Report, edit, etc...Posted by 22-22 on 2006-11-13 at 15:59:27
I watched the game yesterday and I have to say that Brady accuracy is terrible. Brady had a great game vs the Vikings then when they played the colts he played terrible. I thought that he would come out firing seance he had a terrible game before, but he play even worse but it might have something to do with the weather but he sucked. That first interception he throw vs the colts was stupid. He just throw it up to where there was just one patriot and like four colts. The pats could have won the game yesterday if there D # could hold the Jet let me say again the Jets to just one play of downs. But they didn't. The Pats all together sucked. Dillon had a great game but they don't seem to play him at all. He had 11 rushes for 94 yards. They did get a great RB in the draft though Maloney, but I think they should def play Dillon more. What are your opions on how the play the last two games?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-11-13 at 16:01:33
Even though this is off topic, I do think this is Lite Discussion worthy (in response to the question about where sports discussion should go).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Urmom(U) on 2006-11-13 at 16:48:20
Get your facts straight first:
•That was the first time that Brady has lost back to back games in 57 games (I think 57).
•Dillon had 11 rushes for 98 yards.
•It's Maroney, not Maloney.
I still think that the Patriots will make it to the playoffs easily. Even though these last two games have been tough, their division isn't that great and I doubt Brady could have 3 bad games in a row (even though yesterdays wasn't bad statwise).
•That was the first time that Brady has lost back to back games in 57 games (I think 57).
•Dillon had 11 rushes for 98 yards.
•It's Maroney, not Maloney.
I still think that the Patriots will make it to the playoffs easily. Even though these last two games have been tough, their division isn't that great and I doubt Brady could have 3 bad games in a row (even though yesterdays wasn't bad statwise).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2006-11-13 at 18:15:00
QUOTE(DevliN @ Nov 13 2006, 04:01 PM)
Even though this is off topic, I do think this is Lite Discussion worthy.
[right][snapback]588518[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]588518[/snapback][/right]
I agree. There've been a few other sports discussions here at various times. Since much can be debated/discussed when it comes to sports, I think its fine here.
And a sports forum ain't a bad idea, either.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Oo.Zero.oO on 2006-11-13 at 18:17:59
Why even watch the Patriots when you could watch the Packers who will own the Patriots in the game they have.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-11-13 at 18:36:10
Oh man, I'm sort of angry now that I just had my WHOLE post written out, and then Windows Update just restarts my computer -_-
Anyway, in my opinion both Brady and Billichik(Spelling..?) are lucky. They have been in the right place at the right time. None of them are as good as the stupid sports analysts say on TV.
And about the Patriots getting into the playoffs? MUST BE REALLY HARD IN THE AFC EAST!!! They have to compete with the Jets, Dolphins and Bills... none of which are good teams, and that's coming from a Bills fan.
I can't wait till the Patriots fall apart
Anyway, in my opinion both Brady and Billichik(Spelling..?) are lucky. They have been in the right place at the right time. None of them are as good as the stupid sports analysts say on TV.
And about the Patriots getting into the playoffs? MUST BE REALLY HARD IN THE AFC EAST!!! They have to compete with the Jets, Dolphins and Bills... none of which are good teams, and that's coming from a Bills fan.
I can't wait till the Patriots fall apart
Report, edit, etc...Posted by n2o-SiMpSoNs on 2006-11-13 at 19:43:08
QUOTE(Deathawk @ Nov 13 2006, 06:36 PM)
Anyway, in my opinion both Brady and Billichik(Spelling..?) are lucky. They have been in the right place at the right time. None of them are as good as the stupid sports analysts say on TV.
[right][snapback]588645[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]588645[/snapback][/right]
Right place at the right time? I guess you could say that for brady because Bledsoe got injured and he got to play. But Bellicheck how could you say he is "lucky." Yes he has had good teams but that doesn't guarantee victories.
I found this at wikipedia "His defensive gameplan from the New York Giants' 20-19 upset of the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV is now in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, as is his defensive gameplan from the New England Patriots 20-17 upset of the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI (although he was a head coach at this time)."
But then again you could make the case that he wasn't a great coach in Cleavland.
views about the pats:
I'm pretty sure that every team struggles occasionally. Last year what was the patriots record this time of year? It was 5-4 and the week before that is was 4-4. I can see why you people would be nervous. We lost to the JETS!!? We lost Rodney Harrison. Tom Brady isn't playing like Tom Brady. But, We will be fine. The team will eventually get their head on straight and then we will go to the super bowl and win it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-11-13 at 19:55:38
About Brady, he is always talked about as one of the best quarterbacks, and "knows how to win games" and stuff like that. I don't think it's true, to me he isn't that great. He isn't really special, he just played on a good team. You can see how he isn't that great when they have a not so great team, and lose to teams like the Jets.
