Is that for the "Which qb with the initials 'T.B' would you take for one game' contest?
lain:I can't wait for the Tiger Woods vs Arnold Palmer NOW contest. That should be a close one.
NFL Off Season
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
- Status
lain:I can't wait for the Tiger Woods vs Arnold Palmer NOW contest. That should be a close one.
While we're waiting for Nihilo's response from the bullpen () I thought I'd add more fuel to the Brady fire.
So I've chronicled reasons, using his playoff and SB wins why the GOAT bit is a contrivance that shouldn't stand up under scrutiny, WHILE being up front with my contention that he's at the very least tied for or the best of his generation AND on my top ten all time list of NFL qbs.
Here are a few more holes in the Goat approach
NE wins without him and wins convincingly. Brady has missed 20 games. In those games his back up qbs have gone 14-6, or a 70%/30% win to loss ratio. I've noted prior that when he went down for a year his back up won 11 games. That back up went to KC and other places thereafter and looked pretty ordinary. And that was with a qb who hadn't been a starter since, what, high school, looked pretty darn good under center in that system. And he was getting better as they went. He threw for over 3,600 yds, 21 tds, 11 ints, a completion % of 64 and a rating of 89.4, better than Brady's first full year as starter. Better than any year of Bledsoe. A cusp pro bowl performance.
The next year as the head of KC? Under three thousand yards, 16 tds to 16 ints and a 69 rating. How good did Bill and that system make qbs?
Everyone is salivating for NE's current back up, Garappolo. They might want to take another look. That 113 rating looks really good. So did Cassel.
I've already noted that Brady's first ring year he played better or up to Bledsoe's good but not great stats prior. What else contributed to the uptick in wins? The hiring of defensive coordinator Romeo C, who in that year took the Pats scoring defense from sub middle of the pack (17th) to top ten status (6th) in 2001. Outside of the tremendous kicking game I noted that was the early unsung hero of NE. In those first three 3pt ring wins the Pats had a scoring defense ranked 6th, 1st, and 2nd. During the nine year absence from the big game Brady had much better statistical years than he had during the three ring run, but he lacked that scoring defense.
What won Brady his first ring, a ring that adds to the sum that lends a mistaken foundation to an overall impression for some on the GOAT business was a team that held the greatest show on turf to 17 pts. It's the same sort of reason Peyton had his last ring. Both men contributed to the team success, in Peyton's case finding a way to help his team beat Brady for that last hurrah.
As for the myth that Brady played with lesser teammates and made them better, the stats don't bear it out. His receivers averages with and without him are about the same. Wes Welker caught 112 passes from Brady and 111 the next year from Sam Cassel. Look at Branch in NE and compare his stats in Seattle when he left. Almost identical.
) I thought I'd add more fuel to the Brady fire.So I've chronicled reasons, using his playoff and SB wins why the GOAT bit is a contrivance that shouldn't stand up under scrutiny, WHILE being up front with my contention that he's at the very least tied for or the best of his generation AND on my top ten all time list of NFL qbs.
Here are a few more holes in the Goat approach
NE wins without him and wins convincingly. Brady has missed 20 games. In those games his back up qbs have gone 14-6, or a 70%/30% win to loss ratio. I've noted prior that when he went down for a year his back up won 11 games. That back up went to KC and other places thereafter and looked pretty ordinary. And that was with a qb who hadn't been a starter since, what, high school, looked pretty darn good under center in that system. And he was getting better as they went. He threw for over 3,600 yds, 21 tds, 11 ints, a completion % of 64 and a rating of 89.4, better than Brady's first full year as starter. Better than any year of Bledsoe. A cusp pro bowl performance.
The next year as the head of KC? Under three thousand yards, 16 tds to 16 ints and a 69 rating. How good did Bill and that system make qbs?
Everyone is salivating for NE's current back up, Garappolo. They might want to take another look. That 113 rating looks really good. So did Cassel.
I've already noted that Brady's first ring year he played better or up to Bledsoe's good but not great stats prior. What else contributed to the uptick in wins? The hiring of defensive coordinator Romeo C, who in that year took the Pats scoring defense from sub middle of the pack (17th) to top ten status (6th) in 2001. Outside of the tremendous kicking game I noted that was the early unsung hero of NE. In those first three 3pt ring wins the Pats had a scoring defense ranked 6th, 1st, and 2nd. During the nine year absence from the big game Brady had much better statistical years than he had during the three ring run, but he lacked that scoring defense.
