Brady last year in NE rumors continue

[Hackenberg - Banned]

22 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

But you don’t know that for sure. 

Most certainly,  not often

[Hackenberg - Banned]

39 minutes ago, CTM said:

Favre's last season Minnesota didn't make the playoffs, what are you talking about?

Fine, second to last season. Still impressive  for end of career.

Though I did think Saints game was the last one

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, Hackenberg said:

One finished  in a conf championship.  The other in a SB.  I assumed he had the  ability  to  figure that out.

You said Favre.   I quoted you.  Favre finished 5-8 with the sh*tty stats I gave before.  Keep acting like everyone else has the comprehension problem. 

[dbatesman]

29 minutes ago, Hackenberg said:

Fine, second to last season. Still impressive  for end of career.

Though I did think Saints game was the last one

“Ok whatever, I was wrong about basically everything I said. My point still stands.”

[Hackenberg - Banned]

13 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

You said Favre.   I quoted you.  Favre finished 5-8 with the sh*tty stats I gave before.  Keep acting like everyone else has the comprehension problem. 

Again, second to last season is still impressive. You aren't proving me  wrong in any significant  way. I'm still the god of football knowledge at any forum I go to, since I know it's entertainment  and not competition. 

Your lack of belief  in me, is a sin.

[CTM]

27 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

This is truly hurtful. 

You don't think Romo is right about Skechers?

Listen, you can slobber all over Brady’s ballsack all you want, I hate him AND his coach Belli. 

But reaching back to his formative stages as a failed coach and trying to use that to discount what he’s done for nearly 2 decades is incredibly weak. ‘Oh, yeah, Belli didn’t win any playoff games with Cleveland’ has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. 

Besides, this is all opinion and there are NO objective metrics to prove who made whom, just supposition and conjecture. 

You look through your prism and see it’s ALL Brady and no Belli  

In my eyes it’s ALL Belli and some Brady. 

One thing you and all the Brady gobblers will discount is the massive, systematic and clearly proven cheating scheme Belli has pulled off for ever. THAT’S part of his greatness and one of the ways he made Brady. 

All Brady could do is deflate footballs and hop himself up on HGH, Steroids and whatever other illicit PED his drug dealer concocted for him. That’s all on Brady.  

You and greenwhich seem pretty obsessed with Brady's good looks with all the gay remarks. I can assure you I'm far less enamored by him than you and am not factoring his looks into my thinking.

re: the bolded, who said it was all Brady and no Beli? Who even said it's an either or, I thought the discussion was who gets more or most of the credit?

My position has always been that QB is by far the most important role on a team and has the biggest single impact to overall success of an organization. It's why you see great QB's who switch teams continue to win (Manning, Brees,  Favre) and great QB's who stay on the same team but swap coaches also continue to win (Manning in Indy, Rothlisberger in Pitts, Elway in Denver) and you rarely see coaches have high levels of success when changing QB's. (including Beli, who has missed the playoffs all but 1 time without Brady). 

My position in Brady vs Beli is consistent with how I've always attributed win share if you will.

Lastly, I'm largely unmoved by the cheating accusations. Brady had his single best year post spygate when most of the yahoos in Jet land were predicting him to suck. He was great post deflate gate as well. Most of the guys use PED's, so a big meh..

[Peace Frog]

6 minutes ago, CTM said:

You and greenwhich seem pretty obsessed with Brady's good looks with all the gay remarks. I can assure you I'm far less enamored by him than you and am not factoring his looks into my thinking.

re: the bolded, who said it was all Brady and no Beli? Who even said it's an either or, I thought the discussion was who gets more or most of the credit?

My position has always been that QB is by far the most important role on a team and has the biggest single impact to overall success of an organization. It's why you see great QB's who switch teams continue to win (Manning, Brees,  Favre) and great QB's who stay on the same team but swap coaches also continue to win (Manning in Indy, Rothlisberger in Pitts, Elway in Denver) and you rarely see coaches have high levels of success when changing QB's. (including Beli, who has missed the playoffs all but 1 time without Brady). 

My position in Brady vs Beli is consistent with how I've always attributed win share if you will.

