Jump to content
coltsfeva

Why Brady is NOT the GOAT

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree. However, I think Brady has a strong GOAT argument without relying solely on rings.

His Rings is why everyone in the media and most fans label him the GOAT. Nobody had him labeled that until he tied Montana with 4. Montana held the GOAT title forever. Many thought Peyton was better all-time until Brady won his 4th but at that point Brady had 4 to Peyton's 1. If he had 0 rings to this point, Brady would be looked at like Jim Kelly is, a top 20 QB ever (hall of famer) but not near the GOAT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rings are weighed heavily by the media. If Brady had 2 rings like Peyton had, not 1 person would rank Brady higher than Peyton because Peyton was the better individual player and won 5 MVP's to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

His Rings is why everyone in the media and most fans label him the GOAT. Nobody had him labeled that until he tied Montana with 4. Montana held the GOAT title forever. Many thought Peyton was better all-time until Brady won his 4th but at that point Brady had 4 to Peyton's 1. If he had 0 rings to this point, Brady would be looked at like Jim Kelly is, a top 20 QB ever (hall of famer) but not near the GOAT. 

 

You're arguing against a premise that I don't agree with. 

 

I think championships are a part of the argument, but when you look at Brady's body of work, he has a legit claim to the throne. It's not just rings.

 

Ten years ago when Pats fans and media heads said "Brady is better than Manning," that was just about rings. And that was nonsense. Manning was the better passer, was more in control of his offense, better statistically, more dominant individually, but on a team that wasn't as balanced or well coached, and his team hadn't performed well in the playoffs. 

 

Since then, Brady has won two league MVPs, he's now top four in career yards (and will be #2 next year), top three in TDs (will be #2 next year), top four in passer rating, top three in INT %, #6 in TD% among modern QBs... He has career longevity that guys like Young and Aikman can't touch, he's aging gracefully unlike Manning and Elway, he doesn't turn the ball over like Favre. He has dominant, signature performances, regular season and playoffs, record-breaking streaks, etc.

 

Nothing about this is conclusive. But his body of work stands on its own against everyone else in the GOAT conversation, without even bringing up the rings. The argument has changed from ten years ago. Brady now has just as impressive a regular season resume as anyone else.

 

I'll argue against the "rings" argument all day long. It's bogus. But Brady's body of work doesn't rely on the rings anymore. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're arguing against a premise that I don't agree with. 

 

I think championships are a part of the argument, but when you look at Brady's body of work, he has a legit claim to the throne. It's not just rings.

 

Ten years ago when Pats fans and media heads said "Brady is better than Manning," that was just about rings. And that was nonsense. Manning was the better passer, was more in control of his offense, better statistically, more dominant individually, but on a team that wasn't as balanced or well coached, and his team hadn't performed well in the playoffs. 

 

Since then, Brady has won two league MVPs, he's now top four in career yards (and will be #2 next year), top three in TDs (will be #2 next year), top four in passer rating, top three in INT %, #6 in TD% among modern QBs... He has career longevity that guys like Young and Aikman can't touch, he's aging gracefully unlike Manning and Elway, he doesn't turn the ball over like Favre. He has dominant, signature performances, regular season and playoffs, record-breaking streaks, etc.

 

Nothing about this is conclusive. But his body of work stands on its own against everyone else in the GOAT conversation, without even bringing up the rings. The argument has changed from ten years ago. Brady now has just as impressive a regular season resume as anyone else.

 

I'll argue against the "rings" argument all day long. It's bogus. But Brady's body of work doesn't rely on the rings anymore. 

You think like that (so it's not you) but the media heads and Pats fans only bring up rings. Take rings out of the equation and there is no way he is better than Peyton though. Peyton has won 5 MVP's to Brady's 3 and went to 4 SB's with 4 different coaches. He was the QB and coach on every team he played on. Take rings out of the equation, Peyton is the GOAT by a mile because he was clearly the greatest Regular Season QB of all-time as well with the most wins in 1 decade 00's-09.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're arguing against a premise that I don't agree with. 

 

I think championships are a part of the argument, but when you look at Brady's body of work, he has a legit claim to the throne. It's not just rings.

 

Ten years ago when Pats fans and media heads said "Brady is better than Manning," that was just about rings. And that was nonsense. Manning was the better passer, was more in control of his offense, better statistically, more dominant individually, but on a team that wasn't as balanced or well coached, and his team hadn't performed well in the playoffs. 

