Imagine a quarterback with Favre's arm, Peyton's brain, Vick's legs and Brady's

[BloodyChamp]

...coach. 

[Colts_Fan12]

Good one lol Brady really isn't anything special without his coach

[crazycolt1]

Sorry, I am retired.

[JimJaime]

Lol "ability to come back no

matter the deficit. He holds the two greatest comebacks in SB History. 

[Colts_Fan12]

2 hours ago, JimJaime said:

Lol "ability to come back no

matter the deficit. He holds the two greatest comebacks in SB History. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night 

[IndyScribe]

He would break all the records in the NFL and become hands down the GOAT.

[Jackie Daytona]

I thought you were gonna say wife..... lol

[ReMeDy]

I hope Belichick retires before Brady does so we can see Brady play by himself. I'm genuinely curious to see how well Brady would do. I'm not saying he will be awful, but I don't see him playing nearly as well.

[IndyScribe]

2 minutes ago, ReMeDy said:

I hope Belichick retires before Brady does so we can see Brady play by himself. I'm genuinely curious to see how well Brady would do. I'm not saying he will be awful, but I don't see him playing nearly as well.

I doubt that happens. I believe this is Brady's last year. Belichick may be retiring soon after, but I can' see Brady retiring after Belichick. 

[Chrisaaron1023]

just one othe them before the other.. ir brady going to a different team. If they go at the same time.. they will have "double middle fingered" the rest of the "doubters" 

[Valpo2004]

17 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

I hope Belichick retires before Brady does so we can see Brady play by himself. I'm genuinely curious to see how well Brady would do. I'm not saying he will be awful, but I don't see him playing nearly as well.

 

It doesn't matter. . . By that time Brady will be 41 or older.  Any bad play from him will be blamed on age.  

[JimJaime]

Funny how the fans of Manning and Brady keep the rivalry alive when they themselves have nothing but respect for each other.. and Brady brain just as good as Manning what made both of them so special is their ability dissect defenses. It doesn't hurt that Brady has one of the best d minded coaches ever as his HC.

[dgambill]

20 hours ago, IndyScribe said:

I doubt that happens. I believe this is Brady's last year. Belichick may be retiring soon after, but I can' see Brady retiring after Belichick. 

Brady isn't retiring until he breaks all the records....which will be in a couple years at this rate. He is a competitive son of a gun and he wants to end all speculation of who is the best....have the rings and the records...case closed.

 

Also I would say that I'm not sure you could just put a player together that is so great and it would automatically lead them to be the greatest. Look at Tiger Woods...you can have it all and get side tracked and throw it away. Look at Jordan...you can get bored and look for something else. There is something to be said about all those players you mentioned though...they all faced adversity....whether it was being a 6th rd pick...high expectations...struggles early in their career, people saying they can't do it....what makes them great is what they do when they are up against it...how they bounce back etc. If its too easy sometimes people get soft...or distracted....all those QBs were excellent qbs...any you could start a franchise with and possibly win a SB with the right situation around them. They may have something about them...an arm, leg, brain, accuracy etc but its the drive...the desire to me that sets the greats apart.

[ReMeDy]

8 hours ago, dgambill said:

.what makes them great is what they do when they are up against it...how they bounce back etc

 

Yea, come to think of it, remember in 2011 when RGIII won the Heisman over Andrew Luck? Luck took it in stride. I also recall Peyton Manning having an atrocious first season of his career, then bouncing back quickly. There was also Jeff Saturday, who went undrafted. I could go on forever, but those are the most notable Colts ones.

[footballhero1]

12 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

It doesn't matter. . . By that time Brady will be 41 or older.  Any bad play from him will be blamed on age.  

The bigger question at this point is Belichick without Brady. Brady is 40. Any decline in play from here on out will, as you said, be attributed to age, and he'd be compared to every other QB who fell off around the time he did or earlier. 

