RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jan 28, 2020 20:55:55 GMT -8
...some of the "elite of the elite" athletes--like Kobe, Derek Jeter, and Tom Brady. The first two are Elite athletes, the last one is a cheater with a great head coach. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Jan 29, 2020 7:30:11 GMT -8
C'mon, RSM. ......
If Brady is not an elite NFL player, then they don't have any. He's a legendary QB who probably authorized letting air out of a cold football so he could grip it better, in violation of NFL rules.......... and otherwise won 6 Superbowls while MVP 4 times, and 3 times was NFL MVP. Either he is an elite athlete or he is the most effective cheater since Bernie Madoff..........................Luca
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Jan 29, 2020 8:44:07 GMT -8
C'mon, RSM. ...... If Brady is not an elite NFL player, then they don't have any. He's a legendary QB who probably authorized letting air out of a cold football so he could grip it better, in violation of NFL rules.......... and otherwise won 6 Superbowls while MVP 4 times, and 3 times was NFL MVP. Either he is an elite athlete or he is the most effective cheater since Bernie Madoff..........................Luca I'm no Patriots fan but I have to agree with this. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jan 29, 2020 8:48:29 GMT -8
Either he is an elite athlete or he is the most effective cheater since Bernie Madoff..........................Luca ...or Bill Clinton. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jan 29, 2020 23:19:46 GMT -8
C'mon, RSM. ...... If Brady is not an elite NFL player, then they don't have any. He's a legendary QB who probably authorized letting air out of a cold football so he could grip it better, in violation of NFL rules.......... and otherwise won 6 Superbowls while MVP 4 times, and 3 times was NFL MVP. Either he is an elite athlete or he is the most effective cheater since Bernie Madoff..........................Luca You left out the second portion of my comment, the part about having a great head coach. Go back in time & give the Patriots of the past 2 decades Drew Bledsoe & then someone else at QB instead of Brady and most likely have the same record. The difference is the coach. I don't like Belechick, but he took a franchise that was pretty downtrodden and created a winner. There are dozens of QB's that could have been put in Brady's place and given the Patriots the same result. However, had the Patriots stuck with Pete Carroll instead of firing him at the end of the 1999 season, there is no way the Patriots would have had the success they have had, even with major Tom taking snaps. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jan 30, 2020 8:51:43 GMT -8
There are dozens of QB's that could have been put in Brady's place and given the Patriots the same result. Come on, man. Really? Dozens? Please name the dozens of quarterbacks in the last 19 years that were as good as Brady and would have produced the same results. Tip: "Dozens" means at least 24. |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Jan 30, 2020 10:56:33 GMT -8
I love me some "Brady Haters", every playoff and Super Bowl game all the GOAT and PATS "Haters" make me bunches of money.......! Stealing candy from a baby!
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jan 30, 2020 11:13:55 GMT -8
I want to go on record as not liking or caring about Brady, Belechik, the Patriots, or the NFL..,
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Jan 30, 2020 16:59:41 GMT -8
"That which can be started without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
What evidence there is is as follows:
Bill Belichick has been a coach at New England since 2000 with a cumulative record of 267-94. While HC with the Cleveland Browns from 1991–1995 his record was 36–44. This is an overall record of 303- 138, winning 68.7% of his games.
Tom Brady has played for the Patriots since 2000. In games he has started his record is 242-70, winning 77.5% of his starts.
In all games Bill Belichick has been the head coach without Tom Brady as a starting quarterback, his record is 61-68, a 47.3% record. Even when coaching the Patriots without Brady, his record is 25–24.
So, as is intuitively obvious, there are dozens of QB’s that could have been put in Brady's place and given the Patriots the same results...............................Luca
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jan 30, 2020 20:21:29 GMT -8
There are dozens of QB's that could have been put in Brady's place and given the Patriots the same result. Come on, man. Really? Dozens? Please name the dozens of quarterbacks in the last 19 years that were as good as Brady and would have produced the same results. Tip: "Dozens" means at least 24. Why do you change what I wrote & then demand I produce evidence of said change? That is such a Wabash move. QB's by draft year that could have been put in Brady's place & given the Patriots the same result: 2000 - Chad Pennington, Marc Bulger 2001 - Michael Vick, Drew Brees 2003 - Carson Palmer, Tony Romo, Byron Leftwich 2004 - Eli Manning, Phillip Rives, Ben Roethesberger, Matt Schaub 2005 - Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers 2006 - Jay Cutler 2008 - Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco 2009 - Mathew Stafford 2011 - Cam Newton 2012 - Andrew Luck, RG III, Ryan Tannehill, Russel Wilson, Nick Foles, Kirk Cousins There's 24 and we didn't even have to use the last 7 years or QB's such as Drew Bledsoe or Peyton Manning who got started in the late 1990's. If you are going to refute these selections, please give specific reasons, complete with video tape footage and analysis of the Wonderlic results of each of those 24 QB's. Tip: "Analysis" means more than some snarky dismisal. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jan 30, 2020 20:47:00 GMT -8
