This is hard to say!

[RuntheDamnBall]

Well see, that's where Pats fans' arguments over the past few years go right into the crapper.  For three years they have been saying that stats don't mean squat, it's the Ws and Ls that really count.  Now their squad is at .500 and tanking and we have to listen to how it's not Brady's fault, look at the stats.  Typical NE fans.  "We get no respect."  "Hardest first six games ever."  "Injuries."  Who cares.

480290[/snapback]

Maybe they should stop parading around in so many fugging ads like the darlings of the NFL and get back to playing football. They don't need to start anytime soon, though, of course

[CoachChuckDickerson]

Mark Bulger has scored far more frequently than Mudslide yet he has a far worse defense. Might I assume, based upon the observations you deem germane, that Mark Bulger is the "Best Ever" to play QB?

480288[/snapback]

 

Again, look at the talent level surrounding the player.

[Thurman's Helmet]

It appears you've skipped the medication once again for your Pseudobulbar Affect-

 

Actual objective fans of the sport wouldn't even suggest that the "Best Ever" tag be applied to someone who tanked to .500 the moment his defense began to fall back to earth.

But think of all the possibilities:

 

The Memorial Day Brady .500

 

Brady Dairy Half/N/Half

 

TV Series: The Adventures of Winsome and Losesome Brady

 

Yes, the list could go on forever!

480265[/snapback]

 

See, what bugs you is that he's basically a lock for the HOF already and he's going to be more highly regarded than your own beloved Jim Kelly.

 

Those are some sour grapes to be eating arent they?

[MDH]

You are involved in a discussion of whether Brady is the "Best Ever" and you're citing Jeff George as a measure?

480280[/snapback]

 

 

I'm actually rebutting your inane arguments. But it's okay, if you purposely misconstrue everything anybody says your argument will look much better.

 

I don’t think anybody other than the original poster is making an argument that Brady is the best ever, just that he’s a great QB who, at the end of his career, may be considered one of the best.

 

Anyway, this is a pointless endeavor. It’s threads like this that make me long for the days when BF was a poster here.

[MDH]

It appears you've skipped the medication once again for your Pseudobulbar Affect-

 

Actual objective fans of the sport wouldn't even suggest that the "Best Ever" tag be applied to someone who tanked to .500 the moment his defense began to fall back to earth.

 

480265[/snapback]

 

You keep saying this. Back it up with more than words. I've got $200 (or more if you prefer) that says that the Pats have a winning record this year in games in which Brady finishes. Put up or shut up.

[AKC]

See, what bugs you is that he's basically a lock for the HOF already and he's going to be more highly regarded than your own beloved Jim Kelly.     

 

Those are some sour grapes to be eating arent they?

480331[/snapback]

 

I actually like sour grapes so once again you've made an unsupported an incorrect assumption.

 

You also assume that once Brady is exposed by your fading D as nothing more than a system QB that history will ignore this fact?

 

I'm thinking Brady is less likely to be historically thought of in a class with names like Unitas, Elway, Young and Favre and will much more likely to be considered a peer of Warner and Dilfer.

 

 

But you go on writing your history early, you're the type who will be in a Bengals jersey in 3 years anyway!

[AKC]

You keep saying this.  Back it up with more than words.  I've got $200 (or more if you prefer) that says that the Pats have a winning record this year in games in which Brady finishes.  Put up or shut up.

480342[/snapback]

 

 

Not being a big fan of one-upmanship, I'll bet you 1 TRILLION dollars that Brady is a .500 QB today, his first season without a dominating Defense to bail him out of trouble.

 

A wire transfer will do nicely Mr. .500 ;-)

 

PUT UP OR SHUT UP INDEED

[AKC]

 

I don’t think anybody other than the original poster is making an argument that Brady is the best ever, just that he’s a great QB who, at the end of his career, may be considered one of the best.

 

 

480334[/snapback]

 

Are you daft? That's exactly the point of not only the original poster but also the Trolls you're teat feeding.

[MDH]

Are you daft? That's exactly the point of not only the original poster but also the Trolls you're teat feeding.

480357[/snapback]

 

Go back and read the posts. Nobody is saying what you think they are. The words "the best" and "one of the best" aren't the same thing. Then again, misconstruing what people say appears to be your prime directive in this thread. Not to mention the point you're making in this thread has nothing to do with him not being "the best", you're saying he's an average QB.

