Doc Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Dion is a threat Yes...until he gets injured. He's too small to play. That's why the Eagles gave up on him.
Ronin Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 You must find it as funny as I do how you continue to omit his successful seasons with Brady at QB. Behind every, yes every, great coach has been a great QB. And the really good ones actually won rings. Know, actually what I find funny, really, is your inability to read and comprehend what I actually write and state plainly in simple English. See, in your world, and posters such as yourself, everything's boolean in nature. Good [grunt] ... Bad! [groan] I view things on a sliding scale, a continuous one. And simply because I've stated that Brady's the reason for the Pats success, uhhhh, essentially when he's been on the field and not otherwise much less under any other team that BB has fielded, in your and other posters minds for some bizarre reason that seems to translate to some absurd notion that what I actually wrote, which appears nowhere anywhere, least of all not in this thread, is that BB sucks or something akin to that, that he's a "bad" coach, etc. Clearly I've not said that but your approach has me shagging polemical balls that I never asked to have to field. Other posters have clearly gotten it based on what I actually wrote, but not you, you're [apparently] a little to quick for that. Then others float things about Walsh as if Walsh has a similar history despite the fact that he doesn't. Again, is this good intellectual content? I don't think so. To me it's a waste of time like so much here. Anyway, I've not omitted anything in this discussion although I have mentioned possible cheating on the part of BB to assist him through the playoffs and to his first few SBs, which we don't know, but this also shouldn't be news to you and I'd love to see you start a thread here saying that you don't think that cheating assisted his Pats in anyway and let's see what the response is. OTOH, you continue to ignore facts and refuse to consider any other possible angle, which is all I've done here, pose a possibility, that's all. Meanwhile, your mundane repetitive limited opinions apart from any real facts or substance to substantiate them keep reappearing as if you're operating under the notion that if something is repeated often enough it finally becomes the truth. If when Brady retires BB continues to make the playoffs and win games therein then you'll end up being more correct than not. Until then ... But the fact of the matter is that BB's teams apart from Brady have been no better than Jauron's, whose playoff team frankly was better than BB's. There are other data points as well suggesting that BB is overrated, such as Coughlin entirely owning him in the most important games of their careers, and that includes Coughlin on two different teams as well. Harbaugh with a much lesser talented Ravens team also has outperformed BB's Pats on average as well. This has contributed to BB's winning only one SB after he was discovered cheating, despite having been the perennial preseason favorite to win the SB every single season since then. I realize that you choose to ignore all that, which is what you are doing and which is fine, but it's wrong to throw up things that I didn't say as if I did.
Gugny Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Know, actually what I find funny, really, is your inability to read and comprehend what I actually write and state plainly in simple English. See, in your world, and posters such as yourself, everything's boolean in nature. Good [grunt] ... Bad! [groan] I view things on a sliding scale, a continuous one. And simply because I've stated that Brady's the reason for the Pats success, uhhhh, essentially when he's been on the field and not otherwise much less under any other team that BB has fielded, in your and other posters minds for some bizarre reason that seems to translate to some absurd notion that what I actually wrote, which appears nowhere anywhere, least of all not in this thread, is that BB sucks or something akin to that, that he's a "bad" coach, etc. Clearly I've not said that but your approach has me shagging polemical balls that I never asked to have to field. Other posters have clearly gotten it based on what I actually wrote, but not you, you're [apparently] a little to quick for that. Then others float things about Walsh as if Walsh has a similar history despite the fact that he doesn't. Again, is this good intellectual content? I don't think so. To me it's a waste of time like so much here. Anyway, I've not omitted anything in this discussion although I have mentioned possible cheating on the part of BB to assist him through the playoffs and to his first few SBs, which we don't know, but this also shouldn't be news to you and I'd love to see you start a thread here saying that you don't think that cheating assisted his Pats in anyway and let's see what the response is. OTOH, you continue to ignore facts and refuse to consider any other possible angle, which is all I've done here, pose a possibility, that's all. Meanwhile, your mundane repetitive limited opinions apart from any real facts or substance to substantiate them keep reappearing as if you're operating under the notion that if something is repeated often enough it finally becomes the truth. If when Brady retires BB continues to make the playoffs and win games therein then you'll end up being more correct than not. Until then ... But the fact of the matter is that BB's teams apart from Brady have been no better than Jauron's, whose playoff team frankly was better than BB's. There are other data points as well suggesting that BB is overrated, such as Coughlin entirely owning him in the most important games of their careers, and that includes Coughlin on two different teams as well. Harbaugh with a much lesser talented Ravens team also has outperformed BB's Pats on average as well. This has contributed to BB's winning only one SB after he was discovered cheating, despite having been the perennial preseason favorite to win the SB every single season since then. I realize that you choose to ignore all that, which is what you are doing and which is fine, but it's wrong to throw up things that I didn't say as if I did. There's not a chance in hell I'm reading all of this, so please don't expect me to respond to anything within the text.
