You have a point there. Perhaps it's a social penalty for unlikable dominance.
I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't in there, along with simple self-interest. As long as you and yours are on top me and mine can't be, so you have to trade me something for that. Jordan sold himself as the guy you'd want to hang out with or see deliver a Coke to your kids, even though we've come to learn he was largely not that thing at all. Magic was great at selling an image. He was the basketball equivalent to Favre, playing with an open joy that resonated with people who weren't pulling for the Lakers. That even spilled onto Bird once the two were seen as mutually admiring rivals.
on Rodgers...
His legacy'll be plagued by a lack of rings, the more time goes on.
I'm not sure about either of those assumptions. Marino is widely regarded as a top eight to five all time qb and he only got to one, which he lost. Rodgers won one already and most fans know Green Bay isn't the sort of market that tends to draw a lot of free agents to it. If he wins another one and keeps playing at this level he'll be in the mix when it comes to the glut of great modern qbs we've seen, from Brady and Peyton, to the star crossed Rivers and Brees. I think we'll have to break it into smaller considerations. I'd put Montana/Elway/Marino in one period and Brady and company in another because of how the game changed for qbs, wrs and defenses.
Cheating will tarnish Belichick the more time goes on, but Brady and Rodgers will be judged partly based on championships, which I think is correct.
I think it's already cost Tom, though not as much as the Giants losses, especially the first. You could throw the rest out and losing with that all time NFL offense would keep him out of Montana reach for many no matter what else he managed. But I'd say deflate gate gave a lot of people who might have considered the first cheating scandal a coaching matter reason to think of Tom as less removed from it. Ultimately, Rodgers is shaping up to present a compelling argument that all he really lacked was consistently great coaching and teammates.
On a Brady sequel...
Meh. He's too old to come into a new program and get the program to do what they need to do, so that he can do what he can do, in enough time left for him to do anything.
Barring injury I'm not sure about that. He could take a few teams to the big game. I noted a couple. And given his level of play I wouldn't be surprised to see him this good for at least two more years. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the wheels fall off before the season is over. We're in largely unexplored territory...but then again, look what Favre managed late, if like a light bulb about to burn out. Brady is in better condition than Favre and doesn't have the past issues Favre had with substances. It would have to be a next year move, but it's not beyond the realm of the possible. Assuming he'd be interested. He's one of the few I wouldn't put a late Favre/Peyton rally past.
But I root for him, and if his team played against the Pats, I'd root for him to play well, but I'd have to wait and see if I'd root for him to beat NE or not.
I had a taste of that consideration when Manning left the Colts. Not pleasant.
On where Tom is presently...
Unnecessarily uncharitable.
I don't see why. I was providing context. The Saints give up more yards than anyone other than the Pats through three. They can't stop the pass effectively at all. Bradford put up nearly 350 and 3 tds on them, then Brady put up nearly 450 and 3 tds. Cam had a bad day against them, but he's been having bad days against everyone (I might have to reconsider his next one).
Would you have preferred him to not play well?
I don't root for him, so it's immaterial to me. I simply note how he plays and in what context.
You're penalizing him for playing well.
No. I'm noting that his numbers/rating in a three game stretch were inflated by play against a really bad defense in New Orleans and a decent but not great (at present) defense in Houston. And I noted that the one top defense he played made him look less than terrific. Will he beat top tier defenses? Sure. He's a great qb. But more often than not even great qbs look okay, but less often great against the best defenses.
He played very well against the Saints, with a diminished receiving crew, like against Houston.
And he's averaging over 9 yards a completion, on pace to put up 5,800 yds, 42 tds and 0 ints.
lain: See what I mean? As for who he has on hand, if you're accurate enough and the secondary is bad enough it really doesn't matter. All you need is a decent set or wrs (and he has that) and he has Gronk as a relief valve. That ain't hay.
The first game of any season, Belichick has said, means next nothing. What matters more than the first game, win or lose, is how you play the second game of the season.
Easily one of the funniest and more self-serving comments by Bill then.
Lucky break that second game was against a defensive creampuff . I wonder what tune he'd have sung if KC had been in that slot. :think: I'm thinking it might have been different.
The second game is a greater test than the first. After that, all the games converge to maximum importance, with the SB being the final and most important challenge.
Unless you're losing or the game on point is a division rival, games don't get more or less important by chronology short of the playoffs.
