This is hard to say!

[Ghost of BiB]

I just tripped in here. This football talk is just so awesome. Way cool, dudes.

[MDH]

I'm a firm believer that Steve Young was better than Joe.  In fact, Steve is the best QB I've ever seen play. 

480742[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I agree with you. Young is the best QB I've seen play in my lifetime as well. The guy could do it all and really didn't have any weaknesses in his game.

 

It's a shame how bad QBing in the NFL has become. In the early/mid 90s there were a ton of great QBs playing the game. Today I can name three (and Favre is on his last legs). Granted, there are some younger QBs that might end up being great.

[34-78-83]

I thought you were writing a review of former League MVP Rich Gannon when his line was giving him time!

It's amazing how much better even some of the worst QBs in the league look at the above  skills when they have time in the pocket.

 

I've seen guys I thought were absolutely stationary juke the best rushers in the league when they were put in situations their lines were giving them time on most downs and they were only being asked to make minor foot adjustments instead of fight off a bull rush on passing downs.

 

I've seen career journeymen who spent full seasons locking onto their primary read and blowing off progressions turn into league MVPs with their field vision when they got into an offense favorable to them and they had a reliable line in front of them.

 

Time makes all QBs better, and when you have time the small elements like moving a step to one side or the other now and then IMO become hundreds of times easier. It's facing major pressure that turns almost everyone into garbage, and the few times I've seen the Patsy line break down in recent years Brady has looked just as bad as Rick Mirer.

480715[/snapback]

 

I've seen all the same Qb's you have mentioned, and fully agree with your points about playing under certain "conditions". The difference is that I've also seen TB do it under duress, and game pressure, and I've seen him snap through his progressions and stand in there til the last second and make the third down throw to his 4th read while getting smacked in the face. I've also seen the likes of Elway and Kelly (whom I would take over Brady BTW) look like pop-warner qb's when facing certain "conditions". In fact, I'll never forget attending Biscuit's first game as a pro vs. Denver when Elway had a most forgetable day. It is also commonality that when non-scrambling type QB's face intense middle pressure (ie. Pats opener 2003) they look all like journeymen.

[IDBillzFan]

So because you simply cant argue about anything else, you make false assumptions about the majority of Pats fans.  Who are you to judge how long someone else has been a fan of a team for?        Just because your team has a long history of sucking minus an 8 year span or so, doenst mean that you guys are the only "lovable losers" of the NFL.    We've gone from extreme rags and now we're enjoying riches.       

 

Or did you become a Bills fan around 1990?

480634[/snapback]

Please. Dude. I was watching my team when Plunkett was throwing and Gogolak was kicking for YOUR team for Christ's sake.

 

What else would you like to argue about, Helmet? Whether Brady is great or not? Whether your team is a dynasty? All of them...points that have been discussed ad nauseum. You won three of four and I wish my team had done the same. That's not an argument worth having, Skippy, because it's a stupid argument.

 

And instead of once again relying on everyone I know who lives in Beantown to prove that most all Patriot fans are bandwagon fans, we'll just wait until the end of this year when you are no longer in contention. Let's take a look at all the empty seats. Let's see if you can recall who you're playing in the last game of a season that has gone to the crapper. You won't and neither will any other Pats fan, except maybe HD.

 

Empty seats. Bandwagon fans. You are their leader. I swear, I really feel like I might miss you when you stop following your team.

[Adam]

I would go with overrated in the first third of his career (JE), but as he matured and especially at the end when he only used his feet on rare occassions, I thought of him as a prototype complete QB and among the best to ever play.

 

If Brady gets kicked to someone like Houston and takes them to regular playoff shots I'll move him up a bit, but right now he appears to me to be the single major beneficiary of being in the Belichick magic show.

479469[/snapback]

Wasn't NE doing terrible when he took over?

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Wasn't NE doing terrible when he took over?

