Mahomes vs. Brady Mirror of Namath vs Unitas?

[King Colt]

You could make a case to draw a comparison mostly because the QBs are the focus of the games. I think despite Hoody's reputation of attacking the strong points of a team Mahomes breaks the mold because of his style regardless NE's excellent secondary. Maybe the highest scoring championship playoff game in a long time.

[Shadow_Creek]

24 minutes ago, King Colt said:

You could make a case to draw a comparison mostly because the QBs are the focus of the games. I think despite Hoody's reputation of attacking the strong points of a team Mahomes breaks the mold because of his style regardless NE's excellent secondary. Maybe the highest scoring championship playoff game in a long time.

nah usually the chiefs own NE at home i see a one sided beat down

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 hours ago, King Colt said:

You could make a case

 

Were you going to make that case, or are we supposed to use our imagination?

 

Cuz I don't see it. 

 

Did one of them guarantee a win on Sunday or something?

[LJpalmbeacher2]

To compare the great Unitas to a dinking dunking cheater is a INSULT.

[King Colt]

19 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Were you going to make that case, or are we supposed to use our imagination?

 

Cuz I don't see it. 

 

Did one of them guarantee a win on Sunday or something?

Oh, you are so-o-o-o right .....again, there is no comparison whatsoever. 

[King Colt]

22 hours ago, Shadow_Creek said:

nah usually the chiefs own NE at home i see a one sided beat down

I would like to see it but a beat down I am trying to remember when the Pats got hammered and I know it happened but I don't think it will happen tomorrow but if your right I don't think you'll get any hate mail!!!!!

[crazycolt1]

12 hours ago, King Colt said:

Oh, you are so-o-o-o right .....again, there is no comparison whatsoever. 

Namath and Unitas played in an era where the QB was not protected.

Mahomes and Brady have zero in common with that era of football.

[King Colt]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Namath and Unitas played in an era where the QB was not protected.

Mahomes and Brady have zero in common with that era of football.

Protected??? Tell that to Andrew Luck. ha-ha-ha

[buccolts]

Barn burner

[jvan1973]

Does anyone other than the OP see any similarities AT ALL?

[The Old Crow]

Johnny was injured much of 1968. If he was 100 % , the Colts would have crushed the Jets, and Namath would have been the footnote in NFL history he should have been. 

[Robert Johnson]

Earl Morral started at QB in that superbowl

[The Old Crow]

Earl was also the 1968 NFL MVP. Still, Unitas should have been in way earlier. I get Shula starting Earl, but after some of those mistakes, he should have went to Johnny before it was too late. 

[GoPats]

On 1/19/2019 at 11:54 AM, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

To compare the great Unitas to a dinking dunking cheater is a INSULT.

 

Brady left Unitas in the rear-view 10 years ago. 

 

No disrespected intended toward an all-time great, but Johnny U. isn't even in the discussion anymore. Sorry to lay that reality on you. 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Brady left Unitas in the rear-view 10 years ago. 

 

No disrespected intended toward an all-time great, but Johnny U. isn't even in the discussion anymore. Sorry to lay that reality on you. 

 

 

If all fairness don't you think the eras are totally different?

Do you honestly think Brady would be playing at 40 if he took the beatings that Unitas, Y A Tittle and most all of the QBs who played before the rules were put in place that made them prima donnas?

[Gramz]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

If all fairness don't you think the eras are totally different?

Do you honestly think Brady would be playing at 40 if he took the beatings that Unitas, Y A Tittle and most all of the QBs who played before the rules were put in place that made them prima donnas?

No. Not a chance.

[Gramz]

20 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Does anyone other than the OP see any similarities AT ALL?

No.

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, The Old Crow said:

Earl was also the 1968 NFL MVP. Still, Unitas should have been in way earlier. I get Shula starting Earl, but after some of those mistakes, he should have went to Johnny before it was too late. 

Earl never got the kudos he deserved for the wins he had in the Dolphins undefeated season.

Earl was a Shula man for sure.

[MPStack]

5 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Brady left Unitas in the rear-view 10 years ago. 

 

No disrespected intended toward an all-time great, but Johnny U. isn't even in the discussion anymore. Sorry to lay that reality on you. 

 

 

 

Unitas didn't have any asterisk!