 

And nice job backing off your stance that all Brady is nothing but a .500 QB without a dominating D. Yeah, a 6 game sample set is clearly enough. Given the chance to see the entire season play out it appears you're not so confident in your position…

 

You remind me of the network stats they throw up during NFL games. In every game the announcers will proclaim any number of players as “one of the best” at their position. To back this up they take whatever obscure stat(s) they can find over a very specific period of time to “prove” this. “Warrick Dunn is one of the best backs in the league. Over the last 19 games he has had more games with multiple 14+ yard runs than any other back in the league.”

 

You do this same thing only in reverse. Obviously you can’t take the entirety of Brady’s career to make your point (as it’s been nothing but a success story) so you lock in on small things to “prove” your point.

[Johnny Coli]

Go back and read the posts.  Nobody is saying what you think they are.  The words "the best" and "one of the best" aren't the same thing.  Then again, misconstruing what people say appears to be your prime directive in this thread.  Not to mention the point you're making in this thread has nothing to do with him not being "the best", you're saying he's an average QB.

 

And nice job backing off your stance that all Brady is nothing but a .500 QB without a dominating D.  Yeah, a 6 game sample set is clearly enough.  Given the chance to see the entire season play out it appears you're not so confident in your position…

 

You remind me of the network stats they throw up during NFL games.  In every game the announcers will proclaim any number of players as “one of the best” at their position.  To back this up they take whatever obscure stat(s) they can find over a very specific period of time to “prove” this.  “Warrick Dunn is one of the best backs in the league.  Over the last 19 games he has had more games with multiple 14+ yard runs than any other back in the league.” 

 

You do this same thing only in reverse.  Obviously you can’t take the entirety of Brady’s career to make your point (as it’s been nothing but a success story) so you lock in on small things to “prove” your point.

480381[/snapback]

He's a slightly better than mediocre QB, who happened to be in a spotlight position on a good team. Once confronted with the loss of his offensive coordinator, the loss of the team's defensive coordinator, and the loss of other players who it could be argued contributed a lot more than him during their Superbowl years, he is being exposed for who he really is... a slightly better than mediocre QB. I don't think it's that hard to follow, really.

 

I would submit that Ty Law, Ted Johnson, and Teddy Bruschi were better at their respective positions than Brady, and if the roles were reversed, namely Brady was the one who left, the Pats would have a better record than they do right now. Which is, despite all your protesting, a medicocre 0.500.

[RuntheDamnBall]

He's a slightly better than mediocre QB, who happened to be in a spotlight position on a good team.  Once confronted with the loss of his offensive coordinator, the loss of the team's defensive coordinator, and the loss of other players who it could be argued contributed a lot more than him during their Superbowl years, he is being exposed for who he really is... a slightly better than mediocre QB.  I don't think it's that hard to follow, really. 

 

I would submit that Ty Law, Ted Johnson, and Teddy Bruschi were better at their respective positions than Brady, and if the roles were reversed, namely Brady was the one who left, the Pats would have a better record than they do right now.  Which is, despite all your protesting, a medicocre 0.500.

480386[/snapback]

Yet at .500 we feel like we're in the driver's seat?!

 

Don't get me wrong, I hate the Pats, but won't believe they're out of it until they are mathematically out of it. These early diagnoses are just baiting.

[Johnny Coli]

Yet at .500 we feel like we're in the driver's seat?!

 

Don't get me wrong, I hate the Pats, but won't believe they're out of it until they are mathematically out of it.  These early diagnoses are just baiting.

480398[/snapback]

But we're not saying our QB is one of the best ever. The Bills are at 0.500 having won 2 in a row, and could be going into The Tampon at 4-3 having won 3 in a row. The best the Pats can say is that their losing streak is at one game, and they're coming off a bye and playing at home.

[The Dean]

It seems you're comparing physically gifted QBs with guys that are less gifted and thinking that the players who aren't big-armed gunslingers aren't as good (perhaps I've misinterpreted what you're saying though).  Personally, I believe it to be just the opposite.  I think you could put a smart QB that is accurate and makes quick reads on any team and he'd succeed. 

 

Conversly, I think if you took a guy like Brett Favre and stuck him on a offense where he had to operate within the system he'd struggle mightily.  Three step drop, make the read, and fire the ball?  That just isn’t what Favre is good at.  That being said, both players (Favre and Brady) have "it".  That indefinable quality that allows them to make plays when their teams need it most.  Elway had "it".  Montana had "it".  All the greats had "it".