 

Belichick on the other hand has more of a question mark if he doesn't do as well without Brady.Those teams aren't constant double digit win teams going to at least the AFCCG, then all of sudden it's going to be, he had * poor records without Brady to start his career, Brady fell in his lap and turned them into a Super Bowl dynasty and orchestrated some of the most important comebacks ever, and then fell back down to Earth without him. Then everything gets looked at differently. "Wow Belichick got outcoached by Dan Quinn until Brady started playing lights out, wow Belichick looked like he was about to get blown out by Seattle until Brady started showing up, wow Belichick really didn't have a great gameplan against the Giants, wow Belichick needed a QB who had only been a starter for one year to drive the ball in field goal range twice to seal the deal, wow that 16-0 team Belichick had went 11-5 and missed the playoffs against an easy schedule without Brady, wow Belichick's special team cost them homefield advantage against the Broncos in 2015 and then he got outcoached in the AFCCG until Brady started mounting a comeback and made it look close, wow the Ravens totally dismantled Belichick's team in the playoffs in 2008 and 2012, he got lucky with a missed field goal at home in 2011 and Brady had to come back from 2 different 14 point deficits to win the other one, wow Belichick's coaching blew a huge a lead against the Colts....etc".

 

Not saying that's true (the truth is more in the middle, it's both Belichick and Brady) but it's a perception thing. If Belichick starts his career mediocre and ends mediocre, and Brady ends up being the difference maker and where all his success comes from.... all of a sudden things get viewed in a different light.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

The bigger question at this point is Belichick without Brady. Brady is 40. Any decline in play from here on out will, as you said, be attributed to age, and he'd be compared to every other QB who fell off around the time he did or earlier. 

 

Belichick on the other hand has more of a question mark if he doesn't do as well without Brady.Those teams aren't constant double digit win teams going to at least the AFCCG, then all of sudden it's going to be, he had * poor records without Brady to start his career, Brady fell in his lap and turned them into a Super Bowl dynasty and orchestrated some of the most important comebacks ever, and then fell back down to Earth without him. Then everything gets looked at differently. "Wow Belichick got outcoached by Dan Quinn until Brady started playing lights out, wow Belichick looked like he was about to get blown out by Seattle until Brady started showing up, wow Belichick really didn't have a great gameplan against the Giants, wow Belichick needed a QB who had only been a starter for one year to drive the ball in field goal range twice to seal the deal, wow that 16-0 team Belichick had went 11-5 and missed the playoffs against an easy schedule without Brady, wow Belichick's special team cost them homefield advantage against the Broncos in 2015 and then he got outcoached in the AFCCG until Brady started mounting a comeback and made it look close, wow the Ravens totally dismantled Belichick's team in the playoffs in 2008 and 2012, he got lucky with a missed field goal at home in 2011 and Brady had to come back from 2 different 14 point deficits to win the other one, wow Belichick's coaching blew a huge a lead against the Colts....etc".

 

Not saying that's true (the truth is more in the middle, it's both Belichick and Brady) but it's a perception thing. If Belichick starts his career mediocre and ends mediocre, and Brady ends up being the difference maker and where all his success comes from.... all of a sudden things get viewed in a different light.

 

They will both probably retire together here in a couple of years so we will never know. I think it's 50/50 = both deserve about the same amount of credit but that is how great BB is, normally a QB would get more credit for winning. 50% for Brady is still good. In Manning's case all the teams he's played for, he deserves around 75% of the credit for winning with the exception of his last season because Denver's D carried him. Even having said that I don't think Denver wins the SB without Manning. I just don't think they would've got by the Pats. To Brady's credit, IMO the Pats don't have 5 SB wins without him though. Maybe a couple but not 5.

[footballhero1]

9 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They will both probably retire together here in a couple of years so we will never know. I think it's 50/50 = both deserve about the same amount of credit but that is how great BB is, normally a QB would get more credit for winning. 50% for Brady is still good. In Manning's case all the teams he's played for, he deserves around 75% of the credit for winning with the exception of his last season because Denver's D carried him. Even having said that I don't think Denver wins the SB without Manning. I just don't think they would've got by the Pats. To Brady's credit, IMO the Pats don't have 5 SB wins without him though. Maybe a couple but not 5.