[horseshoecrabs]

Namath , had nothing to lose by guaranteeing a victory, in that era. He was bombarded with the press at that time dogging him about how great the Colts team was. Broadway Joe was a good marketer at the time . He pushed the right buttons, saying that the back up QB to Unitas, Morrow

was very average and how better the QB's in the American football team was. The over confidence,  reared it ugly head . His only great feat at QB was that game, and because we under estimated the American football league, at that time. And if my memory serves me, the next time we played them we slaughtered , the Jets!  

[LJpalmbeacher2]

11 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Brady left Unitas in the rear-view 10 years ago. 

 

No disrespected intended toward an all-time great, but Johnny U. isn't even in the discussion anymore. Sorry to lay that reality on you. 

 

 

 

 I'm sure Unitas used to throw the ball downfield compared to the dinking and dunking your guy does. And all of Unitas's Championships were considered Legit. The opposite for brady.

No offense intended toward you.

[The Old Crow]

11 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Brady left Unitas in the rear-view 10 years ago. 

 

No disrespected intended toward an all-time great, but Johnny U. isn't even in the discussion anymore. Sorry to lay that reality on you. 

 

 

 

Three NFL Championships and a Super Bowl win without all the protections Brady has received. Plus as others have said, Unitas has no Shennanigan related Championships. No sign stealing , deflated footballs , or flaky formations with Johnny U !

[GoPats]

 

20 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

If all fairness don't you think the eras are totally different?

Do you honestly think Brady would be playing at 40 if he took the beatings that Unitas, Y A Tittle and most all of the QBs who played before the rules were put in place that made them prima donnas?

 

Thanks for an actual response and not just an insulting jab! 

 

No of course he wouldn't still be playing at 41. That doesn't really mean anything relative to comparing the two, however. 

 

Unitas also didn't have to play every game against the same kind of elite, freakish athletes that are in today's NFL. Guys are faster, bigger, and stronger. 

 

You can't directly compare eras. You just won't find very many people who really know football who would tell you that Unitas was better than Brady has been.

 

 

[King Colt]

The sole purpose of my OP was just comparing the two games recalling John Facenda's narrative in the NFL Films video featuring the Jets vs. the Colts when Unitas was called in near game's end saying something like one last chance for the grand old master hinting his time had finally come to an end and Namath would be crowned the victor. Unitas walked on water to me back then and that NFL film is one of Facenda's best narratives.

 

He also said "Football is a game that starts with a whistle and ends with a gun."

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

 

Thanks for an actual response and not just an insulting jab! 

 

No of course he wouldn't still be playing at 41. That doesn't really mean anything relative to comparing the two, however. 

 

Unitas also didn't have to play every game against the same kind of elite, freakish athletes that are in today's NFL. Guys are faster, bigger, and stronger. 

 

You can't directly compare eras. You just won't find very many people who really know football who would tell you that Unitas was better than Brady has been.

 

 

Overlooking and disregarding the history of the NFL is what people do when they only concentrate on what they know or let their fandom enter the picture.

I said in a different thread that Manning, Brady and the new and upcoming QBs are playing in an era where the QBs are treated like prima donnas. The owners pass rules that protect their franchise QBs. (understandable) . Brady is a fantastic QB but if you put Manning, Fouts and Marino and maybe a couple of other QBs in Brady's position they would have been just as successful.

The key to Brady's success is Belichick. 

In the playoffs Brady has been the recipient of quite a few breaks with the teams he played gave the game away. He also has won a couple of games where the Refs gave him the chance to win games. (tuck rule as an example)  Just this last week he won a game because of a bone head play by the Chiefs. Brady has won a lot of game with skill but luck has played a huge part of it.

[GoPats]

31 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Overlooking and disregarding the history of the NFL is what people do when they only concentrate on what they know or let their fandom enter the picture.

I said in a different thread that Manning, Brady and the new and upcoming QBs are playing in an era where the QBs are treated like prima donnas. The owners pass rules that protect their franchise QBs. (understandable) . Brady is a fantastic QB but if you put Manning, Fouts and Marino and maybe a couple of other QBs in Brady's position they would have been just as successful.

The key to Brady's success is Belichick. 