Lastly, I'm largely unmoved by the cheating accusations. Brady had his single best year post spygate when most of the yahoos in Jet land were predicting him to suck. He was great post deflate gate as well. Most of the guys use PED's, so a big meh..

Didn’t read it, quick scan, more drivel. 

Two peas in a pod. Brady gobslobbers.  

 

[Hackenberg - Banned]

Next year, will be Bradys last year. And he probably  loses to Raiders in the conf final. A perfect bookend. 

[Peace Frog]

3 minutes ago, Hackenberg said:

Next year, will be Bradys last year. And he probably  loses to Raiders in the conf final. A perfect bookend. 

On a “tuck” by Carr. 

[CTM]

9 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Didn’t read it, quick scan, more drivel. 

Two peas in a pod. Brady gobslobbers.  

 

What is it about Brady that makes you think of blowing him? Must be tough for you watching him play the Jets.

[greenwichjetfan]

19 minutes ago, CTM said:

You and greenwhich seem pretty obsessed with Brady's good looks with all the gay remarks. I can assure you I'm far less enamored by him than you and am not factoring his looks into my thinking.

re: the bolded, who said it was all Brady and no Beli? Who even said it's an either or, I thought the discussion was who gets more or most of the credit?

My position has always been that QB is by far the most important role on a team and has the biggest single impact to overall success of an organization. It's why you see great QB's who switch teams continue to win (Manning, Brees,  Favre) and great QB's who stay on the same team but swap coaches also continue to win (Manning in Indy, Rothlisberger in Pitts, Elway in Denver) and you rarely see coaches have high levels of success when changing QB's. (including Beli, who has missed the playoffs all but 1 time without Brady). 

My position in Brady vs Beli is consistent with how I've always attributed win share if you will.

Lastly, I'm largely unmoved by the cheating accusations. Brady had his single best year post spygate when most of the yahoos in Jet land were predicting him to suck. He was great post deflate gate as well. Most of the guys use PED's, so a big meh..

Greenwich*

[Peace Frog]

4 minutes ago, CTM said:

What is it about Brady that makes you think of blowing him? Must be tough for you watching him play the Jets.

You two are the dudes constantly sucking Brady off. 

Not that there is anything wrong with that. 

It’s ok, it’s just weird for a Jet fan. 

[Peace Frog]

5 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

Greenwich*

He sounds like a philistine. 

[CTM]

4 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

You two are the dudes constantly sucking Brady off. 

Not that there is anything wrong with that. 

It’s ok, it’s just weird for a Jet fan. 

Only in your deviant, repressed little mind is saying something as innocuous as Brady is a good QB = blowing him. 

[Peace Frog]

16 hours ago, CTM said:

Only in your deviant, repressed little mind is saying something as innocuous as Brady is a good QB = blowing him. 

You’ve gone way beyond innocuous. 

WAY beyond. 

And you’re only in second place. 

[greenwichjetfan]

14 hours ago, CTM said:

My position has always been that QB is by far the most important role on a team and has the biggest single impact to overall success of an organization. It's why you see great QB's who switch teams continue to win (Manning, Brees,  Favre) and great QB's who stay on the same team but swap coaches also continue to win (Manning in Indy, Rothlisberger in Pitts, Elway in Denver) and you rarely see coaches have high levels of success when changing QB's. (including Beli, who has missed the playoffs all but 1 time without Brady). 

Not touching brady v Belichick, but just want to point out that this line of thinking is deeply flawed.

Brees wasn’t winning without Payton. If he were, SD wouldn’t have let him go.

Favre was an erratic second round pick who didn’t even play in ATL, teamed up with Holmgren, and became the only consecutive 3x MVP in history and made back to back SBs, winning one. Without Holmgren, no MVPs or SBs.

Big Ben and Tomlin are the new the poster boys for choking when it matters most. They went to the SB with Cowher’s team and lost, and other than that year immediately following Cowher’s retirement, Big Ben has only reached the AFCCG once even though he personally has taken off and played at elite levels at times.

I’ll concede Elway to an extent because he still made 3 SBs with 2 different coaches, but for your purposes (“winning”), even he didn’t win till he teamed up with Shannahan’s run-oriented zone-blocking offense.