 

Realistically without Brady maybe the 2004 team does it. The 2001 team was going nowhere with Bledsoe even if he stayed healthy, Brady wasn't great, but he was a revelation that the Patriots had a smart QB who showed poise, pocket presence, the ability to take care of the ball, and some strong instincts late in games. He was what a scrappy defense needed to keep momentum going. 2003 they absolutely needed him imo to beat Carolina. That was a light show. I'll leave 2004 up for debate, that was a strong team all around. I could make arguments either way. He was the reason they were even in the game vs Seattle and Atlanta and they have no chance without him. He also basically carried the 2011 defense to the Super Bowl and was having his best season ever in 2007. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

 

Realistically without Brady maybe the 2004 team does it. The 2001 team was going nowhere with Bledsoe even if he stayed healthy, Brady wasn't great, but he was a revelation that the Patriots had a smart QB who showed poise, pocket presence, the ability to take care of the ball, and some strong instincts late in games. He was what a scrappy defense needed to keep momentum going. 2003 they absolutely needed him imo to beat Carolina. That was a light show. I'll leave 2004 up for debate, that was a strong team all around. I could make arguments either way. He was the reason they were even in the game vs Seattle and Atlanta and they have no chance without him. He also basically carried the 2011 defense to the Super Bowl and was having his best season ever in 2007. 

Pretty much tough to argue any of that, in 2003 and 2004 your Defenses were loaded but it's impossible to prove had another QB that was just on a good level could've won with those teams. I just give Belichick a lot of credit, his game planning and ability to build teams is unmatched IMO. I totally agree without Brady they don't beat Seattle or Atlanta. I can even agree in 2006, Peyton's defense was a huge part why we won but without Peyton we would've never won the SB.

[GoPats]

On 9/4/2017 at 2:44 AM, BloodyChamp said:

...coach. 

 

 

 

 

But it's OK, 'cause... 

 

 

 

[Valpo2004]

8 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

The bigger question at this point is Belichick without Brady. Brady is 40. Any decline in play from here on out will, as you said, be attributed to age, and he'd be compared to every other QB who fell off around the time he did or earlier. 

 

Belichick on the other hand has more of a question mark if he doesn't do as well without Brady.Those teams aren't constant double digit win teams going to at least the AFCCG, then all of sudden it's going to be, he had * poor records without Brady to start his career, Brady fell in his lap and turned them into a Super Bowl dynasty and orchestrated some of the most important comebacks ever, and then fell back down to Earth without him. Then everything gets looked at differently. "Wow Belichick got outcoached by Dan Quinn until Brady started playing lights out, wow Belichick looked like he was about to get blown out by Seattle until Brady started showing up, wow Belichick really didn't have a great gameplan against the Giants, wow Belichick needed a QB who had only been a starter for one year to drive the ball in field goal range twice to seal the deal, wow that 16-0 team Belichick had went 11-5 and missed the playoffs against an easy schedule without Brady, wow Belichick's special team cost them homefield advantage against the Broncos in 2015 and then he got outcoached in the AFCCG until Brady started mounting a comeback and made it look close, wow the Ravens totally dismantled Belichick's team in the playoffs in 2008 and 2012, he got lucky with a missed field goal at home in 2011 and Brady had to come back from 2 different 14 point deficits to win the other one, wow Belichick's coaching blew a huge a lead against the Colts....etc".

 

Not saying that's true (the truth is more in the middle, it's both Belichick and Brady) but it's a perception thing. If Belichick starts his career mediocre and ends mediocre, and Brady ends up being the difference maker and where all his success comes from.... all of a sudden things get viewed in a different light.

 

 

Maybe he's not a SB champ without Brady, but say what you want but every single time Belichick has had to do without Brady he came away with a winning record.  

 

11-5 With Cassel and 3-1 with Garrapolo and Brisset.

 

How many coaches in this league have winning records with their backup quarterbacks?