And Billichik apparently went from one of the worse coaches to being the best coach in the NFL within a few years? How did that happen. His team won 3 superbowls in 4 years, so apparently he's the best coach now. I don't think he's really that great of a coach.
LOL, always funny to hear the opinion of a stereotypical Patriots fan, saying they will win the superbowl every year -_-
And Billichik apparently went from one of the worse coaches to being the best coach in the NFL within a few years? How did that happen. His team won 3 superbowls in 4 years, so apparently he's the best coach now. I don't think he's really that great of a coach.
LOL, always funny to hear the opinion of a stereotypical Patriots fan, saying they will win the superbowl every year -_-
Report, edit, etc...Posted by 22-22 on 2006-11-13 at 20:47:40
The Patriots are my favorite team. I'm not saying that they suck I'm just saying that Brady needs to step his game up. The packers beat the Patriot yeah right. Farve is over rated. He is done. He should retire this year. I also wasn't sure if Dillon had 98 or 94. I was try to state that if he had 98 yards with 11 rushed then he should get the ball alot more then he does. Tom brady is def one of the best quarterbacks. He is not as publised as some other QB like manning who is good but not great. He is know cuz he get the stats but he doesn't get the rings. Brady gets the rings he prob doesn't care about the stats he goes for the rings. The PATS are going to the Superbowl this year. my guss is that they will go 12-4 losing to the Bears.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-11-13 at 23:10:53
Ya I kinda hope that the Patriots do better. I am a good fan, I hope this streak for Brady comes to an end. The patriots are my favorite team and I dont like seeing their dynasty falling apart. They were doing so good. I want it to be like old times, I am afraid that is the best we'll see them do in a long time.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-11-13 at 23:50:31
QUOTE(22-22 @ Nov 13 2006, 09:47 PM)
The Patriots are my favorite team. I'm not saying that they suck I'm just saying that Brady needs to step his game up. The packers beat the Patriot yeah right. Farve is over rated. He is done. He should retire this year. I also wasn't sure if Dillon had 98 or 94. I was try to state that if he had 98 yards with 11 rushed then he should get the ball alot more then he does. Tom brady is def one of the best quarterbacks. He is not as publised as some other QB like manning who is good but not great. He is know cuz he get the stats but he doesn't get the rings. Brady gets the rings he prob doesn't care about the stats he goes for the rings. The PATS are going to the Superbowl this year. my guss is that they will go 12-4 losing to the Bears.
[right][snapback]588765[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]588765[/snapback][/right]
12-4... lol...
Brady doesn't get the rings. His tam did. He wasn't anything extrordinary when he was on the Patriots the seasons he won the superbowl.
And Peyton Manning is only good? Then who the hell is great?
So how is Brady one of the best quarterbacks?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-11-14 at 06:16:08
QUOTE(Deathawk @ Nov 13 2006, 11:50 PM)
And Peyton Manning is only good? Then who the hell is great?
So how is Brady one of the best quarterbacks?
[right][snapback]588896[/snapback][/right]
So how is Brady one of the best quarterbacks?
[right][snapback]588896[/snapback][/right]
This was the whole story about the game a little over a week ago. They specifically said the game between the two best quarterbacks, Payton Manning and Tom Brady. Ever since a coupe years ago these have been the best quarterbacks. Of coarse there are some other good quarterbacks like Ruthlesburger (who isnt doing good at all now) and a couple others.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by 22-22 on 2006-11-14 at 16:09:36
Brady is one of the best QB. His team would have never got to the super bowls without him. He keeps his cool when the game is on the line. Manning has never got to the super bowl. HIs team was better then the Pats every year. But every time they get to the AFC division title they choke.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-11-14 at 19:22:01
There is more to a team than the quarterback, no matter what anybody says. But again, I could care less about what thos stupid-ass ESPN analysts say, they only say this stuff to hype up games and sell more.
And if you can only name Roethlesberger as one of the good qbs in the NFL then obviously you don't know many good QBs =\
How do you know that? And I'm guessing you must have forgotten about the first time they won, when Bledsode was their QB for the most part.
Who decides who has a better team..? The Colts had NO DEFENSE at all up until last year, and that defense they did have wasn't really built that great, the linemen were all undersized, and they can't really stop the run that well.
Stop being damn fanboys. None of you guys thought Brady was good until the team he's on won 3 superbowls. =\ 6th round pick anybody?
