metzelaars_lives

Really? Would you have traded up 5 spots to get Jerry rice? Randy moss? How can you declare whether a trade is successful or not before Watkins has had a chance to show what he can really do in this league? I agree they need a qb but it wasn't happening in last year's or this year's draft regardless.

Those are the two most glaring things wrong with his post- that a) who would we have gotten to play QB at 19th overall this year that would be a surefire option and b) it has yet to be proven that Sammy Watkins is NOT worth trading up and sacrificing a 19th overall pick. In fact if you would look at the last 15 19th overall picks, I would venture to guess that Sammy Watkins' career projects to be well worth the trade. As I've stated a million times, if it wasn't for the freakishly good seasons by Beckham and Evans everyone would probably be thrilled with the trade. If I could go back in time would I stay at 9 and take Beckham? Of course. But Whaley does not possess Biff's sports almanac, which is not a fireable offense. At the time I thought it was a good trade, Watkins had a very good rookie season, hence I still think it was a good trade.

Doubt it. We're not talking about geno smith as a possibility. What all the aforementioned qbs have in common is that they've proven that they are worthy of being starting NFL qbs at one time or another in their careers. There are so many things fundamentally wrong with your line of reasoning I don't even know where to begin.

Glad the rest of America still thinks it's cold here. It's been 60 for pretty much the last month and was 70 this past weekend. Yes there are warmer places and yes it snows from time to time but it's always sunny and it always melts right away. The lack of humidity makes 85 very comfortable in the summer and 30 very tolerable in the winter. It really is the most ideal climate in the country.

So what happens when they bring in a guy like McCoy supposedly as a backup and he clearly outperforms Manuel in camp, practice and the preseason? Because that's exactly what would happen in that scenario. I both want them to and believe they will bring in someone better than any of the aforementioned quarterbacks.

Are you basing this on what you think these qbs are capable of as options in the future or what their ceilings might be? Because clearly you're not basing it on what they've already accomplished. McCoy for instance looked better in that Monday night game at Dallas this year than Manuel has ever looked. And Orton was an upgrade over Manuel this year, as poorly as he looked at times. Personally I wouldn't want any of them. McCoy would make an excellent backup qb I suppose.

What? Who rates Riley Cooper highly? This is my vote for random post of the offseason. He is properly rated. And my god, desean jackson is not overrated.

I hooked up with Lindsay Lohan once and I never put it out on social media. Classless. That's genius. Never heard that one.

Good thing for manning's legacy he lost to the colts and didn't suffer that nailbiter super loss which really tarnishes Russell Wilson's legacy. Wilson would've been better off not making the playoffs at all. This is a mathematical point proven by greggy t.

So does manning. I would rank manning (1) ahead of elway (2) who I would rank ahead of Bradshaw (4). Not saying it's necessarily order of rings period. But anyone who is so blindly and stubbornly anti-pats that doesn't realize Brady is in the real conversation right now just doesn't know their history. And I think deflategate is a bigger deal than most.

The only answers that one could give in this poll and not expose the fact that they have no historical context and do not understand the game of football whatsoever, are Montana, Brady, unitas or I suppose the nobody option. I don't care about manning's beautiful mind or Marino's rocket arm. To get inside the big boy room you need the hardware. That's it.

You would think this concept would be easier to understand than it has been on this thread. But yes Greggy T or whoever has in essence rewarded Montana for losing in the 1990 NFC Championship game. To him that is a greater accomplishment than had he won that game and then lost to the Bills the following week. This is a concept I would've fully understood in 3rd grade. He is basically saying that going to a Super Bowl is NOT an accomplishment. If you go and win, then yes that is an accomplishment; but if you go and lose, that is a blemish on your record and you are better off having not gone at all. It's a good thing Brady lost that AFC Championship game last year because the Pats were not beating that Seahawks team and in that case, he'd be 4-3 in Super Bowls and his legacy would really be tarnished for good.

Agreed 100%. You're not so bad after all. That's what I've been trying to say- that all you can do is compare guys relative to their respective eras. Because Ken Stabler got hit harder than Peyton Manning doesn't mean he is a better QB. Because Neil Lomax had to deal with CB's who could bump and press a lot more doesn't mean he is a better QB than Philip Rivers.