They went 5-11 in 2000, Belichick and co.'s first year. Then after that season, they added a spitload of players through the draft and FA so that their team in 2001 had 50% new starters. IOW they basically replaced half the starters, so the team in 2001 wasn't even close to the one in 2000. Then to open the 2001 season, they played the mighty Bengals and the defense gave up 23 points, and Bledsoe didn't have a single turnover and led them to 17 points. You'd think the defense would have played better against an offense as woeful (at the time) as the Bengals, but no. The following week the defense held the Jets to 6 points and the Pats ended up losing 9-6, with Bledsoe admittedly playing lousy, but I remember a certain game in Buffalo to start the 2003 season, so that really can't be held against Bledsoe since divisional games are always tough. And then in Brady's first game as a starter (against the Colts, the 3rd game of the season), his stats and QB rating were worse than Bledsoe's in the season opener, but the difference is that the defense shut down the Colts' high-powered offense and gave the Pats' offense numerous scoring chances.

 

The biggest difference is that the team woke-up and realized that they as a group had to pull their weight without the "franchise" playing anymore. They also dumbed-down the playbook and decided to run the ball more. And later on in the season, as I've pointed-out, Bledsoe came off the bench cold and rusty from month of inactivity and led the team to a win over the Steelers, to propel them to their 1st SB. I have no doubt he could have beaten the Rams in the SB the following week, given his performance against a better defense in their house (the Steelers), versus the Rams' weaker defense on a neutral field. He might not have won the other SB's, because he's on the downside of his career, unlike Brady. Maybe back in the mid 90's he could have, but he never had a defense or ST's as good as Brady has had back then.

[AKC]

I'm a firm believer that Steve Young was better than Joe. 

480742[/snapback]

 

No one can argue that Young didn’t have the whole toolbox, but something Montana did better was read the field- he had the most innate sense of where bodies were and the instincts to tell which way defenders could and couldn’t move. You so rarely saw Joe get a receiver popped hard. At the same time the nod of better QB probably goes to Young since his skills allowed the 9ers to open the West Coast offense for more play action deep throws to complement his ability to go downfield, making him more of a threat than his predecessor.

 

If you wanted to measure the best short passing QB of all time, it’s hard to imagine anyone picking against Montana for the simple reason that contemporarily to be as good as Joe you’d have to be a far better than Joe was. The fact is he was playing in a nearly theoretical system that forced him to relearn the QB position, and the only film he had of a QB playing in it was Virgil Carter. Somehow I get the idea that film wasn't of much value. The Walsh system reversed all the receiver progressions and Joe was really the grasshopper for Walsh- since he had such great success it seems only fair that to eclipse him you’d have to seriously surpass his accomplishments.

[34-78-83]

No one can argue that Young didn’t have the whole toolbox, but something Montana did better was read the field- he had the most innate sense of where bodies were and the instincts to tell which way defenders could and couldn’t move. You so rarely saw Joe get a receiver popped hard. At the same time the nod of better QB probably goes to Young since his skills allowed the 9ers to open the West Coast offense for more play action deep throws to complement his ability to go downfield, making him more of a threat than his predecessor.

 

If you wanted to measure the best short passing QB of all time, it’s hard to imagine anyone picking against Montana for the simple reason that contemporarily to be as good as Joe you’d have to be a far better than Joe was. The fact is he was playing in a nearly theoretical system that forced him to relearn the QB position, and the only film he had of a QB playing in it was Virgil Carter. Somehow I get the idea that film wasn't of much value. The Walsh system reversed all the receiver progressions and Joe was really the grasshopper for Walsh- since he had such great success it seems only fair that to eclipse him you’d have to seriously surpass his accomplishments.

480807[/snapback]

 

That post is an example of why I'll always value what you have to say, inspite of some occasional journeys into the bazaar

 

Well done.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

Wasn't NE doing terrible when he took over?

Yeah, 5-13 in '00-'01. Pro Football Weekly called them the team least likely to win a Super Bowl in the next 5 years (which pissed me off, but looking back, the talent level was incredibly low).