And if you can only name Roethlesberger as one of the good qbs in the NFL then obviously you don't know many good QBs =\
How do you know that? And I'm guessing you must have forgotten about the first time they won, when Bledsode was their QB for the most part.
Who decides who has a better team..? The Colts had NO DEFENSE at all up until last year, and that defense they did have wasn't really built that great, the linemen were all undersized, and they can't really stop the run that well.
Stop being damn fanboys. None of you guys thought Brady was good until the team he's on won 3 superbowls. =\ 6th round pick anybody?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Freedawk on 2006-11-14 at 19:30:05
I heard the Patriots signed Vinny Testavarde...LOL
Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs in the NFL so far...Behind Drew Brees, Mcnabb, Manning (both), Carson Palmer. Tom is known for his heart, not his ability. He plays enough to win enough.
I found this http://drawingguy.com/images/steelers/TBrady.jpg
Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs in the NFL so far...Behind Drew Brees, Mcnabb, Manning (both), Carson Palmer. Tom is known for his heart, not his ability. He plays enough to win enough.
I found this
http://drawingguy.com/images/steelers/TBrady.jpgReport, edit, etc...Posted by 22-22 on 2006-11-15 at 14:49:35
They signed Him on the 14th.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Urmom(U) on 2006-11-15 at 15:03:02
Deathhawk, your arguments make no sense.
WTF? Winning the Superbowl is the main reason people suit up for games. The majority of coaches don't win even one Superbowl in their career, let alone 3 in 4 years. How the hell is that not great.
Brady played tremendously during all three of his Superbowl games. Look at his wikipedia page and look at how good he does in the pre- season. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brady Look at his Super Bowl stats too.
Did you forget he was the Super Bowl MVP twice? Not to be mean, but are you completely blind to all of the reasons on why Brady is one of the best quarterbacks?
How are we being fanboys? The guy won THREE SUPER BOWLS. And what are you implying with talking about being a sixth round pick?
QUOTE
And Billichik apparently went from one of the worse coaches to being the best coach in the NFL within a few years? How did that happen. His team won 3 superbowls in 4 years, so apparently he's the best coach now. I don't think he's really that great of a coach.
WTF? Winning the Superbowl is the main reason people suit up for games. The majority of coaches don't win even one Superbowl in their career, let alone 3 in 4 years. How the hell is that not great.
QUOTE
Brady doesn't get the rings. His tam did. He wasn't anything extrordinary when he was on the Patriots the seasons he won the superbowl.
And Peyton Manning is only good? Then who the hell is great?
So how is Brady one of the best quarterbacks?
And Peyton Manning is only good? Then who the hell is great?
So how is Brady one of the best quarterbacks?
Brady played tremendously during all three of his Superbowl games. Look at his wikipedia page and look at how good he does in the pre- season. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brady Look at his Super Bowl stats too.
CODE
Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
*2001 stl W,20-17 | 16 27 145 1 0 | 1 3 0
*2003 car W,32-29 | 32 48 354 3 1 | 2 12 0
*2004 phi W,24-21 | 23 33 236 2 0 | 1 -1 0
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 225 367 2493 15 5 | 30 51 2
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
*2001 stl W,20-17 | 16 27 145 1 0 | 1 3 0
*2003 car W,32-29 | 32 48 354 3 1 | 2 12 0
*2004 phi W,24-21 | 23 33 236 2 0 | 1 -1 0
---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------
TOTAL | 225 367 2493 15 5 | 30 51 2
Did you forget he was the Super Bowl MVP twice? Not to be mean, but are you completely blind to all of the reasons on why Brady is one of the best quarterbacks?
QUOTE
Stop being damn fanboys. None of you guys thought Brady was good until the team he's on won 3 superbowls. =\ 6th round pick anybody?
How are we being fanboys? The guy won THREE SUPER BOWLS. And what are you implying with talking about being a sixth round pick?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-11-15 at 15:24:10
So is Deon Branch one of the best WR? Vrabel one of the best linebackers? No, because football is a team game. Just because you win doesn't mean you are great. This isn't golf.
Again, the coach won 3 superbowls, so did Brady, but does that mean they are great? The Patriots offense wasn't exactly great the times they did win the Superbowl, just so you know. There was a lack of a running game(with the exception of Dillion's first year). The defense is what got them there and eventually won it for them.
Good, so he's done good in a bunch of games. So? had Michael Vick, had 7 touchdowns in two weeks, the next two weeks he sucks. Was Michael Vick one of the best quarterbacks? No.
Don't get me wrong, Brady is a good quarterback, but the amount of attention and respect he gets is definately not equal to how good of a player he is.
