cferraro Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I don't know about everyone else, but I am tired of hearing ESPN say Brady's injury is bad for the league. Maybe I'm just crazy, but aren't there 31 other teams in the NFL? There have also been several other season-ending injuries this week right? Brady is a good QB, but he does not walk on water. Further more, if I was a player in the NFL I would find comments about Brady's injury being "bad for the league" very insulting. There are many players that suffer season-ending injuries. Any injury to any player is bad for the team and the league. I feel Brady is more of a lucky QB than an all-time great. His luck started when Mo Lewis almost killed Bledsoe in 2001 (nice going Mo) and now his luck has finally ran out. It's time to for the Patriots to pass the torch of success onto another team. One that deserves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I agree 100%. It is good for the league. In much the same way the wild card is good for sports. People are excited. The Patriots built a great thing. But if we are talking about good for the league then a few cities feel better about their teams chances today. That would be good for the league. Of course they could never run a story saying Brady getting hurt is good for the NFL. The NFL is thrilled that Favre is with the Jets now so they can capitalize on this a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I feel Brady is more of a lucky QB than an all-time great. If he never plays another down he's a first ballot hall of famer. Belichick wasn't displaying any genius as an HC until Brady became his QB. He's a great QB, arguably the best player in the league. And in that sense, it's a double edged sword for the league. It's almost like the NBA losing Jordan. You don't want to lose your best player. People tune in just to see him in action. But by the same token, it does suddenly open up the AFC - and that makes for an exciting year for a lot more teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillerPaul Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I agree 100%. It is good for the league. In much the same way the wild card is good for sports. People are excited. The Patriots built a great thing. But if we are talking about good for the league then a few cities feel better about their teams chances today. That would be good for the league. Of course they could never run a story saying Brady getting hurt is good for the NFL. The NFL is thrilled that Favre is with the Jets now so they can capitalize on this a bit. Agreed. If it's bad for the league then it's GREAT for all the other AFC contenders. This conference may have lost the oddsmakers choice, but last i looked they did not win the SB last year anyway. I visit quite a few football boards and the prevailing sentement in the AFC is "Wow our chances just got better." How can that be bad for the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyper Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I agree 100%. It is good for the league. In much the same way the wild card is good for sports. People are excited. The Patriots built a great thing. But if we are talking about good for the league then a few cities feel better about their teams chances today. That would be good for the league. Of course they could never run a story saying Brady getting hurt is good for the NFL. The NFL is thrilled that Favre is with the Jets now so they can capitalize on this a bit. Any time one of the league's best players gets knocked out for the season, it's bad for the league. As a "football fan", not just a fan of a particular team, but a fan of football, you should enjoy seeing the very best your era has to offer. This season will now be similar to the '94 NBA season when the Houston Rockets won the title in a league missing its best player. They say to be the best you must beat the best, well the Rockets never did that and history remembers that about their accomplishment. It's the same thing this year. Even if the Jets or Bills win the AFC East this year, it's an "empty" accomplishment. They, like every NFL team competing for the SB, won't have an opportunity to beat the best. That's bad for the league and bad for the game. But look at the silver lining. While we may not end up with a "true" champion this season, it should still remain a very compelling season. It's also similar to when Montana got injured. Fans of that era were denied the opportunity to see arguably the greatest QB ever. His last injury knocked him out for what, two or three seasons right at the tail end of his prime. While perhaps good for his division rivals and Steve Young, it was bad for the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Any time one of the league's best players gets knocked out for the season, it's bad for the league. As a "football fan", not just a fan of a particular team, but a fan of football, you should enjoy seeing the very best your era has to offer. This season will now be similar to the '94 NBA season when the Houston Rockets won the title in a league missing its best player. They say to be the best you must beat the best, well the Rockets never did that and history remembers that about their accomplishment. It's the same thing this year. Even if the Jets or Bills win the AFC East this year, it's an "empty" accomplishment. They, like every NFL team competing for the SB, won't have an opportunity to beat the best. That's bad for the league and bad for the game. But look at the silver lining. While we may not end up with a "true" champion this season, it should still remain a very compelling season. It's also similar to when Montana got injured. Fans of that era were denied the opportunity to see arguably the greatest QB ever. His last injury knocked him out for what, two or three seasons right at the tail end of his prime. While perhaps good for his division rivals and Steve Young, it was bad for the game. I don't agree. Anytime you have more cities competing or feeling they can compete, that is good for the league. The wild card in both baseball and football is the perfect example of this. The league is worried about the bottom line. This will impact the bottom line in a positive way. More jerseys will be sold in other cities. I am not saying this is good for the sport or good for the Patriots. There is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetscode1 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Any time one of the