In the playoffs Brady has been the recipient of quite a few breaks with the teams he played gave the game away. He also has won a couple of games where the Refs gave him the chance to win games. (tuck rule as an example)  Just this last week he won a game because of a bone head play by the Chiefs. Brady has won a lot of game with skill but luck has played a huge part of it.

 

The sentence in bold is where you lost me and, quite frankly, where your integrity comes into question on this issue.

 

The idea that a great coach can produce the most accomplished QB in the history of the NFL is beyond far-fetched. Coaching is important, but every NFL team talks about execution. 

 

You're basically saying that Brady could be ANY player, and that over the course of almost 20 years, where he has been the ONLY constant on the field, he is interchangeable with several other players. 

 

That, right there, is a Colts fan being reluctant to give Brady his due. 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

The sentence in bold is where you lost me and, quite frankly, where your integrity comes into question on this issue.

 

The idea that a great coach can produce the most accomplished QB in the history of the NFL is beyond far-fetched. Coaching is important, but every NFL team talks about execution. 

 

You're basically saying that Brady could be ANY player, and that over the course of almost 20 years, where he has been the ONLY constant on the field, he is interchangeable with several other players. 

 

That, right there, is a Colts fan being reluctant to give Brady his due. 

 

 

Now your fandom aimed at Brady is showing.

.If you don't think a head coach has the most influence over a QB and the whole team I don't know what to tell you.

What was the record of the Patriots for the games played without Brady?

I suppose you think Bill Walsh had nothing to do with the success of Montana and Young?

I suppose you think Jimmy Johnson had nothing to do with the success of Aikman?

Of coarse Lomardi didn't do anything for Starr.

Every team in the NFL are looking for head coaches that can make their team successful. If they don't, they are fired.

Belichick has taken whatever team he has put together and made winners out of them.

What you seem to forget is no QB can get any wins without a total team around him. They are as only as good as the other players play as a team. Belichick has the system and the knowledge to put those teams together.

When any QB gets a win the very first thing they say it's all about the team. That is not something said to please the fans wanting to put him on a pedestal.

As far as my integrity, I am not the one who comes into a Patriot forum and insults the intelligence of being open minded.

[The Old Crow]

Unitas is the greatest because he was the innovator , the originator , of today’s modern passing offense. He created the two minute drill. He won three NFL Championships , and a Super Bowl. He would have won more, except that his body was so beaten up by the end. Johnny didn’t get the benefit of a defensive player brushing him with his arm and getting a penalty , like Brady got against a Chief’s defender. Johnny had to take the full hits against the likes of Dick Butkus and Merlin Olsen , to name a few. Without Unitas, there is no Brady. Your coach Belichick was lucky to get a break with his first job with the Baltimore Colts. So basically, without Unitas , there is no Brady, and without the Baltimore Colts giving Belichick a chance , his career is different. So all of you Patriot braggers our there, take some time to tip your caps to Unitas and the old Baltimore Colts !!!

[Gramz]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

What you seem to forget is no QB can get any wins without a total team around him. They are as only as good as the other players.

Aaron Rodgers immediately comes to mind after reading this.  Look at his team this year.  Awful..and he didn't make the playoffs. One of the better QBs for sure.

[GoPats]

17 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Now your fandom aimed at Brady is showing.

.If you don't think a head coach has the most influence over a QB and the whole team I don't know what to tell you.

What was the record of the Patriots for the games played without Brady?

I suppose you think Bill Walsh had nothing to do with the success of Montana and Young?

I suppose you think Jimmy Johnson had nothing to do with the success of Aikman?

Of coarse Lomardi didn't do anything for Starr.

Every team in the NFL are looking for head coaches that can make their team successful. If they don't, they are fired.

Belichick has taken whatever team he has put together and made winners out of them.

What you seem to forget is no QB can get any wins without a total team around him. They are as only as good as the other players play as a team. Belichick has the system and the knowledge to put those teams together.

When any QB gets a win the very first thing they say it's all about the team. That is not something said to please the fans wanting to put him on a pedestal.

As far as my integrity, I am not the one who comes into a Patriot forum and insults the intelligence of being open minded.

 

Sorry if I got too personal in my last response. I wrote all of that poorly and conveyed the wrong tone. 

