamp]

Brady homers owe this homer's boy more than they know. Had he not showed up in NY and knocked off the Dolphins and Pats (and some other top AFC teams) the Pats probably would have made the playoffs. That alone would have kept that "didn't make the playoffs" angle out of this forever and spin it however you want but...it was Bill Belichik. His team would have been ready for playoff football. What were they going to do then? Lose like they always do?

 

And as for Cassell he sucks. Seriously. 

[footballhero1]

19 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

 

 

What world do you live in where Cassel played better than he did in NE? I found one year where he had a better rating than his time in NE and that was after he'd been in KC for a a bit. That's it. One time.

 

No ones comparing Painter to Cassel.

 

I said I'd be happy to discuss Young. 

 

And im saying he's a system QB.

Yeah he had a much better year a couple years later in KC than he did with a team that almost went undefeated. What did Painter ever do in the league besides embarrass himself? Cassell was a competent back up who did what he was supposed to and didn't match his 1st string counterpart 

 

You're right they don't compare Cassell and Painter, and they should because lot of people compare the 2008 Patriots to the 2011 Colts and then ignore the gulf between the two back ups. 

 

Young had arguably the best peak ever.

 

Brady played in more offensive schemes and system than Peyton, Favre, Montana, Starr, Young, Elway and many more. It changes ever year. If he's a system QB, then everyone is. And if everyone isn't and he is, it's worthless to be anything but a system QB based off what he did compared to everyone else. 

 

The bottomline is that whenever Cassel is mentioned you are basically saying Belichick's such a great coach and Brady is such a system QB that this great coaches best assembled team ever could ONLY go 11-5 with a back up who actually had a better year somewhere else on a much lesser team? What does they say about Belichick? 

[footballhero1]

15 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

Brady homers owe this homer's boy more than they know. Had he not showed up in NY and knocked off the Dolphins and Pats (and some other top AFC teams) the Pats probably would have made the playoffs. That alone would have kept that "didn't make the playoffs" angle out of this forever and spin it however you want but...it was Bill Belichik. His team would have been ready for playoff football. What were they going to do then? Lose like they always do?

 

And as for Cassell he sucks. Seriously. 

And he was still 10x better than anybody the Colts fielded in 2011. So the comparison between the two teams to prop up a quarterback shouldn't be made. 

[bluebombers87]

30 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

Yeah he had a much better year a couple years later in KC than he did with a team that almost went undefeated. What did Painter ever do in the league besides embarrass himself? Cassell was a competent back up who did what he was supposed to and didn't match his 1st string counterpart 

 

You're right they don't compare Cassell and Painter, and they should because lot of people compare the 2008 Patriots to the 2011 Colts and then ignore the gulf between the two back ups. 

 

Young had arguably the best peak ever.

 

Brady played in more offensive schemes and system than Peyton, Favre, Montana, Starr, Young, Elway and many more. It changes ever year. If he's a system QB, then everyone is. And if everyone isn't and he is, it's worthless to be anything but a system QB based off what he did compared to everyone else. 

 

The bottomline is that whenever Cassel is mentioned you are basically saying Belichick's such a great coach and Brady is such a system QB that this great coaches best assembled team ever could ONLY go 11-5 with a back up who actually had a better year somewhere else on a much lesser team? What does they say about Belichick? 

 

He's done it once.  And he wasn't great. He wasn't bad. He was average. The best he could do was average. He threw 6 more TDs but 500 fewer yards in his seasons with KC compared to his year at NE.

 

 Seriously I'm agreeing that Painter was worse than Cassel. Calm down.

 

And the reason you cannot compare 2008 Pats to 2011 Colts is that the Pats were the more complete team. Including but not limited to backup QBs. Brady benefited from having a better team around him. Sorry if that hurts your feelings but it's the truth. Manning accomplished more with less.

 

And I've already addressed your schemes argument. I disagree. Manning had run the same schemes at given times. He didnt rely on any one to succeed.

 

And I'll ask you this, how often does a team who loses its perennial starter go down, and still end with that high of a win percentage where the original starter came back and resumed starting the following year? 

[Gramz]

Haha. I thought I'd pop on to see what's going on here.  some things never change.

 

It will be fun to revisit this topic at the end of the season again.

 

I agree,with @Jules..... QB Homers need to chill.  Having been one myself, I now look back and see the ridiculousness of it.

 

I hope we see some excitement this season.  Last season almost did me in of being a fan of the NFL.

 

 

[footballhero1]

22 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

 

He's done it once.  And he wasn't great. He wasn't bad. He was average. The best he could do was average. He threw 6 more TDs but 500 fewer yards in his seasons with KC compared to his year at NE.

 

 Seriously I'm agreeing that Painter was worse than Cassel. Calm down.

 

And the reason you cannot compare 2008 Pats to 2011 Colts is that the Pats were the more complete team. Including but not limited to backup QBs. Brady benefited from having a better team around him. Sorry if that hurts your feelings but it's the truth. Manning accomplished more with less.

 

And I've already addressed your schemes argument. I disagree. Manning had run the same schemes at given times. He didnt rely on any one to succeed.

 

And I'll ask you this, how often does a team who loses its perennial starter go down, and still end with that high of a win percentage where the original starter came back and resumed starting the following year? 

 

How often does that happen to a 16-0 team that fielded an at minimum top 3 all time offense? 

[Gramz]

20 hours ago, Jules said:

Personally I think the GOAT thing is being overdone with Brady. It can be a jinx, Pats brought in um real goats and they got shirts etc.

 

so....this really happened?  I have been out of touch. I missed this completely.  Bless their hearts.  That's one way to have a in N.E.

[bluebombers87]

9 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

 

How often does that happen to a 16-0 team that fielded an at minimum top 3 all time offense? 

Well I can't say exactly but they probably have the greatest head coach in recent history and a pretty great system QB.

[Chrisaaron1023]

5 hours ago, Synthetic said:

 

The NFL has far more parity than the NBA has ever had. You can complain about the same team being in the AFCCG, but statistically, it's very hard to sustain success as long as the Patriots have done. 

 

Most dynasty teams get old and wear out. The 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers and 90's Cowboys all reached a point where age caught up with them and tore them down. To be fair, the Patriots did go 10 years between their 3rd and 4th Super Bowl win. 

 

It's not fair to compare this to the NBA though, cause the NBA definitely has a parity problem and has always been that way. I know everyone on this board hates the Patriots (except me!! I owe you all one for beating the Falcons!) but they are an exception to the rule of sustaining long term success. 

The NBA's parity problem has only been 2015-2017.. other than that sounds the same with different teams dominating decades. 

 

And yes Patriots went 10 years before winning again because Archie and Olivia had boys. Otherwise this dynasty would've been even longer and more potent. 

2006

2007

2011

2013

2015

Looks even more dominate huh.. now just add the couple they just won. It's not really hate at this point. Just GO AWAY you had your time lol. Talk about them doing you a favor beating the Falcons wth have the falcons ever done to the saints hahahah

 

[Chrisaaron1023]

32 minutes ago, Gramz said:

I hope we see some excitement this season.  Last season almost did me in of being a fan of the NFL.

Amen to this Gramz, same for me.