 

Since then, Brady has won two league MVPs, he's now top four in career yards (and will be #2 next year), top three in TDs (will be #2 next year), top four in passer rating, top three in INT %, #6 in TD% among modern QBs... He has career longevity that guys like Young and Aikman can't touch, he's aging gracefully unlike Manning and Elway, he doesn't turn the ball over like Favre. He has dominant, signature performances, regular season and playoffs, record-breaking streaks, etc.

 

Nothing about this is conclusive. But his body of work stands on its own against everyone else in the GOAT conversation, without even bringing up the rings. The argument has changed from ten years ago. Brady now has just as impressive a regular season resume as anyone else.

 

I'll argue against the "rings" argument all day long. It's bogus. But Brady's body of work doesn't rely on the rings anymore. 

It's arguable that he is the greatest, but not undoubtedly so, and that's the issue, the media, and the average football fan have been citing him as the greatest ever since he won his 4th ring. 

 

Bill Belichick has the largest role responsible for the Pat's success. 

 

Would you take him over any QB of this era, assuming they're all in their prime? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only GOAT is Belichick.

 

I would pay a lot of money to see Belichick retire and Josh McDaniels take over. It would either prove Brady as the GOAT or prove he's not.

 

Unfortunately I think they both hang it up at the same time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You think like that (so it's not you) but the media heads and Pats fans only bring up rings. Take rings out of the equation and there is no way he is better than Peyton though. Peyton has won 5 MVP's to Brady's 3 and went to 4 SB's with 4 different coaches. He was the QB and coach on every team he played on. Take rings out of the equation, Peyton is the GOAT by a mile because he was clearly the greatest Regular Season QB of all-time as well with the most wins in 1 decade 00's-09.

 

He's passed PM on a lot of all time lists, and will pass him on several others this year. And part of that is longevity, but he deserves credit for that longevity.

 

And I think you can make an argument for Manning as well. And Brees. And Rodgers (who might be the best total package, and whose team basically can't win without him, unlike Brady). 

 

But I don't understand why you're arguing with me about rings, when I'm presenting Brady's case without rings. I'm not saying it's conclusive, I'm just saying that we can legitimately talk about Brady being a strong GOAT candidate, and that's not reliant on rings. 

 

We can set the rings argument aside, and talk about all of Brady's other accomplishments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

It's arguable that he is the greatest, but not undoubtedly so, and that's the issue, the media, and the average football fan have been citing him as the greatest ever since he won his 4th ring. 

 

Bill Belichick has the largest role responsible for the Pat's success. 

 

Would you take him over any QB of this era, assuming they're all in their prime? 

Lets say for argument sake if Brady had 0 rings, would anyone take him over Dan Marino if Brady failed in the playoffs every year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has certainly had the greatest career of any QB ever, but I simply think other QBs would have even more success if they were on the Patriots with Bill Belichick.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He's passed PM on a lot of all time lists, and will pass him on several others this year. And part of that is longevity, but he deserves credit for that longevity.

 

And I think you can make an argument for Manning as well. And Brees. And Rodgers (who might be the best total package, and whose team basically can't win without him, unlike Brady). 

 

But I don't understand why you're arguing with me about rings, when I'm presenting Brady's case without rings. I'm not saying it's conclusive, I'm just saying that we can legitimately talk about Brady being a strong GOAT candidate, and that's not reliant on rings. 

 

We can set the rings argument aside, and talk about all of Brady's other accomplishments.

Fair enough but 5 MVP's to 3 would be my strong debate then against your debate without ring talk. Also Peyton has been great with 4 different coaches, Brady has played for IMO the GOAT in BB his whole career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

It's arguable that he is the greatest, but not undoubtedly so, and that's the issue, the media, and the average football fan have been citing him as the greatest ever since he won his 4th ring. 

 

Bill Belichick has the largest role responsible for the Pat's success. 

 

Would you take him over any QB of this era, assuming they're all in their prime? 

 

This era? Going back to the early '90s, I'd take Brady over Aikman, Young, Favre, Brees, without any hesitation.

 

I think Manning was a better passer in his prime, and I think Rodgers is the most talented QB of my lifetime. But Brady now has just as much statistical prowess as Manning, and a longer and more impressive resume than Rodgers. Taking either of them over Brady is a matter of personal preference, IMO. 