 

Colts fans have been making the same argument for over 10 years now when it comes to the 2008 season (when Brady tore his ACL and the Patriots went 11-5). But did you watch every New England game that season? Matt Cassel is no superstar, but he is LIGHT YEARS ahead of anyone that Indy had in Manning's lost season. 

 

I can see --- if someone just checked the final standings for 2008 and said, "Hmm, 11-5..." ---  how they would come to the conclusion that Brady was easily replaced by Cassel. The 2007 team (that went 16-0 regular season) wasn't really dismantled until 2009. In 2008, it was essentially the same roster. Cassel started 15 games and went 10-5. He played well... but the drop-off from Brady was significant:

 

Brady 2007: 

- 68.9 completion %

- 4806 yards

- 50 TDs, 8 INTs 

 

Cassel 2008:

- 63.4 completion %

- 3693 yards

- 21 TDs, 11 INTs 

 

And just for good measure... Brady had 578 pass attempts in 2007, while Cassel had 516 in 2008. Pretty close. Divided by 16 games, that's 36.12 attempts/game for Brady, and 32.25 attempts/game for Cassel. 

 

Five fewer wins... 589 points in 2007, 410 points in 2008... twice as many passing TDs... fewer picks than Cassel, even though Brady had more attempts. 

 

All I'm saying is that boiling it down to "the Patriots went 11-5 without Brady in 2008" is oversimplifying a situation that --- in many cases --- is agenda-driven, not objective. When you look at the specifics it becomes pretty clear. 

 

If you want to get into 2016, when Brady was suspended, they again had a very capable backup in Jimmy G, and a capable 3rd stringer in Brissett. Worth noting, though, that one of Brissett's starts was the first time the Patriots were shut out at Gillette stadium in something like 20-25 years. They went 3-1 and really didn't beat anyone of note in that first quarter of the season.

 

Anyway... 

 

Of course Belichick has had an enormous hand in the overall success of the team. He's the Godfather, the Big Boss, the Man in Charge. As a coach, he has no equal, in my opinion. But as a GM, he's had good moments and bad ones, and has constantly shuffled the cast of characters and skill players surrounding Brady. He's also had some moments (ie: benching Malcolm Butler in last year's Super Bowl) that were borderline inexplicable. 

 

 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

Sorry if I got too personal in my last response. I wrote all of that poorly and conveyed the wrong tone. 

 

Colts fans have been making the same argument for over 10 years now when it comes to the 2008 season (when Brady tore his ACL and the Patriots went 11-5). But did you watch every New England game that season? Matt Cassel is no superstar, but he is LIGHT YEARS ahead of anyone that Indy had in Manning's lost season. 

 

I can see --- if someone just checked the final standings for 2008 and said, "Hmm, 11-5..." ---  how they would come to the conclusion that Brady was easily replaced by Cassel. The 2007 team (that went 16-0 regular season) wasn't really dismantled until 2009. In 2008, it was essentially the same roster. Cassel started 15 games and went 10-5. He played well... but the drop-off from Brady was significant:

 

Brady 2007: 

- 68.9 completion %

- 4806 yards

- 50 TDs, 8 INTs 

 

Cassel 2008:

- 63.4 completion %

- 3693 yards

- 21 TDs, 11 INTs 

 

And just for good measure... Brady had 578 pass attempts in 2007, while Cassel had 516 in 2008. Pretty close. Divided by 16 games, that's 36.12 attempts/game for Brady, and 32.25 attempts/game for Cassel. 

 

Five fewer wins... 589 points in 2007, 410 points in 2008... twice as many passing TDs... fewer picks than Cassel, even though Brady had more attempts. 

 

All I'm saying is that boiling it down to "the Patriots went 11-5 without Brady in 2008" is oversimplifying a situation that --- in many cases --- is agenda-driven, not objective. When you look at the specifics it becomes pretty clear. 

 

If you want to get into 2016, when Brady was suspended, they again had a very capable backup in Jimmy G, and a capable 3rd stringer in Brissett. Worth noting, though, that one of Brissett's starts was the first time the Patriots were shut out at Gillette stadium in something like 20-25 years. They went 3-1 and really didn't beat anyone of note in that first quarter of the season.

 

Anyway... 