On the coaching side, Joe Gibbs coached 3 different QBs to championships. Bill Walsh’s system wasn’t influential in Montana & Young’s careers? Conversely, Dungy’s defense and Tampa 2 style which Gruden inherited wasn’t instrumental in carrying Brad Johnson to a SB? 

I’m glad you brought this up though because I’ve written extensively here about why I feel guys like Brady and Montana and Bradshaw take a back seat to Peyton even though their teams have amassed more rings. The only QB who you could truly call system-proof. Reached the playoffs, conference championship game, and SB with 4 different coaches across 2 different franchises. Was an All-Pro multiple times across 2 franchises, made multiple pro bowls with 4 coaches. Won an MVP, OPY, and a SB with different franchises and coaches. Led the league in yards and TDs with 2 franchises.

Just like Gibbs, Peyton is obviously the exception to the rule. Gibbs is the only coach to win with multiple QBs, Peyton the only QB to win with different coaches and/or franchises. 

Obviously QBs are the most important position on the team. You’re not breaking news with that hot take. But the point of all this is to say that it’s a flawed mindset to say unequivocally that QBs are so important that they account for 80-90% of a team’s successes or failures. I’m of the opinion that each QB and coach should be judged separately, because just like everything else in the NFL, there’s no such thing as an absolute. Sometimes QBs might drive 70% of the success, sometimes 50%, sometimes 30%. Sometimes QBs might drive 20% of the team’s failures, sometimes 80%. 

[ghost_in_pads02]

Wait what four coaches did Peyton went to the SBs w?

 

And Peyton's stats and performance in the playoffs do not equal what he has done in regular seasons.

His SB with Denver was more to do with his defense then him doing anything plus when Peyton got to denver the offense was tailored to him that's one of the main reasons he went to denver cause it was going to be an offense he was already accustom to and it was going to be run the way he wanted to run it. He didnt adapt to anything.

[CTM]

3 hours ago, greenwichjetfan said:

Brees wasn’t winning without Payton. If he were, SD wouldn’t have let him go.

Favre was an erratic second round pick who didn’t even play in ATL, teamed up with Holmgren, and became the only consecutive 3x MVP in history and made back to back SBs, winning one. Without Holmgren, no MVPs or SBs.

Big Ben and Tomlin are the new the poster boys for choking when it matters most. They went to the SB with Cowher’s team and lost, and other than that year immediately following Cowher’s retirement, Big Ben has only reached the AFCCG once even though he personally has taken off and played at elite levels at times.

SD went 21-11 in Brees last 2 years and only let him go because they drafted Rivers in top 5 prior to Brees breaking out

Favre had the Jets at 8-3 until injury and then went to AFCC the following year in Min before flaming out due to old.

Big Ben won a SB with Cowher in 05, a SB with Tomlin in 08 and lost a SB in 2010. They've also made the playoffs 4 times in the past 5 years and he has a career record of 144-69

At the end of the day, the best chance of winning a SB involves winning lots of regular season games, to 1) make the playoffs 2) have as many home field games as possible 3) earn a bye.  The more time you do those 3 things the more SB's you win (See the pats) Trying to distill it down solely to SB record is dumb as we've seen 1000 times by numbnuts who try and penalize Brady for losing SB's while ignoring Montana's far inferior playoff record of 16-7 vs 30-10. I guess in their world it's better to lose in the divisional round than the SB?? Anywho, anything can happen in a single game, maximizing opportunities is what is most important and you do that by winning consistently in the regular season.

re: Gibbs. Granted but that is old news and pre the passing era. It's a different game now and the QB is more important than ever.

[CTM]

4 hours ago, greenwichjetfan said:

it’s a flawed mindset to say unequivocally that QBs are so important that they account for 80-90% of a team’s successes or failures.

It's also not my mindset. When did I say 80-90% of teams successes or failures?  Why can't you have a reasonable interpretation on my position rather than histrionics.  I guess at least we've moved on from you thinking my position being dictated by rRady's looks, and now downgraded from it being "all the qb" to just 80-90%. Progress I guess.

[Hael]

Montana and Brady are in a class well above Peyton Manning.