 

How many of them have won 70% of their games with their backups?? 

 

And yes that 11-5 team was loaded but Belichick also was GM so he created that team.  And he did it with Matt Cassel who's not been a great QB anyplace else.

 

And also while Brady has put up good stats they have not been out of this world stats.  Rogers arguably has had better stats for example.  

 

On top of that, and I'd have to go back through but I remember checking and every year except 1 that the Pats won the SB they had a top 5 defense.  And in that one where they didn't have a top 5 defense I think they where still top 10.  Again this defense is assembled and coached by Belichick.  

 

I give the Belichek more credit then Brady for those championships.  Don't get me wrong he's a good QB, but there are a lot of good QB's out there.  There is nothing "special" about Brady that makes him somehow better at winning games then all of those others.  But Brady has always had a good team around him.  

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Dink & Dunk cheater.

[mikey287]

I was really dead against Brady in his early years. He just wasn't that good of a player in the 2001-2005 area. Not very noteworthy. Over time, he did improve considerably. I now regard him as one of the best in the game. 

 

That said, the mental gymnastics necessary to make him the best player of all-time requires insane weight on winning the three-game NFL playoff...it drags up Terry Bradshaw, Otto Graham, Troy Aikman, etc. and by drag up I mean "puts fairly irrelevant QBs (in terms of the top 10 or 20 QBs of all time) pretty snugly in the top 10 and probably top 5 in Bradshaw's case and puts Otto Graham just about out of reach for Brady even if he plays three more good or very good seasons"

 

You can pick and choose what you weight...but you can't pick and choose who you weight it for...

 

I'm a hockey fan by trade, so I always refer to this...Wayne Gretzky is about 1000 points ahead of the second best player in history in terms of points...it's on a scale of 3,000. Gretzky has a little less than 3,000, no one in league history has even tickled 2,000...if Gretzky won zero championships while being a 9x MVP, there's still virtually no case for him not being at the top of the heap. 

 

(Stop reading if you don't want more hockey knowledge) - there's an "iron four" in hockey history that are virtually untouchable. The order matters a little less, but these four are at the top and then there's a gap between 4 and 5. It's Gretzky, Orr, Howe and Lemieux. Gretzky's career really only overlapped with Lemieux's, and Gretzky and Lemieux never played each other in a Stanley Cup Final (or any playoff series, for that matter). So Lemieux doesn't add to his two championships. Howe doesn't add to his four (one of which he didn't play in the playoffs because his skull was fractured and he nearly died on the ice). Orr doesn't add to his two, one of which was against the expansion Blues. So it's not like any of them have a monopoly on championships to overtake Gretzky. So if you love championships and I mean really love them, you look down to what I consider the fifth best player ever: Jean Beliveau, he won 10. And was such a good playoff player that they practically invented a playoff MVP trophy in his honor (Conn Smythe Trophy, 1965). But that means you have to bring a bunch of other Montreal Canadiens forward in line to justify Beliveau being near Gretzky...Henri Richard's 11 Cups come to mind...but he was never all that close to being the MVP of the league and was only once voted the best of his position, a year that Beliveau was hurt for a bit, in fact...

 

*exhale*

 

So the idea is...you can make claims about this and that, but it's gotta be consistent. You have a QB in Brady that can't make all the throws (his deep ball is in the bottom tier of NFL starters and has been his entire career), a guy who was really just a game manager for the first three Super Bowls...he came around and won two as a star, and if you're looking to explain them away - you could make the claim that both teams he was playing imploded (Seattle not giving it to Marshawn Lynch and Atlolnta)...but that's not really fair, because that's not his fault those teams got bad...I mean, Christ, the P Man played Rex Grossman in a Super Bowl. It takes a little luck to win them, no question. But what you set as a level for measure needs to be distributed relatively evenly across the field or else you're just having your cake and eating it too...which creates silliness...

 

Sorry, I didn't post here all offseason so this was probably said 250,000 times already...