"Brady was selected by the New England Patriots in the 6th round (199th overall). "
Nobody expected him to do as good as he was, he was a 6th round pick. You guys act like he is the greatest quarterback just because he was the quarterback of a winning team.
Superbowl MVP, Deon Branch got it too, but that doesn't mean he's a good WR, it means he did good in the Superbowl game.
Again, the coach won 3 superbowls, so did Brady, but does that mean they are great? The Patriots offense wasn't exactly great the times they did win the Superbowl, just so you know. There was a lack of a running game(with the exception of Dillion's first year). The defense is what got them there and eventually won it for them.
Good, so he's done good in a bunch of games. So? had Michael Vick, had 7 touchdowns in two weeks, the next two weeks he sucks. Was Michael Vick one of the best quarterbacks? No.
Don't get me wrong, Brady is a good quarterback, but the amount of attention and respect he gets is definately not equal to how good of a player he is.
"Brady was selected by the New England Patriots in the 6th round (199th overall). "
Nobody expected him to do as good as he was, he was a 6th round pick. You guys act like he is the greatest quarterback just because he was the quarterback of a winning team.
Superbowl MVP, Deon Branch got it too, but that doesn't mean he's a good WR, it means he did good in the Superbowl game.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Urmom(U) on 2006-11-15 at 16:04:34
QUOTE
So is Deon Branch one of the best WR? Vrabel one of the best linebackers? No, because football is a team game. Just because you win doesn't mean you are great. This isn't golf.
Actually they both are some of the best players for their positions.
QUOTE
Again, the coach won 3 superbowls, so did Brady, but does that mean they are great?
Umm...yes? That is the point I'm trying to make...
QUOTE
The Patriots offense wasn't exactly great the times they did win the Superbowl, just so you know. There was a lack of a running game(with the exception of Dillion's first year). The defense is what got them there and eventually won it for them.
You can't expect to win too many Super Bowls without a good defense. The defense didn't win it for them though as most of the Super Bowls were high scoring games. If there was a lack of a running game, wouldn't that make Brady look even better if he had to carry the load on offence without a running game?
QUOTE
Good, so he's done good in a bunch of games. So? had Michael Vick, had 7 touchdowns in two weeks, the next two weeks he sucks. Was Michael Vick one of the best quarterbacks? No.
These weren't games, they were the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl has a tremendous amount of more pressure which is why its amazing that Brady has done so well so far.
QUOTE
Don't get me wrong, Brady is a good quarterback, but the amount of attention and respect he gets is definately not equal to how good of a player he is.
So I guess he won the Super Bowl, I'm sure any crappy QB could do that.
QUOTE
"Brady was selected by the New England Patriots in the 6th round (199th overall). "
Nobody expected him to do as good as he was, he was a 6th round pick. You guys act like he is the greatest quarterback just because he was the quarterback of a winning team.
Nobody expected him to do as good as he was, he was a 6th round pick. You guys act like he is the greatest quarterback just because he was the quarterback of a winning team.
Why do you think the team won? Because he was the quarterback...
QUOTE
Superbowl MVP, Deon Branch got it too, but that doesn't mean he's a good WR, it means he did good in the Superbowl game.
It means he did great in the biggest game of the season. Not to mention Branch was the Patriots leading reciever for a while.
Seems like you just have a personal grudge on Brady.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-11-15 at 16:20:47
Deon Branch, Mike Vrabel? LOL? Branch hasn't caught for over 1000 yards yet, and he's the #1 reciever on the Patriots. Highest amount of touchdowns per year... 5?
That's not one of the best WRs in the league.
Vrabel? I don't even care about him, he's not even one of the best Linebackers on his team, let alone in the league. If you really think he is one of the best, I can provide statistics, but I don't think that'll be neccesary.
But you are wrong, since Football is a team sport and there is more to a team than a QB and a coach. It is possible to win the superbowl with both a mediocre coach and QB.
The defense didn't win it for them? First off, the first superbowl was 20-17. Not that high scoring. The Patriots held the Rams to 17 points. The Rams I believe had the (one of) the best Offenses that year.
"After their Super Bowl winning 1999 season, the Rams offense again dominated the league, leading the NFL in passing, scoring, and total yards. However, they had one of the worst defenses in the league, ranking second to last in points allowed." ~Wikipedia.
That might explain to you how well Brady and the offense did, scoring only 20 points against them.
Without the running game, more pressure was put on the Patriots defense to keep the game close.
Can't win the superbowl with a crappy quarterback? I guess you didn't watch Superbowl XXXVII, with Brad Johnson. Tampa Bay won with him, he is a crappy quarterback.