Peyton Manning played in the same system his entire career.  Even the signal calls were similar.  He also played on teams that were significantly  stacked offensively, even the 07 Pats team wasn’t in the same league.  The 87-88 SF O was maybe comparable to the Denver O in terms of surrounding talent, but the rest of the years there was nothing comparable.  Manning basically played his entire career with teams that stacked the O and had no money left for a D.  Meanwhile the Pats basically let Brady carry the O, and put all their money in D.

Montana also played in two franchises and was an allstar and conference finalist in both.  He was also great on a number of teams that weren’t really great offensively..  people just seem to remember the latter half of the 80s and forget that he played and was great most of his career without Rice and Jones etc

Bradshaw on the other hand was definitely carried by a pretty stacked team.

[greenwichjetfan]

22 hours ago, CTM said:

My position has always been that QB is by far the most important role on a team and has the biggest single impact to overall success of an organization. It's why you see great QB's who switch teams continue to win (Manning, Brees,  Favre) and great QB's who stay on the same team but swap coaches also continue to win (Manning in Indy, Rothlisberger in Pitts, Elway in Denver) and you rarely see coaches have high levels of success when changing QB's. (including Beli, who has missed the playoffs all but 1 time without Brady).

2 hours ago, CTM said:

At the end of the day, the best chance of winning a SB involves winning lots of regular season games, to 1) make the playoffs 2) have as many home field games as possible 3) earn a bye.  The more time you do those 3 things the more SB's you win (See the pats) Trying to distill it down solely to SB record is dumb as we've seen 1000 times by numbnuts who try and penalize Brady for losing SB's while ignoring Montana's far inferior playoff record of 16-7 vs 30-10. I guess in their world it's better to lose in the divisional round than the SB?? Anywho, anything can happen in a single game, maximizing opportunities is what is most important and you do that by winning consistently in the regular season.

So your position is that QBs continue to win they switch teams or coaches, but coaches rarely have success when changing QBs? And when I countered your examples with playoffs and SBs (because to most people, that's the only definition of "winnings") you say that regular season wins are a better indicator of success? Ok, cool.

By my count then, there are 29 coaches who have .500 or better records with different teams (or in some cases, same team in different eras, or in Gibbs' case, same team same era but 3 different QBs). That's not including coaches who were above .500 with one team and 3 games or less away from .500 with a second team. It's also not including other coaches who have over 30 wins with multiple franchises but were under .500 with one of them.

[nyjunc]

10 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

So your position is that QBs continue to win they switch teams or coaches, but coaches rarely have success when changing QBs? And when I countered your examples with playoffs and SBs (because to most people, that's the only definition of "winnings") you say that regular season wins are a better indicator of success? Ok, cool.

By my count then, there are 29 coaches who have .500 or better records with different teams (or in some cases, same team in different eras, or in Gibbs' case, same team same era but 3 different QBs). That's not including coaches who were above .500 with one team and 3 games or less away from .500 with a second team. It's also not including other coaches who have over 30 wins with multiple franchises but were under .500 with one of them.

Nice chart, now show Bill Belichick

[CTM]

10 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

So your position is that QBs continue to win they switch teams or coaches, but coaches rarely have success when changing QBs? And when I countered your examples with playoffs and SBs (because to most people, that's the only definition of "winnings") you say that regular season wins are a better indicator of success? Ok, cool.

By my count then, there are 29 coaches who have .500 or better records with different teams (or in some cases, same team in different eras, or in Gibbs' case, same team same era but 3 different QBs). That's not including coaches who were above .500 with one team and 3 games or less away from .500 with a second team. It's also not including other coaches who have over 30 wins with multiple franchises but were under .500 with one of them.

Dont care about old timers, the game is completely different today.  And winning = 10+ wins a season (playoff appearances is entry criteria, then home field and bye week)  by your criteria I could include Alex Smith and any number of jags 

 

[greenwichjetfan]

3 hours ago, CTM said:

It's also not my mindset. When did I say 80-90% of teams successes or failures?  Why can't you have a reasonable interpretation on my position rather than histrionics.  I guess at least we've moved on from you thinking my position being dictated by rRady's looks, and now downgraded from it being "all the qb" to just 80-90%. Progress I guess.