 

So, Brady can't throw the deep ball as well as some other QBs, so?  Jeff George threw a great deep ball, how great was he?  Brady is smart, accurate, makes quick reads, senses the rush, moves in the pocket to buy more time and is a proven winner who constantly seems to make plays to win games.  What more can you ask for? That's pretty much the perfect QB.  So he's not a gunslinger, okay.  Physical ability isn't the most important thing in a QB.  As long as the QB can make all the throws (and Brady can) it’s these other things that make a QB great. 

 

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen the Pats in a 3rd and long and Brady gets pressured, but he sidesteps the pass rush and finds a WR just past the sticks.  It’s uncanny really.  I can't even fathom people looking at this guy play and thinking "over-rated".  I think the guy is under-rated actually.  What other QB can accomplish so much and still have people question how good he is?

 

Speaking of under-rated, one of the few QBs I've seen in recent years that could consistently make plays when his team needed it is Steve McNair (before his injury) and nobody ever mentions the guy.  I'll admit, he took awhile to groom but at his peak the guy was one of the best QBs I've seen in the last 10 years.  It's just a shame his peak only lasted a few seasons.

 

And I’m sorry for my Fake Fat Skinny type post. 

479985[/snapback]

 

 

Are you now a Fake Fake-Fat-Sunny?

 

Yes, you misinterpreted my post a little. I understand the whole "it" thing and tried to only include QBs who had a bit of "it". I concur that Brady has "it" to a degree. Given the "it" there are different types of QBs, IMO.

 

Those who succeeded because of their mad skills and those who succeeded because they managed to fit with the right system. (There are wildly talented QBs who didn't succeed...I didn't mention them...unless you count Archie...but, that's a-whole-nother story.)

 

I concur that Steve McNair is/was way underated. The guy could just flat-out play...and he was as tough as they come (Jim Kelly/Byron Leftwich tough).

 

Finally, I can't fathom how anyone can call Brady UNDERRATED when he's already been annointed the new Montana by every media type. I have heard nothing except for sloppy praise for the guy. The only place I've ever seen his ability questioned is on The Stadium Wall.

 

So is he underrated by some on TSW? Clearly.

 

Is he underrated by the sports media? Hardly

 

Is he overrated by some? When they call him one of the best EVER..IMO, maybe.

[MDH]

But we're not saying our QB is one of the best ever.  The Bills are at 0.500 having won 2 in a row, and could be going into The Tampon at 4-3 having won 3 in a row.  The best the Pats can say is that their losing streak is at one game, and they're coming off a bye and playing at home.

480407[/snapback]

 

Yeah, the Pats slow start to one season eliminates everything else that Brady has done. Elway, Montana, Marino...none of these guys ever played for a team that was .500 at one point during the season.

 

That is a solid argument you've got going there.

[Ramius]

He's a slightly better than mediocre QB, who happened to be in a spotlight position on a good team.  Once confronted with the loss of his offensive coordinator, the loss of the team's defensive coordinator, and the loss of other players who it could be argued contributed a lot more than him during their Superbowl years, he is being exposed for who he really is... a slightly better than mediocre QB.  I don't think it's that hard to follow, really. 

 

I would submit that Ty Law, Ted Johnson, and Teddy Bruschi were better at their respective positions than Brady, and if the roles were reversed, namely Brady was the one who left, the Pats would have a better record than they do right now.  Which is, despite all your protesting, a medicocre 0.500.

480386[/snapback]

 

Excellent post!

[Johnny Coli]

Yeah, the Pats slow start to one season eliminates everything else that Brady has done.  Elway, Montana, Marino...none of these guys ever played for a team that was .500 at one point during the season.

 

That is a solid argument you've got going there.

480415[/snapback]

That post was referring to RTDB post. Try to keep up.

 

My argument is that when faced with significant losses in both coaching and personel, personel who had more of a hand in the Pats run than Brady did, he is being exposed as the slighlty better than mediccre QB that he has always been. If the Pats still had Ted Johnson, or any other of a host of players that are no longer with the team, and Brady was gone, in my opinion the Pats would have equal to or a better record than they have now.

 

To sum it up for you...Brady needs the Pats more than the Pats need Brady. Hardly the definition of "One of The Best Ever."

[AKC]

you're saying he's an average QB.