So if any old QB does good in the superbowl, he is great now? Maybe you're overanalyzing his team's success in the superbowl. Look at what Tom Brady really does, as in his stats. Those are not great quarterback stats.
How do you know that? Is it impossible to win without a good quarterback? No, it';s not, and I'm sure it's possible with any other mediocre quarterback.
Right, and doing good in the superbowl does not make you a good player, playing good consistantly makes you a good player.
I don't have a grudge against Brady, honestly. I just don't like how New England fans think he is the second coming of Christ. He's not that good.
That's not one of the best WRs in the league.
Vrabel? I don't even care about him, he's not even one of the best Linebackers on his team, let alone in the league. If you really think he is one of the best, I can provide statistics, but I don't think that'll be neccesary.
But you are wrong, since Football is a team sport and there is more to a team than a QB and a coach. It is possible to win the superbowl with both a mediocre coach and QB.
The defense didn't win it for them? First off, the first superbowl was 20-17. Not that high scoring. The Patriots held the Rams to 17 points. The Rams I believe had the (one of) the best Offenses that year.
"After their Super Bowl winning 1999 season, the Rams offense again dominated the league, leading the NFL in passing, scoring, and total yards. However, they had one of the worst defenses in the league, ranking second to last in points allowed." ~Wikipedia.
That might explain to you how well Brady and the offense did, scoring only 20 points against them.
Without the running game, more pressure was put on the Patriots defense to keep the game close.
Can't win the superbowl with a crappy quarterback? I guess you didn't watch Superbowl XXXVII, with Brad Johnson. Tampa Bay won with him, he is a crappy quarterback.
So if any old QB does good in the superbowl, he is great now? Maybe you're overanalyzing his team's success in the superbowl. Look at what Tom Brady really does, as in his stats. Those are not great quarterback stats.
How do you know that? Is it impossible to win without a good quarterback? No, it';s not, and I'm sure it's possible with any other mediocre quarterback.
Right, and doing good in the superbowl does not make you a good player, playing good consistantly makes you a good player.
I don't have a grudge against Brady, honestly. I just don't like how New England fans think he is the second coming of Christ. He's not that good.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Urmom(U) on 2006-11-15 at 16:44:04
QUOTE
Deon Branch, Mike Vrabel? LOL? Branch hasn't caught for over 1000 yards yet, and he's the #1 reciever on the Patriots. Highest amount of touchdowns per year... 5?
That's not one of the best WRs in the league.
That's not one of the best WRs in the league.
Brady isn't one of those quarterbacks with a favorite reciever. He threw for over 4000 yards last year and didn't have a WR with over 1000 recieving yards (I think).
QUOTE
Vrabel? I don't even care about him, he's not even one of the best Linebackers on his team, let alone in the league. If you really think he is one of the best, I can provide statistics, but I don't think that'll be neccesary.
Statistics aren't everything. He does far more things in-game than what you see from statistics.
QUOTE
But you are wrong, since Football is a team sport and there is more to a team than a QB and a coach. It is possible to win the superbowl with both a mediocre coach and QB.
That is possible but not likely.
QUOTE
The defense didn't win it for them? First off, the first superbowl was 20-17. Not that high scoring. The Patriots held the Rams to 17 points. The Rams I believe had the (one of) the best Offenses that year.
"After their Super Bowl winning 1999 season, the Rams offense again dominated the league, leading the NFL in passing, scoring, and total yards. However, they had one of the worst defenses in the league, ranking second to last in points allowed." ~Wikipedia.
"After their Super Bowl winning 1999 season, the Rams offense again dominated the league, leading the NFL in passing, scoring, and total yards. However, they had one of the worst defenses in the league, ranking second to last in points allowed." ~Wikipedia.
That wasn't one of the games I was referring too, I was mainly referring to the other 2 Super Bowl games.
QUOTE
That might explain to you how well Brady and the offense did, scoring only 20 points against them.
Without the running game, more pressure was put on the Patriots defense to keep the game close.
Without the running game, more pressure was put on the Patriots defense to keep the game close.
You can't expect to score 30+ points a game every time you play. He was a rookie then and has blossomed into an even better quarterback since. They won with Brady which is the most important part.
QUOTE
Can't win the superbowl with a crappy quarterback? I guess you didn't watch Superbowl XXXVII, with Brad Johnson. Tampa Bay won with him, he is a crappy quarterback.
Brad Johnson isn't a crappy quarterback. Although his talent and success has declined lately he was very good at the time, he threw 22 TD's and only 6 INT that season.