[BloodyChamp]

There is no question about Belichik without Brady. Even if he didn't sack Elway in the endzone to all but put away that SB like Brady intercepted Wilson in the endzone to put away that SB, he's a good coach without Brady. If you had to think of a question it would be whether or not he was in the GOAT discussion or not. The guy won 2 rings as a DC, and had the Browns on the right track before Modell dropped that bomb. Ya'll act like he was 0-2 working on an 0-16 season they year Brady came in. I'm a homer to, the Ole Gunslinger, but I think Holmgren would have won a game or 2 in 1992 without Favre. O and he turned down a coaching gig if you remember. How often does that happen (to a guy looking for a job in the NFL anyway)? It doesn't happen unless the guy knows he's a good coach.

[BloodyChamp]

4 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

 

 

 

But it's OK, 'cause... 

 

 

 

 

That would explain the cheating.

[footballhero1]

4 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Maybe he's not a SB champ without Brady, but say what you want but every single time Belichick has had to do without Brady he came away with a winning record.  

 

11-5 With Cassel and 3-1 with Garrapolo and Brisset.

 

How many coaches in this league have winning records with their backup quarterbacks?

 

How many of them have won 70% of their games with their backups?? 

 

And yes that 11-5 team was loaded but Belichick also was GM so he created that team.  And he did it with Matt Cassel who's not been a great QB anyplace else.

 

And also while Brady has put up good stats they have not been out of this world stats.  Rogers arguably has had better stats for example.  

 

On top of that, and I'd have to go back through but I remember checking and every year except 1 that the Pats won the SB they had a top 5 defense.  And in that one where they didn't have a top 5 defense I think they where still top 10.  Again this defense is assembled and coached by Belichick.  

 

I give the Belichek more credit then Brady for those championships.  Don't get me wrong he's a good QB, but there are a lot of good QB's out there.  There is nothing "special" about Brady that makes him somehow better at winning games then all of those others.  But Brady has always had a good team around him.  

The problem is that's not even remotely true. 

 

This has always been the problem. Belichick's career without Brady is always boiled down to a little over 1/7 of his actual career without him at QB to prove his greatness. Imagine if I took Peyton's first couple of years and last season and said "look he's not really good when he's taken out of his system and doesn't have super high quality offenses". It's not a fair comparison because it's such a small sample size based off what actually exists to compare it to. 

 

Belichick didn't have 1 season and 4 games without Brady. He had 7 seasons and 5 games without him. 

 

His record without Brady is 55-63. .466 win percentage. 1 playoff win. 

 

With Brady it's 183-52. .773 win percentage. 25 playoff wins (NFL record)

 

He has over 10 more losses in 7 years without Brady than 15 with him. 

 

Theres no spin factor that accounts for how big that discrepancy is. Someone said he was righting the ship on the Browns. He started with a 6 win season, then had two 7 win seasons (hardly an improvement) he has a single good 11 win season, then dropped all the way back to 5 after the Modell ball. One winning season out of five seasons isn't righting a ship. 6, 7, 7, 11, 5, 5, 11, then two losses without Brady to start 2001 and 3 wins and 1 loss to start 2016 without Brady (who went 11-1 and then 3 playoff wins). That's not good. Now you can jump through hoops and try to take away 5 losing seasons and all the good stuff but that's not reality. 

 

He simply is either her mediocre or outright bad without Brady. He spent most of his time without Brady with two pretty good quarterbacks in Kosar and Bledsoe. He didn't do well with them. He took one of the best offenses of all time with Brady, against a crap schedule that allowed the 1-15 Dolphins in 2007 to go 11-5 in 2007, with a QB who won 10 games on a much lesser Kansas City team a couple of years later and only won 11 games off that. It's not that good in context. Yeah he went 3-1 last year without Brady on a team where Brady went on 14-1 run when he came back. 4 of his 5 Super Bowls came down Brady leading game winning drives. The latter two being two of the best 4th quarter QB performances in Super Bowl history. 