What won Brady his first ring, a ring that adds to the sum that lends a mistaken foundation to an overall impression for some on the GOAT business was a team that held the greatest show on turf to 17 pts. It's the same sort of reason Peyton had his last ring. Both men contributed to the team success, in Peyton's case finding a way to help his team beat Brady for that last hurrah.
As for the myth that Brady played with lesser teammates and made them better, the stats don't bear it out. His receivers averages with and without him are about the same. Wes Welker caught 112 passes from Brady and 111 the next year from Sam Cassel. Look at Branch in NE and compare his stats in Seattle when he left. Almost identical.
Yes. They were cheating. The failures of Crennel and especially Weis show it was not genius play calling on both sides of the ball.
Recording hand signals is only what they got caught doing. That and Brady's play starting in 2007 when some say Brady started deflating the ball just a bit for better grip.
All I'm saying is, Town, that Brady is not done yet, and you don't know what's going to happen, even though if we had to bet the farm on Brady playing another ten seasons, we neither of us would do that, but it remains today as of this moment, a logical possibility, but between impossible and completely impossible on the odds of it occurring. But say Brady plays til 50, and he takes his team to 5 or 6 more championships, and delivers three or four trophies, which his past record predicts. He'd have minimum eight rings, and continue the same percent bringing his team to the SB as did Joe Montana. You're arguing implicitly that Joe Montana if not hampered by an injury not his fault, and not Brady's fault either, would win every SB appearance, and if he played til this hypothetical 50, he'd have by then the same number of SB appearances as Brady, only all eleven minimum would be Joe's rings, and this I protest---you don't have enough data. We know that Jerry Rice was healthy and strong and in his prime for the last two SBs for Montana, so before that you can upgrade the value of his performance in SBs before Rice in how good he did, as a passer.
If they both played to 50, they'd each have the approximate same SB-appearances, and you're saying that Joe who only got to four, and did win them, and did win out in them, with zero blemishes, and on which I've before agreed with you, would have continued with his SB-appearance-per-season record and bring his teams to the championship roughly eleven or twelve times, depending upon what exact age he started playing regularly as a starter, and how many seasons actually played, and that he'd have 12 rings, to Brady's eventual hypothetical eight or nine rings.
If Montana didn't have great receivers his whole career, then his odds go way down on him maintaining that admitted perfection for all 11-13 SBs. He'd probably wind up with 8-10, just like how Brady would, in this between completely impossible and blasphemously impossible likelihood that Brady plays as he ages just as well as a passer as he has been playing for the last decade, for the next decade; it's only intended for you Town, this response, in particular, is why it's too long; didn't read.
That's all I'm saying, and to me, you're saying, Yes, the correct answer is that Joe Montana would continue his demonstrated SB-appearance-per-season performance as a starting QB up until hypothetical 45-50 years old, in the hypothetical and more just world where Montana isn't career-fatally injured in his prime. I disagree, and I feel like you're trying to make me the idiot in disagreeing with you. You insist upon 100% SB performance for Montana in the more just hypothetical world where he remains at least as healthy as Brady has, with a near-miraculous only one full season on IR by 40, and I don't think there's enough data, and part of my job requires that I understand odds and oddsmaking, as an honorable and valuable profession; meaning I specifically do not deliberately intend to convey anything other than positive connotations about the profession, and I think that in the long haul, that Montana would eventually lose a SB or two, as Brady has done.
Speaking of which, the problem I never mention because I feel that it communicates to the QB that he's not actually responsible for winning the whole game, that if he does not have great receivers, then he can lose. In the first one against the Giants the receivers dropped, a lot. That's really not fair in some sense that the QB gets the incomplete, even though he verifiably (since the television age), did his job, and I can't see where he did any worse at it than Montana, and Montana's receivers happened to catch the ball, and Brady's didn't, whaddyagonnado? It would have happened to Montana eventually.
And he would have thrown a pick, at least one. If it's your opinion that he would never throw a pick or two, even on a tip, then I think you're dreaming. You can only be perfect, and perfect still gets unlucky, which is why oddsmaking is such an interesting field to me, frankly.