league's best players gets knocked out for the season, it's bad for the league. As a "football fan", not just a fan of a particular team, but a fan of football, you should enjoy seeing the very best your era has to offer. This season will now be similar to the '94 NBA season when the Houston Rockets won the title in a league missing its best player. They say to be the best you must beat the best, well the Rockets never did that and history remembers that about their accomplishment. It's the same thing this year. Even if the Jets or Bills win the AFC East this year, it's an "empty" accomplishment. They, like every NFL team competing for the SB, won't have an opportunity to beat the best. That's bad for the league and bad for the game. But look at the silver lining. While we may not end up with a "true" champion this season, it should still remain a very compelling season. It's also similar to when Montana got injured. Fans of that era were denied the opportunity to see arguably the greatest QB ever. His last injury knocked him out for what, two or three seasons right at the tail end of his prime. While perhaps good for his division rivals and Steve Young, it was bad for the game. Injuries are part of the game. The comparison with Jordan sitting out was different because we could imagine him still competing. There was no injury, no reason in the mind of the fans why he couldn't or wouldn't come back and play. The "true champion" you seek is the team that overcomes all obstacles (injuries included) and win the Super Bowl. Is the Giants Super Bowl Championship of 1986 an empty accomplishment because Montana (in your words "arguably the greatest QB ever") was out for the season with a back injury? No, it was accomplishment for the Giants and ultimately failure for the 49ers (that season) who could not overcome Montana's injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Any time one of the league's best players gets knocked out for the season, it's bad for the league. As a "football fan", not just a fan of a particular team, but a fan of football, you should enjoy seeing the very best your era has to offer. This season will now be similar to the '94 NBA season when the Houston Rockets won the title in a league missing its best player. They say to be the best you must beat the best, well the Rockets never did that and history remembers that about their accomplishment. It's the same thing this year. Even if the Jets or Bills win the AFC East this year, it's an "empty" accomplishment. They, like every NFL team competing for the SB, won't have an opportunity to beat the best. That's bad for the league and bad for the game. But look at the silver lining. While we may not end up with a "true" champion this season, it should still remain a very compelling season. It's also similar to when Montana got injured. Fans of that era were denied the opportunity to see arguably the greatest QB ever. His last injury knocked him out for what, two or three seasons right at the tail end of his prime. While perhaps good for his division rivals and Steve Young, it was bad for the game. Bullsh!t. First off to compare Brady to Jordan is ludicrous. Once Jordan won his first title in 90 they won every year. Brady hasn't won squat since 04. Second off, the NFL has preached this league is about the team and not stars. The NBA preached Bird, Magic and Michael. It is what the Pats were about when the won their first Super Bowl. Remember that ? Or did you just jump on the bandwagon ? The only people who lose in this is the Networks who will now have to deal with Favre vs Cassel instead of Brady vs Favre. Contrary to popular belief there are alot of fans who hate Brady, and hate the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryK Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 As the resident O-Line freak I say let's wait a couple weeks and REALLY find out why this team has been good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 It's GREAT for the league. When the cheaters win it just reminds people how many wins and super bowls they stole and that the league wasn't on the level for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY JETS 29 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 The league loses a star and reigning MVP, but that only leaves for another team to step up and a new MVP to be crowned which could lead to a good story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 People say this crap now, but if the Pats tank everyone will just say they suck and will ignore the fact that the QB went down. Like they did for us every time Chad went down, when Chad actually looked to be good. The difference though is I think the Pats will be okay since they don't have Herm as the HC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY JETS 29 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I don't know what there final record will be or how they will fare without Brady, but what I do know is Cassel hasnt started a game since 1999 in high school and was pulled by his head coach last season when his team was up big because he threw and INT for a reason. I don't think he is good at all but will fare OK in these next couple of weeks because teams dont have much to prepare on film, ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greeniemeanie Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Michael Jordan being injured would be bad for the NBA. Babe Ruth being injured would be bad for the MLB. Muhammed Ali being injured would be bad for Boxing. Me getting injured would be bad for competitive kazoo players world wide. Tom Brady is no Michael Jordan in basketball, Babe Ruth in baseball, Ali in boxing, or me with my lips wrapped around a hard piece of plastic. IMO, Brady being hurt does nothing good or bad for the entire league. Now, if he takes up competitive kazoo playing I might be in trouble. I heard rumors that he has extensive experience wrapping his lips around hard objects. But, then again, you can't trust everything Bill Belichick tells you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 people like stars it's not GOOD for the sport but... it's good for the other 31 teams that now have a better shot in the end, wash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardKoreXXX Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I, for one, thought Tent Green's injury last season KILLED the league. Shocked no one is making the comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.