 

Again you can make all the excuses you want, there is a massive gulf of Belichick's performances with and without Brady. And it is telling that the only way someone can make it look good is to spin it and make excuses why 5 of the 7 seasons shouldn't count. 

[mikey287]

Yeah, I think that's really a "surface level" view for lack of a better term...it needs some more context. It's also very difficult to evaluate coaches as most people have no idea what coaches do (not the job description itself, but the actions themselves). Just dusting your hands at win-loss records and going 'well, that settles that" is just as disingenuous as anointing a player to be the greatest anything because he won more team titles in a span that only seems to really count from the 1966 or 1970 and on despite pro football existing for several decades prior. 

 

The coach and the QB aren't the only two pieces on the field. I'm always looking to learn, so if we want to take a deeper dive on things, I'd be more than happy to participate but...wins and losses is a playground level argument whether you're for or against the situation. Let's look at the player himself, the team around the coach and the player and the respective situations...ought to be a year by year breakdown of scenarios, as opposed to just spitting up two decades worth of W-L as if all those wins and losses are congruent somehow... 

[footballhero1]

34 minutes ago, mikey287 said:

Yeah, I think that's really a "surface level" view for lack of a better term...it needs some more context. It's also very difficult to evaluate coaches as most people have no idea what coaches do (not the job description itself, but the actions themselves). Just dusting your hands at win-loss records and going 'well, that settles that" is just as disingenuous as anointing a player to be the greatest anything because he won more team titles in a span that only seems to really count from the 1966 or 1970 and on despite pro football existing for several decades prior. 

 

The coach and the QB aren't the only two pieces on the field. I'm always looking to learn, so if we want to take a deeper dive on things, I'd be more than happy to participate but...wins and losses is a playground level argument whether you're for or against the situation. Let's look at the player himself, the team around the coach and the player and the respective situations...ought to be a year by year breakdown of scenarios, as opposed to just spitting up two decades worth of W-L as if all those wins and losses are congruent somehow... 

 

That would be fine if the argument I wasn't constantly replying to wasn't entirely based off win-loss record. 

 

I think if someone is arguing based off of 11-5 and 3-1 it is perfectly fair to point out that is an extremely selective sample that is packaged into an overall 55-63 record. I think it's also worth pointing out the 11-5 followed up a 16-0 year and the 3-1 was followed by a Brady going 14-1 including a Super Bowl run.

[BloodyChamp]

He named the last 2 examples. If you want to bring other seasons over 20 years old into it then tell the whole story (extremely selective hmmm). The Browns were 11-5 and 4-4 the last 2 seasons of that run which only ended badly because they basically moved the team in the middle of the year. I guess there is 1 legit gripe. Bill can't win when the owner decides to move the team in the middle of the season. Fraud!

[footballhero1]

21 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

He named the last 2 examples. If you want to bring other seasons over 20 years old into it then tell the whole story (extremely selective hmmm). The Browns were 11-5 and 4-4 the last 2 seasons of that run which only ended badly because they basically moved the team in the middle of the year. I guess there is 1 legit gripe. Bill can't win when the owner decides to move the team in the middle of the season. Fraud!

Then you tell the whole story too. You said Bill had the Browns trending in the right direction he had a 6 win, 7 win, and 7 win season. That stagnation. He had one 11-5 win season, which wasn't enough to win the division that year (funny how Belichick's two best years without Brady came in years where he still couldn't win the division). And then any chance of seeing if he could build on that was hurt when Belichick by his own admission completely lost control of the team (part of that is on his ability to maintain control) so no. He had 3 very similar subpar seasons, and one above average one. 

 

Again im not the person who jumps through hoops to only count a season and a quarter out of a 7 game sample size. I'm not the one who makes excuses for his lack of excuses on the Browns, I'm not the one who makes excuses for why he was terrible with Bledsoe, I'm not the one who ever refuses to address that Belichick went from 16-0 to 11-5 with virtually the same team with a schedule that featured 2 divisions where the best team was 9-7 and their division rival was able to play virtually the same schedule to jump from 1-15 to 11-5 to win the division. Im not the one who ignores that Cassell left Belichick and had double digit wins somewhere else. I'm not the one who can't explain why Belichick has one single playoff win in 7 years without Brady and holds the record with him. 