If Brady gets to two more SBs and wins one, that's six rings, out of nine appearances, 66.6% winning percentage truncated.
I don't like passive aggression.
If they both played to 50, they'd each have the approximate same SB-appearances, and you're saying that Joe who only got to four, and did win them, and did win out in them, with zero blemishes, and on which I've before agreed with you, would have continued with his SB-appearance-per-season record and bring his teams to the championship roughly eleven or twelve times, depending upon what exact age he started playing regularly as a starter, and how many seasons actually played, and that he'd have 12 rings, to Brady's eventual hypothetical eight or nine rings.
If Montana didn't have great receivers his whole career, then his odds go way down on him maintaining that admitted perfection for all 11-13 SBs. He'd probably wind up with 8-10, just like how Brady would, in this between completely impossible and blasphemously impossible likelihood that Brady plays as he ages just as well as a passer as he has been playing for the last decade, for the next decade; it's only intended for you Town, this response, in particular, is why it's too long; didn't read.
That's all I'm saying, and to me, you're saying, Yes, the correct answer is that Joe Montana would continue his demonstrated SB-appearance-per-season performance as a starting QB up until hypothetical 45-50 years old, in the hypothetical and more just world where Montana isn't career-fatally injured in his prime. I disagree, and I feel like you're trying to make me the idiot in disagreeing with you. You insist upon 100% SB performance for Montana in the more just hypothetical world where he remains at least as healthy as Brady has, with a near-miraculous only one full season on IR by 40, and I don't think there's enough data, and part of my job requires that I understand odds and oddsmaking, as an honorable and valuable profession; meaning I specifically do not deliberately intend to convey anything other than positive connotations about the profession, and I think that in the long haul, that Montana would eventually lose a SB or two, as Brady has done.
Speaking of which, the problem I never mention because I feel that it communicates to the QB that he's not actually responsible for winning the whole game, that if he does not have great receivers, then he can lose. In the first one against the Giants the receivers dropped, a lot. That's really not fair in some sense that the QB gets the incomplete, even though he verifiably (since the television age), did his job, and I can't see where he did any worse at it than Montana, and Montana's receivers happened to catch the ball, and Brady's didn't, whaddyagonnado? It would have happened to Montana eventually.
And he would have thrown a pick, at least one. If it's your opinion that he would never throw a pick or two, even on a tip, then I think you're dreaming. You can only be perfect, and perfect still gets unlucky, which is why oddsmaking is such an interesting field to me, frankly.
If Brady gets to two more SBs and wins one, that's six rings, out of nine appearances, 66.6% winning percentage truncated.
I don't like passive aggression.
Chances are the bottom falls out at any time. Is it possible that he plays another five years? It's possible, but it isn't likely. Fifty? Not going to happen. He looks great? Sure does.
But remember, before Peyton took one more ding that his old body couldn't bounce back from he threw 39 tds against 15 picks, around 300 yds a game, 66% comp rate, and over 100 qbr average.
That old body took hits that mattered in the playoffs that year and the next year it was 9 tds to 17 ints, a 59% comp rate and a 69 qbr.
At that age they can look like they'll play for ten more years and then look like they've played five years longer than they should the next thing you know. It's just the body and the wall. Time always wins and at Brady's age it's more likely than not the wall is coming for him and soon. He goes into this season a 40 year old qb.
The only qb to play at a pro bowl level at that age was Favre, who put up over four thousand yards, threw for 33 tds against 7 ints and ended the season with a 107 rating at 40. No one has come close to that...then he was hit hard in the playoffs and the next year it was a little over 2,500 yds, 11 tds against 19 ints and about a 70 rating. Time always wins.
Time will beat Tom too, and likely sooner than later.
Not going to happen. If he gets through 2 more seasons looking like himself I'll be amazed. It's possible, but unlikely. Fifty? Not possible. Forty five is probably not going to happen even if he doesn't get that life altering hit.
No, I'm saying Joe won every SB he played in. And that he beat the team he won with, beat Young in their only head to head leading a comparatively inferior team. Joe could have another ring or two had SF not decided to take the younger player that gave them a healthier body and a longer run at rings. But he doesn't need them to be the GOAT. What he did before the trade to KC secured that against any challenger so far. His record and rating in the SBs is unmatched. I believe Brady's best game rating beat Joe's worst and that's about it.