 

Edit: Forgot Marino. He and Rodgers are same level, IMO.

 

4 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

He has certainly had the greatest career of any QB ever, but I simply think other QBs would have even more success if they were on the Patriots with Bill Belichick.

 

That's certainly a legitimate discussion. But it's also a big "what if."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he has had the best career and best longevity, but i dont think hes the most talented 

 

imagine dan marino or aaron rogers on these patriots teams 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking rings out of equation, I would take Peyton, Marino, Elway, and Rodgers over Brady all-time. That is if I am just drafting a team based on talent and how they have played in the NFL.

 

As I stated above, I have already said Brady would've been great playing on any team but without BB not as great. He would be a Hall of Famer because of his numbers so I am not a hater.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

This era? Going back to the early '90s, I'd take Brady over Aikman, Young, Favre, Brees, without any hesitation.

 

I think Manning was a better passer in his prime, and I think Rodgers is the most talented QB of my lifetime. But Brady now has just as much statistical prowess as Manning, and a longer and more impressive resume than Rodgers. Taking either of them over Brady is a matter of personal preference, IMO. 

 

 

That's certainly a legitimate discussion. But it's also a big "what if."

Definitely a big what if. Too bad we can't access alternate realities... :(

 

I would argue that even his statistical prowess has a lot to do with his great coach. Their gameplans are just top notch, and he benefits greatly from his YAC receivers, don't think I have seen a other team get some much many YAC. 

 

Once again, (and this isn't aimed at you) Brady is one of the all time greats;  there is no doubt about that, but the idea -- which seems to have been created by the media-- that he has a firm grasp on the GOAT throne due to his rings is ridiculous, and it is what irks a lot of people in this thread. It personally annoys me because it seems to marginalize the great coaching and team effort that was made to have such success. 

 

I hope when Brady retires Belichick stays so we can see what he does with a other QB, or I hope he gets cut, and we get to see Brady play with another team. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

Unless you have watched Unitas and Graham play, you are not qualified to give an opinion on the GOAT. This debate is cooked up by media members. Best QB of last 20 years, yes. Best ever is disrespectful to history of the game. Also ignorant 

I've often thought this... who am I born in 1990 to judge who the best ever is? Heck i barely saw John Elway play. The debate USED to be who the best in the game was.. Brady or Manning? 

Now we've gone too far.. ever? Lets see Brady play the 85 Bears in 1985.. Lets take Johnny U to 2019, or Frank Gifford.

 

Lets just keep it to todays game. Who's the best now!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Definitely a big what if. Too bad we can't access alternate realities... :(

 

I would argue that even his statistical prowess has a lot to do with his great coach. Their gameplans are just top notch, and he benefits greatly from his YAC receivers, don't think I have seen a other team get some much many YAC. 

 

Once again, (and this isn't aimed at you) Brady is one of the all time greats;  there is no doubt about that, but the idea -- which seems to have been created by the media-- that he has a firm grasp on the GOAT throne due to his rings is ridiculous, and it is what irks a lot of people in this thread. It personally annoys me because it seems to marginalize the great coaching and team effort that was made to have such success. 

  

I hope when Brady retires Belichick stays so we can see what he does with a other QB, or I hope he gets cut, and we get to see Brady play with another team. 

 

I agree with a lot of this, especially the bolded. 

 

I'm just saying, let's set that aside. At this point, it's a strawman. I've always pushed back against the idea that the rings make the man, and I always will. But we can discuss QB greatness without defaulting to a discussion entirely about rings, and Brady definitely belongs in that conversation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Brady would be out of the league if he was on the colts instead of the patriots.  Peyton manning would rings on all fingers if he was on the patriots.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rings have to be factored in though at least IMO because it is why players play the game. Brady also has great numbers like Peyton had. Another question would be, how do people weigh Brady's possible cheating regarding his greatness? Spy Gate, Deflategate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

I've often thought this... who am I born in 1990 to judge who the best ever is? Heck i barely saw John Elway play. The debate USED to be who the best in the game was.. Brady or Manning? 

Now we've gone too far.. ever? Lets see Brady play the 85 Bears in 1985.. Lets take Johnny U to 2019, or Frank Gifford.

 

Lets just keep it to todays game. Who's the best now!