 

Of course Belichick has had an enormous hand in the overall success of the team. He's the Godfather, the Big Boss, the Man in Charge. As a coach, he has no equal, in my opinion. But as a GM, he's had good moments and bad ones, and has constantly shuffled the cast of characters and skill players surrounding Brady. He's also had some moments (ie: benching Malcolm Butler in last year's Super Bowl) that were borderline inexplicable. 

 

 

 

 

I gave my respect to Brady. I did not let my fandom say Manning was better as some Colts fan has said just for arguments sake.

Calling any QB in football the GOAT depends on so many things falling in place. Who caught those passes he threw? Who gave him the blocking to make those passes complete? What RBs made the passing game work? What RB got those TDs when needed?  What kicker hit those game winning kicks?

What about the defense who made stops, interceptions and forced fumbles at opportune times?

Like I said, QBs are as only as successful as the team put around them.

Brady and all the great QBs of every era all had one thing in common. There were all on great teams.

Fandom calls for the QBs to get all the fame even tho football is a team game.

 

[GoPats]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I gave my respect to Brady. I did not let my fandom say Manning was better as some Colts fan has said just for arguments sake.

Calling any QB in football the GOAT depends on so many things falling in place. Who caught those passes he threw? Who gave him the blocking to make those passes complete? What RBs made the passing game work? What RB got those TDs when needed?  What kicker hit those game winning kicks?

What about the defense who made stops, interceptions and forced fumbles at opportune times?

Like I said, QBs are as only as successful as the team put around them.

Brady and all the great QBs of every era all had one thing in common. There were all on great teams.

Fandom calls for the QBs to get all the fame even tho football is a team game.

 

 

Some good points by you. The only thing I'd say in response is that, when you do what Brady has done over the course of 18 seasons, it makes a lot of the questions you asked (in bold) null and void. A guy doesn't "get lucky" or get carried by his team or coach for almost two decades. Brady has been the one constant (on the field). His line has changed, skill positions have changed, his defense has evolved, they've undergone changes to their coaching staff, etc. But he brings it all together, regardless of the faces around him. 

 

And while the 2008 team did fairly well without him, I don't think you could say the same if Brian Hoyer was quarterbacking them this year. 

 

Like I said though, I completely get your point and it's totally valid. 

 

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

Some good points by you. The only thing I'd say in response is that, when you do what Brady has done over the course of 18 seasons, it makes a lot of the questions you asked (in bold) null and void. A guy doesn't "get lucky" or get carried by his team or coach for almost two decades. Brady has been the one constant (on the field). His line has changed, skill positions have changed, his defense has evolved, they've undergone changes to their coaching staff, etc. But he brings it all together, regardless of the faces around him. 

 

And while the 2008 team did fairly well without him, I don't think you could say the same if Brian Hoyer was quarterbacking them this year. 

 

Like I said though, I completely get your point and it's totally valid. 

 

Please, saying a team is null and void is horse dung. Brady has never did anything on the field that was not made possible by team mates.

You are still letting your fandom dictate who you think the GOAT is.

We can debate this till hades freezes over and I will stand by my opinion.

[GoPats]

11 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Please, saying a team is null and void is horse dung. Brady has never did anything on the field that was not made possible by team mates.

You are still letting your fandom dictate who you think the GOAT is.

We can debate this till hades freezes over and I will stand by my opinion.

 

This really started with your comment:

 

"Brady is a fantastic QB but if you put Manning, Fouts and Marino and maybe a couple of other QBs in Brady's position they would have been just as successful."

 

Sorry but I find that to be 100% speculation. It's not fact. You don't KNOW what any of those guys would have done in Brady's position. Assuming they would have done just as well is discrediting Brady for his accomplishments. 

 

Brady has done this over the course of his (very long) career with an almost constantly-evolving cast of characters around him on offense, and defenses that have ranged anywhere from "outstanding" to "truly bad." So to an extent, it doesn't matter who's around him, he's been successful regardless. Belichick and Brady are the reasons the Patriots have been competitive for the past 18 seasons. They've both been integral and irreplaceable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

This really started with your comment:

 

"Brady is a fantastic QB but if you put Manning, Fouts and Marino and maybe a couple of other QBs in Brady's position they would have been just as successful."

 

Sorry but I find that to be 100% speculation. It's not fact. You don't KNOW what any of those guys would have done in Brady's position. Assuming they would have done just as well is discrediting Brady for his accomplishments. 

