Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
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

    • I rewatched the game as I thought this would be pretty strange as well.  He did not play in the fourth except for his usual special teams slot.     I was confused as well by those who say he had a bad game.  He gave up one completion where he got turned around.  Other than that he was glued to his man as usual.    I think he's still having trouble living down his reputation from his rookie year. 
    • depth wise, S, OL, and iDL are my biggest concerns. if folks were grading positions ( starters and depth), i'd be surprised if many graded safety in the top half.  outside of Hooker, lots of questions, at least to me. i definitely don't agree with Venturi. ESPN doesn't either. Hopefully the starters stay healthy, and Willis grows into a stud.
    • lol... you wrote a novel. while i didn't read it all, i did skim. the mock draft stuff, it wasn't a poll. it was a well defined systemic grading. if you're mom can do well on the 1st round, why didn't your favorite guys? lol. on the wide receiver study, it was laughable. no defined parameters, no comparative cross position stats, etc.. not even Busch league stuff.  like i said, legend in your own mind.   in terms of who can dish it out, but can't take it, look at your reaction above to a "sad".... what a rant/tantrum.....  self awareness is obviously not your strongest trait. feel free to "crush" me anytime... gives me a good laugh.
    • very astute observations!!
    • You live your life like the Coyote chasing the Road Runner....    and you keep running into the mountain side,  or running off the cliff....     OK....    you're not going to change....   So, I'll take apart your nonsense --- again.    This will be the longest post I've ever made,  trying to answer all your nonsense.    Doubt you'll read it.    But here it comes....     Of course we know if Luck's injury, whatever it is,  ISN'T minor.   What minor injury do you know lasts four months?    He barely participated in any off-season program.    Does that sound like a minor injury?    The Colts have NEVER, EVER called it minor.   Not once.  The only thing they've said is he hopes to be back by certain deadlines,  and he's missed almost every one.    Does that sound like a minor injury?    This paragraph may confuse you.   It's full of common sense and logic.   I don't know how you got the nerve to try to argue that no one knows.   Unbelieveable!   Nope.   No Tantrum from me.   Just pointing ot what should be obvious,  but apparently the obvious isn't obvious to you.     By the way,  while you were giving me a sad on my post to my friend CBE,   do you know who was giving me a "like"?    CBE.    I criticized his post and he still gave me a like.    He know while we may not agree,  he knows I'm not trying to pound him.   I'm  trying to be as honest and factual as I can.    No wonder you can't see for yourself.   What triggered me, was your latest attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about.   You judged Willis on half of the first pre-season game.    That's all you've got.    That's it.   Doesn't even occur to you that that is.....   NOTHING!    Hello?    And you present it like it should be taken seriously,  when it should be laughed at.    Goodness gracious, you want to go back to the media draft comparison?    I was hoping for your sake that you wouldn't.    But since you insist.     Did you ever really look at that poll?   Seriously,  did you look at the four category breakdown?    Did you see what was actually involved?    If you did,  you shouldn't have been crowing about it.    First,  what I care about from guys like Kiper and McShay and Jeremiah and others isn't just the first round.   My  momma can do a decent job on the first round, and she's been dead for nearly 30 years!    I care about their view on ALL ROUNDS.   And your survey was only about the first round.   That's it.   There were four categories.    In three of them,  the leader got no more than 50%.   That's it.   The best person in three of the four categories scored no more than 50 percent.   When the top guy is scoring no more than 50 percent and everyone else is close behind,  then no one really knows anything.    And the one category that the winner did well in --- one category --- he scored in the 90's.   And everyone else was right behind him.    So, most everyone did well in ONE OUT OF THE FOUR categories.   Big stinking deal.    I tried to tell you this silly survey didn't support what you believed but you wouldn't listen.   No surprise there.  All you cared about the results.   The fatal flaw.     Finally,  without a single fact,  you offered this opinion in that post.    I remember it like it was yesterday,  that your new age guys were doing a better job than the more traditional scouts.   Based on one poll.   One poll of one round.    And you said the older guys like Kiper and company were resting on their laurels and not working as hard.   Nope, the old guys were covering all seven rounds.    Most of your guys,  covering one round.   You have no facts to support that, but that's your view.    When logic and common sense would tell you that the guys I prefer make a ton more money and have their reputation at stake.    They have more to lose.    There's no way they're resting on anything.    But you'll say ANYTHING to try and prove a point.   There's no argument you won't twist to try to win an argument, no matter how foolish the argument is.   I've told you publicly and privately,  you're not interested in honest debate.   You're the least honest poster here.  You're only interested in winning and you'll do anything, say anything to do that.      As to the WR study.    You got crushed.   I'm talking about a bank safe fell on you and your response was to talk about cherry picking stats.    Either English is a second language or you don't know the meaning of the words.     I made two links for you.    One was almost identical to yours.    Yours covered 25 years dating back to a time when passing rules were dramatically different so comparing a receiver from 1990 to one from 2018 was silly.   We're playig a different game now.    My first link covered 20 years from 1995 to 2014 .   There was great over-lap in the two studies.  But the conclusions were entirely different.   The only reason I used it was your post said roughly 60% percent of 1st Round WR's were successes.    Mine said roughly 40%.   Guess which one you preferred?    Surprise!   Then the second link was one of my own making.    I listed every 1st round WR since Luck came into the league in 2012.  That's 7 years.   The last 7 years.   I put into bold each 1st Round WR who was clearly a success.   It came to 41%.   It also showed how few WR's have been taken in the last few drafts.   That's the NFL talking, in case you weren't paying attention.    You didn't dispute one WR.    Not one.   But you called it cherry picking.   Clearly you don't know how to use that expression correctly.    And now you throw out a list of criteria as if you're making the rules here.   Here's another free tip.   You're not.   Never have.   I'm not surprised you don't recognize the facts I put into posts.   You don't use them.   You're all about the opinion.   Most posters here are.   Because that means every single poster can simply say.....    "I'm entitled to my opinion."    Yes, they are.   Everyone is,  even you, who has no need for facts.    But what you're not entitled to is your own facts.    Just like you stated Funchess was a terrible signing based on your facts,  and it never even occured to you that Ballard and Reich had other facts that showed DF could be useful to us.    You actually thought you knew more than they did?!?    Again, unbelieveable.   You had no facts to support your nonsense about Reich being a poor play caller.   You had one game.   And I called you on it.   You've been doing a very bad back-peddle ever since,  but that's your view, with no facts to support it.   In fact all the facts support the exact opposite view.   Yet, you still try to claim victory.   It's so intellectually dishonest that it's nauseating.   And so I observed,  that with almost nothing to base it on,  you thought Willis has inconsistancies.    Thanks, Capt. Obvious.    Tomorrow will likely be sunny during the day,  turning to widely scattered darkness at night.    Anymore obvious insights?   Funny, how you now publicly call for me to ignore your posts,  when a few days ago,  in a thread I was barely even in,  you took a completely uncalled for shot at me.    Or does the phrase "legend in his own mind" not mean anything to you?      Bottom line....    you can dish it out,  especially when you think no one is looking.....   but you can't take it.   Glass ego.   I call a fraud a fraud.   
  • Members

    • Fluke_33

      Fluke_33 837

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MikeCurtis

      MikeCurtis 1,265

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ManningGM

      ManningGM 515

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfeva

      coltsfeva 1,181

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,795

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SteelCityColt

      SteelCityColt 6,908

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jskinnz

      jskinnz 5,348

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ar1888

      ar1888 292

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • TonyBungee

      TonyBungee 198

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Melancholie

      Melancholie 3

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...