 

480381[/snapback]

 

 

My position is consistent- I believe Brady to be substantially overhyped due to his clear limitations as an athlete and the few times I've seen Brady under the type of pressure others face weekly and his dreadful play under those circumstances.

 

You don't have to like my opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but don't assume you have any license to misrepresent it. I can't help you follow clear logic and facts since you choose to ignore them.

 

Time should tell whether I'm right- the league has always found ways to catch up to the "genius" coach of any time period. History says Belichick's window is either closing now or will very soon. Brady might bounce around some West Coast offenses since that's the oinly thing suited for his arm, and if we do get to see him put in the position of being forced to carry a team we'll have a far better standard to rate him on than simply after a period in which he's had the benefit of one of the top contemporary defenses, a line blocking scheme that has offered him FAR greater protection than virtually any QB in the league on most Sundays and the "genius" coaching staff of the moment, not to mention a "Best Ever" kicker who has bailed him out of losing the biggest games in EVERY season he's had success.

 

I believe, as others have suggested in this thread, that there are 5 or 6 QBs in the game right now who would have had similar success under the same circumstances. That's not taking away from what Mudslide has done, it's simply what I think is an objective, media-hype free view of all the circumstances and benefits he's had in his career to date.

 

Now feel free to go back to the altar and worship your autographed Brady thong.

[MDH]

That post was referring to RTDB post.  Try to keep up.

 

My argument is that when faced with significant losses in both coaching and personel, personel who had more of a hand in the Pats run than Brady did, he is being exposed as the slighlty better than mediccre QB that he has always been.  If the Pats still had Ted Johnson, or any other of a host of players that are no longer with the team, and Brady was gone, in my opinion the Pats would have equal to or a better record than they have now.

 

To sum it up for you...Brady needs the Pats more than the Pats need Brady.  Hardly the definition of "One of The Best Ever."

480447[/snapback]

 

 

If by "be exposed" you mean that he leads the league in yards passing, has a 62% completion percentage and a passer rating of 92, yeah, you're right. All this with no semblance of a running game. The only bright spot of the Patriots season thus far has been the play of Brady. Yeah, that sounds like a “slightly better than mediocre QB”, sure.

 

I have no clue where you're coming up with this "exposed" garbage. Sure the cumulative loss of both coordinators and all the talent is more important than Brady to the team. However, no single loss is nearly as important to the team as Brady. So you really think that if the Pats had Ted Johnson they’d suddenly be world-beaters on D? He alone would be able to make a significant impact on the 164 points they’ve allowed already (second worst in the league)?

 

This is a team game. Brady doesn't deserve all the credit for winning the SB three times and I have yet to see anybody give him all the credit. He had a very good team around him. He was, however, the most important part of the equation (well, other than Belichick). I can’t think of a single SB champ that had a sh*tty overall team and a great QB that the team rode to victory. It just doesn’t happen that way. Teams struggle to win sometimes, even when they have led by great QBs.

 

Anyway, this is getting old. None of you guys proclaiming Brady has been “exposed” are willing to back up any of your outlandish claims with a wager, which tells me you’re just blowing hot air. The Pats D is one of the worst in the league right now and the O has been reduced to throwing way more than they would like. In other words, they’re riding Brady. Yet, you don’t have enough confidence in your opinion to throw down some cash. What, you’re scared that a “slightly better than mediocre QB” can somehow put the team on his back and salvage a winning season?

 

Get back to me when you have the courage of your convictions; otherwise this is a waste of time.

 

The worst part of all this is I’ve felt compelled to defend the star player of a team I f’in hate because I hate idiocy more than I do the Patriots.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Yeah, the Pats slow start to one season eliminates everything else that Brady has done.

Did you happen to catch the Pats' 2002 season? You know the difference between THAT season and the other 3 seasons he started? The defense was ranked in the teens, not the top-3, in scoring defense. Think that's a coincidence?

 

Also, what about that Steelers championship playoff game in 2001 that Bledsoe (in Brady terms) "won" and which propelled the Pats to their 1st SB? Was that not a big game? And did the Pats not win that game with Brady missing a little over half the game, i.e. essentially without him?

[MadBuffaloDisease]

And that's not to mention the "tuck" rule that should have prevented the Pats from ever GETTING to their 1st SB, much less the way they were able to sodomize the Colts in the AFCCG 2 years later to reach their 2nd SB. Suffice it to say that the NFL has been weak for years now, especially on the NFC side, and that several AFC teams could have won the SB had they made it.