Blokestradamus Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Yep. He was an astronomical loss to them I feel for Dante. All he wanted to do was take a back seat and enjoy semi-retirement.
Ronin Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) What was his record with steve Deberg at QB? So, apart from DeBerg, are you comparing the '78 - '80 Niners to the Pats teams apart from Brady? Yes or no? I realize that they were loaded with Allstar talent and their top-10 defensive rankings as well. /extreme sarcasm Really? Are you talking about the first two seasons after he took over a 2-14 team? Cherry picking like that really makes your argument look weak. Do you think Ronnie Lott, Dwight Clark, Keena Turner, Eric Wright, Jack Reynolds or the other half dozen starters they added had any impact? Or was Montana the only difference between 2-14 and 13-3? Thank you!!!!!!!!! And this folks, is exactly the difference between intellectual content and the typical drivel that flows out of the mouths of TV types who have jobs day after day regardless of the mindless and unsubstantiated irrelevancies that they utter. Gugny and Mr. WEO take particular note. I find it funny that every year, there's a new reason why the Pats will fall. I've heard it all. They have no defense, no running game, too many injuries, Brady is getting old or has nobody to throw to. This year it's Brady's suspension. Yet, nothing changes, year after year, they win the AFC East. Plain and simple. It's a plug and play system, and yes Brady is one of the best ever, but I'm telling you they will win the division again and keep doing so as long as BB and TB (to a lesser extent) are there. It kills me to say it, but it's the truth. I think you've missed the context of this part of the conversation here. I don't think that anyone is saying that they're not going to win the division. We're essentially talking about their first four games. There isn't a team in the AFCE that's poised to take it from them. Even if they lose their first four and go 10-2 the rest of the way 10-6 will probably win it in this division. Again, they can thank the football gods that they're in the division with the worst string of management, coaching, and QB of any during the career of Brady. In just about any other division except perhaps the NFCE, and maybe even there, they'd have a seriously challenge for the D title, but not here. I agree with you as I sense that most do, they'll be fine on the season, unless Brady gets hurt or something. I doubt they'll have homefield as a result of the suspension tho. I think his point, which I find valid, is that if one is going to judge a HC's career - especially one that spans an entire era - one must judge said career based on the entire body of work. LOL Of course you do, that much has been clear from the onset, ... except, that you ignore a whole bunch of things like a the Pats being in teh weakest division in football (verifiably) during Brady's tenure, BB's cheating which you haven't acknowledged either, the fact that in 7 other seasons BB hasn't even been average much less good, that fact that luck, not performance got them to their first SB to even be able to win it, and other things like this "defensive genius" having his D's sorely underperform over the last bunch of seasons and when he also hasn't had top allstar talent. All around the country there are people in NFL circles that agree with the notion that Brady is far more responsible for the Pats' success than BB is, but you dismiss it out of hand. Feel free, but if you want to judge a career without all of the data factored in then that really isn't judging his entire career, is it. Whoever mentioned Walsh mentioned Levy, but IMO Levy wasn't a great coach either. He had arguably the best collection of talent in the NFL. Kelly was better than Aikman or Hostetler. Our WRs were as good if not better, Thurman was comparable to the best, our D was too. Yet, he couldn't beat inferior Giants or Dallas teams (2nd SB). Polian was the reason why Levy has a legacy. For those that failed to notice, the only successful era of the Bills fell apart after Polian, not Levy, left. If Parcells, JJ, or Gibbs had been the coach of the Bills we'd be at least 2-2 in SBs right now with maybe another appearance or two even. That's MO. There's not a chance in hell I'm reading all of this, so please don't expect me to respond to anything within the text. Yes, I know, but you'll feel free to comment on what it says. So typical in forums. Again, refer to my response to vincec please. It's posters such as him that make good intellectual conversation and discussion possible. In the meantime, and please, take this any way you want to, if you never respond to one of my posts again I'll consider it to be a positive development. Edited July 14, 2016 by TaskersGhost