 

I do the same in basketball. I barely watched Kareem play, but I'm aware of how dominant he was. But I don't really discuss players before him. When I talk about GOAT status, it's always common era. 

 

In football, though, I can't see arguing that anyone prior to Montana belongs in the conversation. The focus of the game has changed so dramatically, player efficiency has changed, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Rings have to be factored in though at least IMO because it is why players play the game. Brady also has great numbers like Peyton had. Another question would be, how do people weigh Brady's possible cheating regarding his greatness? Spy Gate, Deflategate? 

Cheating is big for me. You never know,  they could have cheated every year that they won the super bowl and I could actually believe that just because of them getting caught. Take away their cheating and maybe they don't win half of their super bowl at least? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tweezy32 said:

Cheating is big for me. You never know,  they could have cheated every year that they won the super bowl and I could actually believe that just because of them getting caught. Take away their cheating and maybe they don't win half of their super bowl at least? 

I think the cheating talk is absolute nonsense. Whether their past cheating gave them a significant advantage or not, the Patriots have proven that they can still win with out pushing the envelope in the ways that they had in the past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

I think the cheating talk is absolute nonsense. Whether their past cheating gave them a significant advantage or not, the Patriots have proven that they can still win with out pushing the envelope in the ways that they had in the past. 

 

That's the problem with cheating. Once you're caught, people will always be skeptical of your success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to the game in the 50s today's game is unrecognizable but the goal remains the same, to win. Mention Dan Marino and you will always hear "but he did not win a Super Bowl." It is just the way things are, Worse case is baseball. Take Barry Bonds when he started versus his later years. He was so jacked up on steroids his head won an award for the largest pumpkin at a state fair. Yet he and other "shooters" are still HoF potentials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I do the same in basketball. I barely watched Kareem play, but I'm aware of how dominant he was. But I don't really discuss players before him. When I talk about GOAT status, it's always common era. 

 

In football, though, I can't see arguing that anyone prior to Montana belongs in the conversation. The focus of the game has changed so dramatically, player efficiency has changed, etc. 

It's hilarious watching Nick Wright confidently explain why Lebron is the Goat. Nick is much too young to have seen Wilt, Oscar, or Kareem play. I can listen to Lebron vs MJ debate, but GOAT is nonsense. Also, shame on Lebron for saying he is the GOAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is no different than comparing Babe Ruth with Hank Aaron, or whatever other players are in the greatest of all time debate.  Different eras, different circumstances, different equipment, different rules.

 

It really doesn't matter in the long run.  Let's appreciate the accomplishments of each.

 

Why doesn't Terry Bradshaw's name ever come up?  He won 4 Super Bowls, but seems only Joe Montana gets the recognition for winning 4.

 

Anyway, Brady is AMONG the greatest without a doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy discussion and debate about who the GOAT is. Personally, I fell like Tom Brady is the GOAT. I keep seeing over and over the argument that Brady isn't the GOAT because he has had Bill Belichick as head coach. How many Super Bowls has Belichick won without Tom Brady? Maybe the reason he is able to be so far ahead of everyone defensively is because he knows he doesn't have to worry about the offense because he has Tom Brady. It's not like people were calling Belichick the next Lombardi before he had Tom Brady fall into his lap. Now I'm not saying that Belichick couldn't have won without Tom Brady, but the thing is we'll never know. 

 

Maybe I take too simplistic of an approach but when I think of who is the GOAT, I ask myself who do I HONESTLY want to have the ball with the game on the line. For my money, I want Tom Brady. Even though last night wasn't a statistically great game, when the game was on the line Brady led the drive to seal the victory. When it is clutch time it seems like he almost always comes up clutch. Joe Montana was the same way.

 

I know there will be people who disagree and that's great. It makes sports fun. I enjoy reading the arguments and occasionally interjecting my own.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

I enjoy discussion and debate about who the GOAT is. Personally, I fell like Tom Brady is the GOAT. I keep seeing over and over the argument that Brady isn't the GOAT because he has had Bill Belichick as head coach. How many Super Bowls has Belichick won without Tom Brady? Maybe the reason he is able to be so far ahead of everyone defensively is because he knows he doesn't have to worry about the offense because he has Tom Brady. It's not like people were calling Belichick the next Lombardi before he had Tom Brady fall into his lap. Now I'm not saying that Belichick couldn't have won without Tom Brady, but the thing is we'll never know. 