 

Brady has done this over the course of his (very long) career with an almost constantly-evolving cast of characters around him on offense, and defenses that have ranged anywhere from "outstanding" to "truly bad." So to an extent, it doesn't matter who's around him, he's been successful regardless. Belichick and Brady are the reasons the Patriots have been competitive for the past 18 seasons. They've both been integral and irreplaceable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say any player on the field is the GOAT is speculative and opinions.

The NFL is a complete team sport. It takes 22 starters and 31 roll players to put a team together. It takes a GM/head coach to make it all work regardless of the talent on the team. There are coordinators, assistance coaches, trainers and medical personnel.

There is not a pro sport besides the NFL where it takes so many people to make a winning team. They are all on a team. It's not about one player. That one player you keep harping on has to have all this other stuff to be successful.

Yes Brady has been elite but that wouldn't have happened without the team he is on.

Personally I don't have a GOAT.  I can say who I think is the greatest QB or RB or any position on the field  but GOAT? No.

I also don't overlook and disregard other eras either.

I think this has pretty much run it's coarse so let's move on to a different topic.

[GoPats]

18 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Say any player on the field is the GOAT is speculative and opinions.

 

Opinion, yes. Speculation, no. It's an opinion based on the collective individual and team accomplishments for any given player. Your statement that other QBs would have been just as successful as Brady is speculation. None of it ever actually happened. Opining that Brady is the GOAT based on facts - things that DID happen - that support that position is not speculation. 

 

So yes, always an opinion, on that we can certainly agree. I think it's also appropriate to make distinctions in some areas. I don't think you could argue against the idea that "Brady is the most accomplished QB in NFL history," understanding that "accomplished" and "best" are not necessarily interchangeable. Then you've also got "most talented QB," which factors in traits such as arm strength, athletic ability, speed, etc. 

 

I don't mean to disregard players from other eras. I get it, the game is designed to protect QBs these days. But the game has also evolved, and athletes have as well. 

 

Check out the 1967 Colts roster...

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/1967_roster.htm

 

You put that team on an NFL field in 2019, against almost any team in the league, and they're going to be giving up anywhere from 20 to 50+ pounds at every position. And, I would imagine, quite a bit of speed too, especially at WR and CB. 

 

 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

16 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

Opinion, yes. Speculation, no. It's an opinion based on the collective individual and team accomplishments for any given player. Your statement that other QBs would have been just as successful as Brady is speculation. None of it ever actually happened. Opining that Brady is the GOAT based on facts - things that DID happen - that support that position is not speculation. 

 

So yes, always an opinion, on that we can certainly agree. I think it's also appropriate to make distinctions in some areas. I don't think you could argue against the idea that "Brady is the most accomplished QB in NFL history," understanding that "accomplished" and "best" are not necessarily interchangeable. Then you've also got "most talented QB," which factors in traits such as arm strength, athletic ability, speed, etc. 

 

I don't mean to disregard players from other eras. I get it, the game is designed to protect QBs these days. But the game has also evolved, and athletes have as well. 

 

Check out the 1967 Colts roster...

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/1967_roster.htm

 

You put that team on an NFL field in 2019, against almost any team in the league, and they're going to be giving up anywhere from 20 to 50+ pounds at every position. And, I would imagine, quite a bit of speed too, especially at WR and CB. 

 

 

 

 

The thing is those players from the past were the best athletes at the time. A lot of these players had outside jobs so they didn't train almost year round. They didn't have a game planed made up for them to view and be coached 5 days before a game.

Putting eras up against eras serves no purpose except to build your fandom up by even bringing it up.

You may be a student of the Patriots but I am a student of the NFL.

I can recall when the Patriots were the doormats of the league and in history they will become that again.

So enjoy your team winning while they are but it's going to change. What I have learned is NFL history repeats itself after watching for as long as I have.

[Gramz]

Why does putting a label of  carry so much importance with so many?

 

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

14 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Why does putting a label of  carry so much importance with so many?

 

 

 

 

To me, I do my lists out of fun but IMO it is just for bragging rights for fans of teams. It is all matter of opinion in the long run. I could come up with 10 different reasons why Peyton is better than Brady and vice versa and throw Montana in there too 

[Narcosys]

Except neither are making guarantees and neither are trashy qbs like namath.