QUOTE
So if any old QB does good in the superbowl, he is great now? Maybe you're overanalyzing his team's success in the superbowl. Look at what Tom Brady really does, as in his stats. Those are not great quarterback stats.
Well for the most part it does, but there is always exceptions. Brady has had good quarterback stats throughout his career. Do you only analyze people on their stats?
QUOTE
How do you know that? Is it impossible to win without a good quarterback? No, it';s not, and I'm sure it's possible with any other mediocre quarterback.
You can win with a mediocre quarterback but don't expect to win with somebody like Andrew Walter as your QB.
QUOTE
Right, and doing good in the superbowl does not make you a good player, playing good consistantly makes you a good player.
Doing good in a Super Bowl means your clutch, but if you do good in three Super Bowls then you could consider that as being a good player.
QUOTE
I don't have a grudge against Brady, honestly. I just don't like how New England fans think he is the second coming of Christ. He's not that good.
lol
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-11-15 at 17:01:52
Branch was definately his favorite reciever of the team. Either way, his stats are definately not good enough to consider him one of the best. He is also not physically gifted as other players. It's hard to be a 5'9" WR.
What does he do? "MIRACULOUS COMEBACKS, LOL" is bullsh**. Coming from behind 3 games doesn't mean you are a clutch player. You want somebody who is clutch, look at Ortiz, he does it consistantly. That's coming from somebody who HATES the Red Sox(Yet lives in Boston.)
What do you mean possible but not likely? I just gave you an example. It is likely. The Ravens did it in Supebowl 35, and the Bucs did it in 37. They had bad QBs, yet they made up with it for their defense. In the last 5 years it's happenede twice? Unlikely, I don't think so.
You can't always score 30 points a game, but you should do it against the worst defensive team in the league. At least if you were a good quarterback who carried his team, right?
Brad Johnson played okay that season, but he is not a good QB. You can still win with a bad quarterback, or at least one that is not good.
Right, but he definately hasn't had the stats for somebody with the amount of hype he gets. Stats are the only solid thing to look on. All of this other crap is based on what you think, personally I don't think playing good in 3 games that matter makes you clutch or a good player.
You could win, with Andrew Walter, it depends on the team around him, if you understand the point I am trying to make.
Doing good in the superbowl means you played good in the superbowl. Doing good in 3 superbowls means you did good in 3 superbowls. 3 games is really too little to base judgdement on a player. If Vick throws for 300 yards 3 straight games with no interceptions, is he a good passing QB? No, he just played good 3 games.
What does he do? "MIRACULOUS COMEBACKS, LOL" is bullsh**. Coming from behind 3 games doesn't mean you are a clutch player. You want somebody who is clutch, look at Ortiz, he does it consistantly. That's coming from somebody who HATES the Red Sox(Yet lives in Boston.)
What do you mean possible but not likely? I just gave you an example. It is likely. The Ravens did it in Supebowl 35, and the Bucs did it in 37. They had bad QBs, yet they made up with it for their defense. In the last 5 years it's happenede twice? Unlikely, I don't think so.
You can't always score 30 points a game, but you should do it against the worst defensive team in the league. At least if you were a good quarterback who carried his team, right?
Brad Johnson played okay that season, but he is not a good QB. You can still win with a bad quarterback, or at least one that is not good.
Right, but he definately hasn't had the stats for somebody with the amount of hype he gets. Stats are the only solid thing to look on. All of this other crap is based on what you think, personally I don't think playing good in 3 games that matter makes you clutch or a good player.
You could win, with Andrew Walter, it depends on the team around him, if you understand the point I am trying to make.
Doing good in the superbowl means you played good in the superbowl. Doing good in 3 superbowls means you did good in 3 superbowls. 3 games is really too little to base judgdement on a player. If Vick throws for 300 yards 3 straight games with no interceptions, is he a good passing QB? No, he just played good 3 games.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by n2o-SiMpSoNs on 2006-11-16 at 15:11:58
Deathhawk what do you think of Joe Montana. He is JUST LIKE TOM BRADY. He wins under pressure situations and he is considered one of the greats of all time. He also remains calm just like Tom Brady. If Tom Brady has the same characteristics of Joe Montana and wins Super Bowls like Joe Montana and Joe Montana is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. I really don't see how Tom Brady is "overrated" or not that good or however your trying to lessen the great accomplishments he has made.
ADDITION:
How about not losing back to back games in 57 games. Or having winning seasons or having winning records in the playoffs?