 

Again in its dubious to accuse people of not telling the whole story when the only story you want to talk about is 15% of it where Belichick actually had a worse record than the previous year and was still below his average with Brady despite playing one of the worst schedules he ever had and having one of the best teams he ever had. 

[GoPats]

3 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

That would explain the cheating.

 

I wouldn't expect a Brett Favre fan to understand good quarterback play.

 

 

6 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

Dink & Dunk cheater.

 

"Dink & Dunk" is so 2004. 

 

 

[footballhero1]

Favre was a good QB but he is highly overrated for his best years being in a so-so QB era. Peak Warner, Montana, Brady, Manning, Marino are all better 

[horseshoecrabs]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 6:53 PM, ReMeDy said:

I hope Belichick retires before Brady does so we can see Brady play by himself. I'm genuinely curious to see how well Brady would do. I'm not saying he will be awful, but I don't see him playing nearly as well.

I would like to know if he could win like he did on another team but he would never chance it. I think

Brady developed into a good QB with his current system. whether that would have happened on another

team when he first came in the league we will never know!

[horseshoecrabs]

My question would have been how many super bowls could Peyton have won with the patriots?

[BloodyChamp]

51 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

21 minutes ago, footballhero1 said:

You said Bill had the Browns trending in the right direction he had a 6 win, 7 win, and 7 win season. 

 

 

The Browns were 11-5 and 4-4 the last 2 seasons of that run

 

That is what I said amfootball. I forgot you came back disguised as Colts fan. @Gramz is going roast me.

[BloodyChamp]

9 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

I wouldn't expect a Brett Favre fan to understand good quarterback play.

 

Mad ^

[Gramz]

6 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

That is what I said amfootball. I forgot you came back disguised as Colts fan. @Gramz is going roast me.

    Leave me out of this....

 

[footballhero1]

15 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

My question would have been how many super bowls could Peyton have won with the patriots?

It honestly is unknowable. Belichick would put Manning through entirely different circumstances.

 

-Manning was the defacto OC on most of his teams, Belichick would never cede that much authority to Peyton, and Belichick has Kraft's backing. 

 

-Belichick would never stack an offense with Harrison, Wayne, and Clark and pay them all for years the way the colts did, he'd play most of his career with guys like Edelman, Welker, Branch, and Troy Brown.

 

-Belichick really doesn't like Brady zoning in on one receiver too much and has chewed him out for it. Peyton did that a lot with Harrison and Wayne.

 

So yeah maybe he could win as many, he's still really good, it's just you wouldn't talk about him the same way, he'd be viewed more like Brady. 

[footballhero1]

18 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

Mad ^

^ mad enough to make thread 

[Gramz]

On 9/4/2017 at 2:44 AM, BloodyChamp said:

...coach. 

   I have been out of the loop lately.   Having a hard time getting back in the mood for football, but hopefully that will change once the season gets underway.   

 

Favre's arm, Peyton's brains, Vick's legs, and Brady's Coach....   Yep, that would certainly be a phenomenom  alright.

[mikey287]

2 hours ago, footballhero1 said:

 

That would be fine if the argument I wasn't constantly replying to wasn't entirely based off win-loss record. 

 

I think if someone is arguing based off of 11-5 and 3-1 it is perfectly fair to point out that is an extremely selective sample that is packaged into an overall 55-63 record. I think it's also worth pointing out the 11-5 followed up a 16-0 year and the 3-1 was followed by a Brady going 14-1 including a Super Bowl run.

 

Boy...this is really went off the rails fast. Let me play...

 

Re: quoted. That doesn't mean you need to stoop down to that level. Elevate the conversation above people's heads so they're less likely to respond with nonsense. Garbage in, garbage out doesn't bring any satisfactory conclusion to what could be a very worthwhile discussion.