"That which can be started without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens What evidence there is is as follows: Bill Belichick has been a coach at New England since 2000 with a cumulative record of 267-94. While HC with the Cleveland Browns from 1991–1995 his record was 36–44. This is an overall record of 303- 138, winning 68.7% of his games. Tom Brady has played for the Patriots since 2000. In games he has started his record is 242-70, winning 77.5% of his starts. In all games Bill Belichick has been the head coach without Tom Brady as a starting quarterback, his record is 61-68, a 47.3% record. Even when coaching the Patriots without Brady, his record is 25–24. So, as is intuitively obvious, there are dozens of QB’s that could have been put in Brady's place and given the Patriots the same results...............................Luca " There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies & statistics" Sir Charles Dilke Tom Brady has only played for Belichick, so those stats you list are kind of useless. The times Brady wasn't playing for the Patriots, Belichick was stuck with a 2nd string QB. So of course the record was worse with Brady not in the lineup. I will concede the point that Brady is better than a 2nd string QB. Joe Montana was one of the 2 greatest QB's ever (& I despise the 49ers) and played under Bill Walsh for the first 10 years of both of their careers. The first year, Montana didn't start and the team went 2-14. After that, they went 90-45-1 until Walsh's retirement in 1988. According to the logic you used above, Joe Montana was the reason why the 49ers were the team of the 80's. If you want to use stats, look at the Super Bowl appearances, wins & losses for the Patriots. Those teams that won Super Bowls were for the most part defensive teams (the comeback against the Falcons the aberration), the teams that lost SuperBowls or didn't make it were the ones where Brady had better offensive numbers. The two Super Bowls that the Patriots won against the Rams, 2002 and last year, were examples of the Patriots at their most effective. Brady didn't lose the game and the Patriot defense gave a high powered offensive team fits in order to win the game. |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Jan 31, 2020 4:35:43 GMT -8
I always chuckle at this debate, where BRADY HATERS go at length to prove he is not great nor the greatest.... throw all your silly stats around all day all night but the name of the game is simply "winning" and to be "KING of the HILL", the "GOAT" on top of that mountain is TOM BRADY.  |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jan 31, 2020 7:12:02 GMT -8
How heavily are the stats discounted for cheating?
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jan 31, 2020 7:12:34 GMT -8
I will agree that the name of the game is winning, which by essence means losing should detract from the equation.
Joe Montana & Terry Bradshaw made it to 4 Super Bowls each, winning each one. That has put those two QB's in a league of their own. If you disagree, then look at Jim Kelly, who had every bit the talent that those two QB's had and also made it to 4 Super Bowls. However, he is never mentioned in the same sentence with them because he lost in each of those games. Winning counts, but so does losing.
So the Patriots gave Tom Brady 9 chances to win a Super Bowl, he was just over 50% with a 6-3 record. Thats good, but not the greatest of all time. It probably puts him in the group with Phil Simms or Steve Young. If he truly was the greatest of all time, he would have won all 9 of those titles. Michael Jordan and Bill Russell gave examples of what being the greatest of all time consists of and Brady falls well short of that.
Further, just because he was in 9 Super Bowls does not qualify him as the greatest of all time. Just ask the Atlanta Braves of the 1990's if getting there but not winning makes a team or person the greatest of all time.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Jan 31, 2020 11:38:26 GMT -8
I don’t understand how you can draw the conclusion that such statistics are useless. Without statistics, how would you determine who the best QB’s are? Brady has been a winner his entire career whereas Belichik was a losing head coach at Cleveland and has only won when Brady has played for him. That sounds like a pretty germane statistic to me.
Well, yeah. Montana (along with Bill Walsh) was the reason why the 49ers were the class of the '80s based on - sad to say - statistics. You can win but you cannot dominate in the NFL for a decade with simply an elite QB or an elite coach. You need both, and more. The first year the two of them were paired, Montana didn’t play and the 49ers went 2–14. After one year with Montana starting they began their run. After Welsh left, Montana and the 49ers had two more fantastic years. When Montana went down with an injury the next year the 49 were losers. What other conclusion would you draw?
When you start saying that some years the Patriots were defense oriented and some years offense oriented, it starts getting pretty subjective. You feel it is revealing that Brady won only two thirds of his Super Bowl appearances, but I would in turn ask what other QB had the ability to even get his team into the Super Bowl nine times? Understand that no other NFL franchise in history has appeared as many as nine times. Are you implying that Eli Manning because he was two for two in the Superbowl has outperformed Brady?
Brady performs in the clutch, he has (or had) a rifle for an arm with extraordinary accuracy, he has an uncanny ability to find the open receiver, he makes quick decisions as well as anybody I have ever seen, he was durable and has played at an extraordinarily high level for 2 decades. If you honestly believe that you could have plugged in a Matt Schaub, Jay Cutler, RG III or Byron Leftwhich (Byron Leftwich?) and gotten the same results I can only respond by saying I wish you were in my Fantasy NFL league competition.
……………………..But it’s all becoming clear to me now. I see why you’re saying all this. You’re hopelessly smitten by Giselle Bundchen and your jealous rage drives such irrationality. Let it go, RSM, let it go…………………………………..Luca
|
|