OK first off, let's please agree to stop using GOAT as an acronym. It simply does not work. Second of all, you are wrong! Fred Dean, Ronnie Lott and Charles Haley are three hall of famers that played a good amount of time alongside Joe Montana. The Patriots do not have any hall of famers from those teams as of yet. Is Tedy Bruschi a hall of famer? Ty Law? Lawyer Milloy? I don't think so. You are severely understating how good some of those 49ers defenses were.

The only thing I would concede is the cheating point. The 49ers had EXCELLENT defenses throughout Montana's career. Usually some of the very best in the league. In fact, I would say with a good degree of certainty that Montana had better defenses than Brady by and large. But once again, the bottom line is that you are saying that Brady winning an extra game that Montana couldn't and advancing to the Super Bowl only to lose there- as opposed to earlier in the playoffs- is a mark against Brady and a notch in Montana's column. It's insane what you are saying. You are basically arguing that 1) winning the Super Bowl is best, 2) not going to the Super Bowl is second best and 3) Going to the Super Bowl and losing is worst. So again, how can you tell me that Kelly going 0-4 is not worse than Dan Marino going 0-1? As you said, mathematically and irrefutably, 4-0 is better than 4-2 so by that same logic 0-1 has to be better than 0-4, right?

What's that, troll me on Bills websites?

That is just easily refutable fill that doesn't aid your argument whatsoever. In 3 of those 4 he was also throwing to the greatest football player of all time. Meanwhile for three of Brady's he was throwing to Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Givens. Of course they do. Go on football reference. QB's have win-loss records just like pitchers and goalies. Done with this one. Next.

Bottom line there it is a waste of time arguing with the sour grapes Patriots haters. It is a lost cause. Alright buddy, Montana was the 49ers' QB that day. He was the QB of record. What is your point?

Actually I'm not done with this yet. How can you devote so much time and energy to a website about football and possess such an utterly preposterous opinion. So Montana is a notch greater because he got upset at home by the Giants in the 1990 NFC Championship game rather than had he won that game and then lost to the Bills in a close game in the Super Bowl that year? Really think about what you are saying. You are also dismissing the accomplishment the Bills made by getting there.

So by your logic the QB's of the 70's were necessarily greater than the QB's of the 80's because they got hit even harder then. By your logic a QB could not come along and be as great today because they don't get hit as much. By your logic Babe Ruth wasn't that great because pitchers today are obviously far superior. And Wayne Gretzky wasn't that great because it's way harder to score today. All you can do is compare people relative to their respective eras. In Joe Montana's era it was also EASIER to keep a collection of star players on the same team- which the 49ers did and the Patriots absolutely have not. You could certainly argue that Montana's job was tougher than Brady's (not in every facet it wasn't) because he got hit more but I see no correlation in who is greater because of it. I like that you are waxing nostalgic on this one but you are simply wrong. So Marino's 0-1 is definitely better than Kelly's 0-4 because he didn't lose as many, right? I mean if you are 0-4 in anything in sports that is worse than being 0-1.

Dan Marino is a greater all time QB than Jim Kelly. No one in their right mind would dispute that. Marino is a top 5-10, Kelly is lucky to be considered top 15. The answer is this: Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time. However I have changed my mind a bit and now agree with the lot of you that there may be an asterisk attached to this run by the Pats. I think the multiple scandals really cloud the conversation. Scandals aside however, Brady is hands down the greatest QB of all time. The only other guy you could even make an argument for is Unitas because he was so superior for his era. So I would qualify it by saying Brady is the greatest QB post-merger. And anyone who thinks 4-0 is better than 4-2 (which it obviously isn't) can't also argue that Kelly's accomplishment was great (which it was).

Xanax is the best.

Your avatar is insane.

I can relate to that. I live in Denver and I hated the Broncos more than I hated the Patriots just because I can see firsthand how dorky their fans are. This football deflating thing kind of changed that though. I just hate them both so much. But yeah people who don't live here can't believe I hate the Broncos as much as the Patriots. I'm sure if I lived in Boston I'd hate the Patriots even more. I'm just so sick of hating. I want to be happy because my team is good for once.

If this thread lasts just wait for the "nooooo!" responses to pour in from people who don't have any better ideas.