Doc Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Yep. He was an astronomical loss to them I thought he was going to be a huge loss for them. But they won a SB that first year without him and their offensive production was essentially unchanged.
Mr. WEO Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Are you talking about the first two seasons after he took over a 2-14 team? Cherry picking like that really makes your argument look weak. Do you think Ronnie Lott, Dwight Clark, Keena Turner, Eric Wright, Jack Reynolds or the other half dozen starters they added had any impact? Or was Montana the only difference between 2-14 and 13-3? Not cherry picking. I was responding to Taskers claim that BB was sub .500 before Brady. The point you are missing is that not many HOF quality HC's faired well without their HOF QB--that is what is being discussed here. Walsh's years without Montana fall into the category being discussed so there's no need to pick cherries.
Gugny Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 So, apart from DeBerg, are you comparing the '78 - '80 Niners to the Pats teams apart from Brady? Yes or no? I realize that they were loaded with Allstar talent and their top-10 defensive rankings as well. /extreme sarcasm Really? Thank you!!!!!!!!! And this folks, is exactly the difference between intellectual content and the typical drivel that flows out of the mouths of TV types who have jobs day after day regardless of the mindless and unsubstantiated irrelevancies that they utter. Gugny and Mr. WEO take particular note. I think you've missed the context of this part of the conversation here. I don't think that anyone is saying that they're not going to win the division. We're essentially talking about their first four games. There isn't a team in the AFCE that's poised to take it from them. Even if they lose their first four and go 10-2 the rest of the way 10-6 will probably win it in this division. Again, they can thank the football gods that they're in the division with the worst string of management, coaching, and QB of any during the career of Brady. In just about any other division except perhaps the NFCE, and maybe even there, they'd have a seriously challenge for the D title, but not here. I agree with you as I sense that most do, they'll be fine on the season, unless Brady gets hurt or something. I doubt they'll have homefield as a result of the suspension tho. LOL Of course you do, that much has been clear from the onset, ... except, that you ignore a whole bunch of things like a the Pats being in teh weakest division in football (verifiably) during Brady's tenure, BB's cheating which you haven't acknowledged either, the fact that in 7 other seasons BB hasn't even been average much less good, that fact that luck, not performance got them to their first SB to even be able to win it, and other things like this "defensive genius" having his D's sorely underperform over the last bunch of seasons and when he also hasn't had top allstar talent. All around the country there are people in NFL circles that agree with the notion that Brady is far more responsible for the Pats' success than BB is, but you dismiss it out of hand. Feel free, but if you want to judge a career without all of the data factored in then that really isn't judging his entire career, is it. Whoever mentioned Walsh mentioned Levy, but IMO Levy wasn't a great coach either. He had arguably the best collection of talent in the NFL. Kelly was better than Aikman or Hostetler. Our WRs were as good if not better, Thurman was comparable to the best, our D was too. Yet, he couldn't beat inferior Giants or Dallas teams (2nd SB). Polian was the reason why Levy has a legacy. For those that failed to notice, the only successful era of the Bills fell apart after Polian, not Levy, left. If Parcells, JJ, or Gibbs had been the coach of the Bills we'd be at least 2-2 in SBs right now with maybe another appearance or two even. That's MO. Yes, I know, but you'll feel free to comment on what it says. So typical in forums. Again, refer to my response to vincec please. It's posters such as him that make good intellectual conversation and discussion possible. In the meantime, and please, take this any way you want to, if you never respond to one of my posts again I'll consider it to be a positive development. Writing books full of the same schit you've been saying for two days simply re-worded is typically not received well. I try to be concise. it's really this simple. Your argument is that BB isn't one of the best because his record before Brady was his starting QB was below .500. That is asinine. And wrong. ~ The End