Montana ratings by SB, high to low: 147.6, 127.2, 115.2, 100
Brady ratings by SB, high to low: 110.2, 101.1, 100.5, 95.2, 91.1, 86.2, 82.5
What we know is that Joe won two rings without Rice and two with, or as many without. Brady lost his bid with the closest thing he had to Rice playing with him in Moss and lost with a historic best offense in a game where Brady looked so-so.
No, I wasn't getting into that, because no one is making that mark. It just doesn't happen. What I'm saying is that Joe was the better qb by any reasonable litmus. The only way Brady is in the conversation is if you make it all about the number of rings and that only. But then that's like suggesting Bill Russel is the greatest basketball player of all time because he has the most rings.
Bill was great, not doubt. But no one is calling him the GOAT.
And I'm telling you that's the homer in you, the part of you that feels that way or believes I'm disparaging a great qb by noting that the popular and media driven sentiment isn't really supported by objective data. He's like Bill, great, but not the GOAT. And you're not an idiot, you're just a fan letting his love for his guy and team overwhelm your objectivity.
Tet has that problem.
Sounds reasonable. The preseason isn't the off season, exactly. Who's doing the honors?
It's still Knight's house.
Will we ever have a NFL team again in St. Louis?
I'll go against the grain and say it isn't a good market. Soccer is a thing here. That pretty much sums it up for me.
Not sure yet. I want to see what he looks like going through the "got the book on you" sophomore year. He looks good so far. That running game definitely helps in his development, as does his intelligent use of his own mobility and threat as a runner.
He really looks like Steve Young in his first full year as a starter for the Niners, though Young was anything but a rookie at that point.
Watched the HOF speeches the other night. Good moments, though I wasn't wowed by any one speech. Didn't seem to be the sort of crowd I'd have expected. Glad to see Warner and TD make it in. LT was a given. Not that connected to the rest. Anderson was a fine kicker, but the only kicker I'm interested in seeing in the jacket at present won't be eligible for a few years if he ever hangs them up.
Class of 18? :think: If I got to pick five...
I'm going to say Owens has waited long enough and let Moss lose the first year as penance for his own immaturity early.
Lewis is a given. Ulacher might have to wait. You don't tend to see multiple LBs or Wrs in a year.
Fanaca gets my nod as the O line representative. An Eight time pro bowler, he was close. Will Mawae divide voters? Boselli has some sentiment and Hutchinson is another terrific candidate...maybe we'll see multiple O linemen in next year's ceremony.
Lynch has been gaining and might get the nod, but I'd take Brian Dawkins. I think he was the better of the two 9x pro bowlers in terms of versatility and his numbers are a little better. Of course, then John might have to wait a few years because Troy Polamalu and Ed Reed come up to fill in a largely overlooked position in the next two.
Five could be the doubling down spot for Moss, Mawae, Lynch...or a contributor's spot.
Might be interesting to see who we think are the deserving long tooths out there. Anderson at the qb slot comes to mind. Best skill position candidates still out in the cold, maybe.
Class of 18? :think: If I got to pick five...
I'm going to say Owens has waited long enough and let Moss lose the first year as penance for his own immaturity early.
Lewis is a given. Ulacher might have to wait. You don't tend to see multiple LBs or Wrs in a year.
Fanaca gets my nod as the O line representative. An Eight time pro bowler, he was close. Will Mawae divide voters? Boselli has some sentiment and Hutchinson is another terrific candidate...maybe we'll see multiple O linemen in next year's ceremony.
Lynch has been gaining and might get the nod, but I'd take Brian Dawkins. I think he was the better of the two 9x pro bowlers in terms of versatility and his numbers are a little better. Of course, then John might have to wait a few years because Troy Polamalu and Ed Reed come up to fill in a largely overlooked position in the next two.
Five could be the doubling down spot for Moss, Mawae, Lynch...or a contributor's spot.
Might be interesting to see who we think are the deserving long tooths out there. Anderson at the qb slot comes to mind. Best skill position candidates still out in the cold, maybe.
I'm okay with not making him a first selection as a cautionary warning that habitual bad behavior can have consequences, but it shouldn't (and I don't think it will) keep him out. I thought the first year was enough of a message. Now it's just starting to feel petty and ridiculous.
I'd put Moss in, though I wouldn't want him a unanimous selection for a lesser version of the same thing.
- Status