Never pegged you as a sensitive little darling, especially with the way you bring the played out JoeWilly joke up in so many threads. I made a dick reference one time about 12 posts ago, and this is now the 3rd or 4th time you've brought it up, instead of sidestepping it like you sidestepped my entire first 1000 word post except for 4 words which you foolishly isolated.

I'm interpreting your positions as you present them. Want me to interpret them better, present them better. Giving Brady credit for the offenses he's played in while not once acknowledging the teammates, coaching, gameplanning, and roster management that goes into it, and also giving Brady credit for the patriots defenses ("Brady is NE's best defender") because he puts opposing offenses in bad field position, while dismissing the fact that the defense still has to stop the opposing offenses (in this offensive driven league where QBs like Bortles gets to 3500 yards in a season), and also dismissing the plus-turnover ratio and perennial top 10 Points Against rankings over the course of 18 years and claiming that "the facts do more to undermine Beli as as defensive mastermind than anything Brady" all indicate to me that you give the QB 80-90% of the credit for the pats successes. And as you've stated earlier, "My position in Brady vs Beli is consistent with how I've always attributed win share", so I extrapolated that to every situation.

[greenwichjetfan]

20 minutes ago, CTM said:

Dont care about old timers, the game is completely different today.  And winning = 10+ wins a season (playoff appearances is entry criteria, then home field and bye week)  by your criteria I could include Alex Smith and any number of jags 

 

lol, typical.

[CTM]

1 hour ago, greenwichjetfan said:

lol, typical.

Indeed. Again, my position is that in the modern era QB's are the single biggest factor in sustained organization success. You disagree. Fine. However, after you were momentarily able to break your Brady/BJ mental fixation you've tried to debate that point by

1) Suggesting it's folly to give QB's 80-90% of the credit, which is an assertion I never made nor believe. If for instance I said a HC was 10% and GM was 12% influence on sustained success, but a QB was 15% that would qualify as the single biggest factor but be nowhere near the strawmen you created for me and then mocked.

2) Trying to make some point about QB's not winning SB's for multiple teams, and I clarified that SB win's is a deficient criteria to measure what I'm speaking about since anything can happen in 1 game. I then explained that making the playoffs and earning byes and home field advantage is what I was referring to as the more time you get to the playoffs in advantageous situations the more likely you are to win SB's and overcome the any given Sunday phenomenon

3) You respond by posting some list of coaches, many of whom predate the modern era and a decent chunk of which hovered around .500 and/or didn't making the playoffs in their next or previous position thereby again proving a point I wasn't making.

When I called on this fact you lolol'd and act like it was I who was being unreasonable. 

This is boring now. You can have the last word.

~toodles

[greenwichjetfan]

18 minutes ago, CTM said:

Indeed. Again, my position is that in the modern era QB's are the single biggest factor in sustained organization success. You disagree. Fine. However, after you were momentarily able to break your Brady/BJ mental fixation you've tried to debate that point by

1) Suggesting it's folly to give QB's 80-90% of the credit, which is an assertion I never made nor believe. If for instance I said a HC was 10% and GM was 12% influence on sustained success, but a QB was 15% that would qualify as the single biggest factor but be nowhere near the strawmen you created for me and then mocked.

2) Trying to make some point about QB's not winning SB's for multiple teams, and I clarified that SB win's is a deficient criteria to measure what I'm speaking about since anything can happen in 1 game. I then explained that making the playoffs and earning byes and home field advantage is what I was referring to as the more time you get to the playoffs in advantageous situations the more likely you are to win SB's and overcome the any given Sunday phenomenon

3) You respond by posting some list of coaches, many of whom predate the modern era and a decent chunk of which hovered around .500 and/or didn't making the playoffs in their next or previous position thereby again proving a point I wasn't making.

When I called on this fact you lolol'd and act like it was I who was being unreasonable. 

This is boring now. You can have the last word.

~toodles

I’ll take your forfeit. Today was my last day of work for an extended period for paternity leave so won’t be able to appropriately continue this anyway. 

[CTM]

4 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

I’ll take your forfeit. Today was my last day of work for an extended period for paternity leave so won’t be able to appropriately continue this anyway. 

Congrats on the baby!