64-21 record as a starter (.753 winning percentage)
7-0 in overtime games
NFL record for most consecutive wins in post season: 10
# Most consecutive post season wins (college and professional combined): 12
# NFL record 10-1 in the post-season
73.7 passing attempts per interception in the post-season (lowest rate in NFL history, minimum 250 pass attempts)
Most completions in a Super Bowl (32 in Super Bowl XXXVIII)
more records from wikipedia :
Personal records
* Highest single-game quarterback rating: 148.3 (at Indianapolis, October 21, 2001)
* Highest single-season quarterback rating: 92.6 (2004-2005 season)
* Highest career quarterback rating against a team: Atlanta Falcons (140.4)
* Lowest interception total, season (minimum 2 starts): 12 (2001 and 2003)
* Highest interception total, season (minumum 2 starts): 14 (2002, 2004, 2005)
Sounds like a Michael Vick caliber quarterback to me.
Alos if your going to say he isnt doing good this year. Well who wouldn't after losing his 2 top receivers. If Peyton Manning lost his best receivers he wouldn't be doing as well either. Peyton Manning has Marving Harrison. Tom Brady has Benjamin Watson for his top receiver (tight end)...
ADDITION:
QUOTE(Deathawk @ Nov 15 2006, 05:01 PM)
Doing good in the superbowl means you played good in the superbowl. Doing good in 3 superbowls means you did good in 3 superbowls. 3 games is really too little to base judgdement on a player. If Vick throws for 300 yards 3 straight games with no interceptions, is he a good passing QB? No, he just played good 3 games.
[right][snapback]589670[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]589670[/snapback][/right]
How about not losing back to back games in 57 games. Or having winning seasons or having winning records in the playoffs?
64-21 record as a starter (.753 winning percentage)
7-0 in overtime games
NFL record for most consecutive wins in post season: 10
# Most consecutive post season wins (college and professional combined): 12
# NFL record 10-1 in the post-season
73.7 passing attempts per interception in the post-season (lowest rate in NFL history, minimum 250 pass attempts)
Most completions in a Super Bowl (32 in Super Bowl XXXVIII)
more records from wikipedia :
Personal records
* Highest single-game quarterback rating: 148.3 (at Indianapolis, October 21, 2001)
* Highest single-season quarterback rating: 92.6 (2004-2005 season)
* Highest career quarterback rating against a team: Atlanta Falcons (140.4)
* Lowest interception total, season (minimum 2 starts): 12 (2001 and 2003)
* Highest interception total, season (minumum 2 starts): 14 (2002, 2004, 2005)
Sounds like a Michael Vick caliber quarterback to me.
Alos if your going to say he isnt doing good this year. Well who wouldn't after losing his 2 top receivers. If Peyton Manning lost his best receivers he wouldn't be doing as well either. Peyton Manning has Marving Harrison. Tom Brady has Benjamin Watson for his top receiver (tight end)...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-11-16 at 15:53:47
First, I DO NOT THINK HE IS A BAD QUARTERBACK. I think he is overrated. Now then.
[quote]How about not losing back to back games in 57 games. Or having winning seasons or having winning records in the playoffs?[/quote]
Team accomplishment.
[quote]64-21 record as a starter (.753 winning percentage)[/quote]
So if he goes 21-64 on a bad team, is he a bad quarterback? Nah. Sure, it means SOMETHING, but not really much, it depends on the team.
[quote]7-0 in overtime games[/quote]
Read above.
[quote]NFL record for most consecutive wins in post season: 10[/quote]
Read above.
[quote]# Most consecutive post season wins (college and professional combined): 12[/quote]
Read above, but College does not matter. It's a whole different ball game.
[quote]# NFL record 10-1 in the post-season[/quote]
Read above.
[quote]73.7 passing attempts per interception in the post-season (lowest rate in NFL history, minimum 250 pass attempts)[/quote]
This one does matter, but you have to take into consideration the type of offense he had, and their style of play. He had a bunch of okay recievers, and he shared the ball. He did not often "go long", if you understand what I'm saying. This matters as you're more succeptable to interceptions when going deep.
[quote]Most completions in a Super Bowl (32 in Super Bowl XXXVIII)[/quote]
This one also is signifigant, but how much? The Patriots had virtually no running game, their running backs were Smith and Faulk.
more records from wikipedia :
Personal records
[quote] * Highest single-game quarterback rating: 148.3 (at Indianapolis, October 21, 2001)
* Highest single-season quarterback rating: 92.6 (2004-2005 season)
* Highest career quarterback rating against a team: Atlanta Falcons (140.4)
* Lowest interception total, season (minimum 2 starts): 12 (2001 and 2003)
* Highest interception total, season (minumum 2 starts): 14 (2002, 2004, 2005)
Sounds like a Michael Vick caliber quarterback to me.[/quote]
Those are alright stats, not going to say they are bad, but if Michael Vick's QB rating for 1 game was 148, how well is it describing him?