 

Maybe I take too simplistic of an approach but when I think of who is the GOAT, I ask myself who do I HONESTLY want to have the ball with the game on the line. For my money, I want Tom Brady. Even though last night wasn't a statistically great game, when the game was on the line Brady led the drive to seal the victory. When it is clutch time it seems like he almost always comes up clutch. Joe Montana was the same way.

 

I know there will be people who disagree and that's great. It makes sports fun. I enjoy reading the arguments and occasionally interjecting my own.  

To me it is all in fun too. If people want to put Tom #1 it would be tough to argue actually. Montana and Peyton do have some arguments to why they could be the GOAT though IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To me it is all in fun too. If people want to put Tom #1 it would be tough to argue actually. Montana and Peyton do have some arguments to why they could be the GOAT though IMO.

 

That's the whole reason I come here to the forum is to have some fun and escape the everyday life for a little while. I enjoy sports debates like this. There is no way to know for sure who the GOAT is and you are right guys like Montana and Manning have legitimate claims to the throne.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 SB rings for a decade is done with for the 2010s. Now, let the Colts focus on beating the elite teams in the NFL and that is all I care about.

 

Brady and BB can be talked ad nauseum about and frankly, I am not in the mood to participate. When I saw Michael Jordan and the Bulls win those 6 championships and rooted for them, I now know what it feels like to be on the other side. Same with those who don't root for the Golden State Warriors, who will eventually get to those 6 championships level too. 

 

All good and bad streaks, depending on which side you are, will come to an end eventually, and subjective debates comparing their teams to different era teams will continue as always.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Brady and Peyton have great regular season accolades. What I think separates them is the postseason. Brady just wins games in January/February. He’s 30-12 in the postseason. He also has a GW drive in every SB win. That’s just otherworldly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luck is Good said:

Both Brady and Peyton have great regular season accolades. What I think separates them is the postseason. Brady just wins games in January/February. He’s 30-12 in the postseason. He also has a GW drive in every SB win. That’s just otherworldly

If someone presented me a list of:

Brady 1

Montana 2

Peyton 3

I would have no problem with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If someone presented me a list of:

Brady 1

Montana 2

Peyton 3

I would have no problem with that.

I would concur with that

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brady is a top 5 QB in his prime, might even still be.  But he's not the GOAT.

 

The Patriots are what happens when you match a top 5 QB with a coach who consistently fields top 10 defenses year in and out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

Brady just wins games in January/February.

 

No he doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No he doesn't. 

I fully get your point now :thmup:, you completely think winning rings is a full team accomplishment and the QB gets too much credit for winning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No he doesn't. 

Yes he does. 30-12 as a starting QB in the postseason. No one is taking away from the team accomplishment. Yesterday was the most dominant defensive performance we’ve ever seen in a SB. The game ball most certainly goes to the defense. But just like so many other postseason games, Brady orchestrated a GW drive. When the chips are on the table, there is no QB I’m taking over him

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I fully get your point now :thmup:, you completely think winning rings is a full team accomplishment and the QB gets too much credit for winning.

 

In most cases, yes. I think that's especially true in Brady's case; the Pats have won a ton of playoff games in which Brady's performance was decidedly average, or worse. There's a huge discrepancy between Brady's team winning playoff games when the QB is average, and every other team in the history of the NFL, especially in the last 17 years. Those stats I posted earlier highlight that.

 

And that's because the Pats have done a great job of building a balanced team, having discipline on and off the field, and being well coached and consistent. They don't need their QB to make big plays to win in the playoffs. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Rings have to be factored in though at least IMO because it is why players play the game. Brady also has great numbers like Peyton had. Another question would be, how do people weigh Brady's possible cheating regarding his greatness? Spy Gate, Deflategate? 

 

If you factor in rings, you have to take the team and coaches into consideration. The Patriots defensive rankings by points scored in NE's Superbowl years are all top ten and a couple top three. QB's often have very little to do with who wins or loses in the Superbowl. Look at Brady's stats in both games vs the Rams and then look at his stats when they lost to the Eagles. 

 

As for the cheating and I may be crazy - but there is still a chance in the next 15 years that those first three rings will be taken away due to Spygate. Someone will talk at some point. That would change this conversation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...