PromoTheRobot Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 I don't know if this was mentioned but here is why Brady has ZERO chance with the Supreme Court: RBG is the one who decides what cases go the the SC from District 2. Tommy Boy is a big Trump fan. You figure out the rest.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 When I was in high school we used to have a survey for the entire senior class and it was about 50 questions long (most likely to succeed, etc...). One of the questions was, "Talks most, says least." Just throwing that out there....
Doc Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 I don't know if this was mentioned but here is why Brady has ZERO chance with the Supreme Court: RBG is the one who decides what cases go the the SC from District 2. Tommy Boy is a big Trump fan. You figure out the rest. If the 2nd court wont hear it, it should be dead.
YoloinOhio Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 If a Bills player said this I can imagine the outrage. http://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2016/7/13/12183044/calais-campbell-anxious-to-face-garoppolo
Augie Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 If a Bills player said this I can imagine the outrage. http://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2016/7/13/12183044/calais-campbell-anxious-to-face-garoppolo And then Garappolo would go for 450 yards and 4 TD's against us.
Doc Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 an appeal to the supreme court is coming And so is another rejection.
papazoid Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 In other words, what if the Supreme Court ultimately heard the case and overturned the ruling after Brady was forced to serve his suspension? “Once he loses four games off 2016, it doesn’t matter what happens at the Supreme Court afterwards,” Wallach said. “He could win big, but he’ll never be able to recapture the lost games. And that is his most compelling argument for a stay, and I think it’s one that’s going to be received favorably by Justice Ginsburg.” http://nesn.com/2016/07/sports-law-attorney-tom-brady-likely-will-play-for-patriots-weeks-1-4/
Mr. WEO Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 In other words, what if the Supreme Court ultimately heard the case and overturned the ruling after Brady was forced to serve his suspension? “Once he loses four games off 2016, it doesn’t matter what happens at the Supreme Court afterwards,” Wallach said. “He could win big, but he’ll never be able to recapture the lost games. And that is his most compelling argument for a stay, and I think it’s one that’s going to be received favorably by Justice Ginsburg.” http://nesn.com/2016/07/sports-law-attorney-tom-brady-likely-will-play-for-patriots-weeks-1-4/ They wouldn't agree to hear it without also granting a stay, I would think.
thebandit27 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 They wouldn't agree to hear it without also granting a stay, I would think. Absolutely.
eball Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 In other words, what if the Supreme Court ultimately heard the case and overturned the ruling after Brady was forced to serve his suspension? “Once he loses four games off 2016, it doesn’t matter what happens at the Supreme Court afterwards,” Wallach said. “He could win big, but he’ll never be able to recapture the lost games. And that is his most compelling argument for a stay, and I think it’s one that’s going to be received favorably by Justice Ginsburg.” http://nesn.com/2016/07/sports-law-attorney-tom-brady-likely-will-play-for-patriots-weeks-1-4/ Where's the irreparable harm? It's a job, and Brady* is being suspended without pay for four weeks. If the unthinkable happens and SCOTUS reverses the suspension, Brady* can be paid for his losses. The games won't matter to Ginsburg.
Recommended Posts