[quote]Alos if your going to say he isnt doing good this year. Well who wouldn't after losing his 2 top receivers. If Peyton Manning lost his best receivers he wouldn't be doing as well either. Peyton Manning has Marving Harrison. Tom Brady has Benjamin Watson for his top receiver (tight end)...[/quote]
I'm not, football is a team game.
Also, when have the Patriots with Brady ever been renouned for their offense over their defense. Their defense is (really) what made them successful.
[right][snapback]590135[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote]How about not losing back to back games in 57 games. Or having winning seasons or having winning records in the playoffs?[/quote]
Team accomplishment.
[quote]64-21 record as a starter (.753 winning percentage)[/quote]
So if he goes 21-64 on a bad team, is he a bad quarterback? Nah. Sure, it means SOMETHING, but not really much, it depends on the team.
[quote]7-0 in overtime games[/quote]
Read above.
[quote]NFL record for most consecutive wins in post season: 10[/quote]
Read above.
[quote]# Most consecutive post season wins (college and professional combined): 12[/quote]
Read above, but College does not matter. It's a whole different ball game.
[quote]# NFL record 10-1 in the post-season[/quote]
Read above.
[quote]73.7 passing attempts per interception in the post-season (lowest rate in NFL history, minimum 250 pass attempts)[/quote]
This one does matter, but you have to take into consideration the type of offense he had, and their style of play. He had a bunch of okay recievers, and he shared the ball. He did not often "go long", if you understand what I'm saying. This matters as you're more succeptable to interceptions when going deep.
[quote]Most completions in a Super Bowl (32 in Super Bowl XXXVIII)[/quote]
This one also is signifigant, but how much? The Patriots had virtually no running game, their running backs were Smith and Faulk.
more records from wikipedia :
Personal records
[quote] * Highest single-game quarterback rating: 148.3 (at Indianapolis, October 21, 2001)
* Highest single-season quarterback rating: 92.6 (2004-2005 season)
* Highest career quarterback rating against a team: Atlanta Falcons (140.4)
* Lowest interception total, season (minimum 2 starts): 12 (2001 and 2003)
* Highest interception total, season (minumum 2 starts): 14 (2002, 2004, 2005)
Sounds like a Michael Vick caliber quarterback to me.[/quote]
Those are alright stats, not going to say they are bad, but if Michael Vick's QB rating for 1 game was 148, how well is it describing him?
[quote]Alos if your going to say he isnt doing good this year. Well who wouldn't after losing his 2 top receivers. If Peyton Manning lost his best receivers he wouldn't be doing as well either. Peyton Manning has Marving Harrison. Tom Brady has Benjamin Watson for his top receiver (tight end)...[/quote]
I'm not, football is a team game.
Also, when have the Patriots with Brady ever been renouned for their offense over their defense. Their defense is (really) what made them successful.
[right][snapback]590135[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by n2o-SiMpSoNs on 2006-11-17 at 19:10:03
QUOTE(Deathawk @ Nov 16 2006, 03:53 PM)
This one does matter, but you have to take into consideration the type of offense he had, and their style of play. He had a bunch of okay recievers, and he shared the ball. He did not often "go long", if you understand what I'm saying. This matters as you're more succeptable to interceptions when going deep.
Does it really matter if they go deep? A completion is a completion. He goes shorter because you throw more interceptions deep because Brady is a smart quarterback. He can make quick decisions and not have to go deep all the time.
QUOTE
This one also is significant, but how much? The Patriots had virtually no running game, their running backs were Smith and Faulk.
If they had no running game then their is more pressure on the quartback and the offense to score a lot of points by air. The defense will also be looking for the air more so it would make it harder to pass against a pass defense the whole game.
QUOTE
Those are alright stats, not going to say they are bad, but if Michael Vick's QB rating for 1 game was 148, how well is it describing him?
QUOTE
Also, when have the Patriots with Brady ever been renouned for their offense over their defense. Their defense is (really) what made them successful.
I agree defense win championships and basically every super bowl team had one of the best defenses but, The defense alone can't get them to the super bowl. You need a good offense in the season and in the playoffs to make it to the super bowl. Along with a good quarterback.
How many games do you think the patriots would of won if they stuck with Drew Bledsoe. We wouldn't be talking about how the patriots are a dynasty. Or which is better Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. We would be talking about how the patriots are a decent team.