 

The idea that Brady benefitted from taking over a great team is a myth.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

So you're saying that Brady becoming the starter made the defense and ST's into elite units? Is there any coincidence that once Bledsoe went down, the Pats started to feature Antowain and the run? Or how about the fact that an offense with 6 new starters needs time to jell? What about Brady throwing twice as many INT's as TD's over his last 8 games? Or what about that pesky Steelers' AFCCG (Or the 2002 season)? Suffice it to say HD, it wasn't Brady taking over that suddenly made the Pats a good team and it wasn't like they couldn't win without him.

Edited October 20, 2005 by MadBuffaloDisease

[Hollywood Donahoe]

So you're saying that...?

I'm saying that, under Belichick and Weis, the Patriots were 5-13 before Brady, and 60-17 since.

 

If you want to credit that success to the likes of Antowain Smith, that's fine, but don't be surprised if that view isn't taken seriously.

[Alaska Darin]

I have heard words to this effect before. In his book, Tim Green said that Young was clearly better than Montana.  Honestly, I have never thought so. What makes you think that Montana was/will be overrated?

 

The two games that stuck out to me wrt Montana were the SBs vs. Denver and Cinn. Against Cinn., the 2 minute drill was the obvious reason and how he checked off primary receivers.

Against Denver, in his first drive there was a third and perhaps 17. He threaded the needle with an 18 yard completion to his fullback, and it was between the hands of 3 Bronco defenders. The game was over.

 

I am the very first to say that any qb is as good as his blocking (see Kurt Warner), but it was watching Montana that taught me that arm strength was down on the list of things that make a qb great.

(OK, Stabler showed me that even beforehand). 

480723[/snapback]

Young was the best QB I've ever seen. Tremendous athlete, smart, etc. Could do it all.

 

Montana was a system QB, par excellance. He also sucked tremendously at the first sign of bad weather. Had he been drafted into Buffalo, his career may very well have ended the first time a decent wind started blowing off the lake. Think back to the playoff game in the Meadowlands (49-3 Giants) and the dismanteling in Rich Stadium (where Montana's accuracy resembled Losman's without the velocity). There are few QBs who benefitted more from the talent around them.

 

As far as Bradshaw went, he really didn't play in an era that helped QBs - his heyday was still pretty much power football and great defense. Towards the end the game opened up a bit but he'd have been a much better QB today than he was then.

[Thurman's Helmet]

Please. Dude. I was watching my team when Plunkett was throwing and Gogolak was kicking for YOUR team for Christ's sake.

 

What else would you like to argue about, Helmet? Whether Brady is great or not? Whether your team is a dynasty? All of them...points that have been discussed ad nauseum. You won three of four and I wish my team had done the same. That's not an argument worth having, Skippy, because it's a stupid argument.

 

And instead of once again relying on everyone I know who lives in Beantown to prove that most all Patriot fans are bandwagon fans, we'll just wait until the end of this year when you are no longer in contention. Let's take a look at all the empty seats. Let's see if you can recall who you're playing in the last game of a season that has gone to the crapper. You won't and neither will any other Pats fan, except maybe HD.

 

Empty seats. Bandwagon fans. You are their leader. I swear, I really feel like I might miss you when you stop following your team.

480789[/snapback]

 

 

Empty seats? Which team STILL doesnt sell out all of their home games?

 

Which team has sold out all its home games consecutively since 1993?

 

But then again, you arent interested in facts, you just simply dismiss any opposing fan as a bandwagon one. You have my pity.

[BRH]

Empty seats?    Which team STILL doesnt sell out all of their home games? 

 

Which team has sold out all its home games consecutively since 1993?   

480961[/snapback]

Which team plays in a market five times larger and has a stadium with five thousand fewer seats?

[IDBillzFan]

Which team has sold out all its home games consecutively since 1993?

480961[/snapback]

You're out of your bird. We fill 70,000+ seats in a market the size of a golfball. Until you started winning, you could barely get ANYONE interested in your team, and that's in a market that is clearly five times the size of the Buffalo market.

 

Seriously, Helmet...stand by for empty seats. Very soon. Thems are the facts, plain and simple.

 

And since you're so caught up in facts, Mr. Bandwagon, I'd also like to see a story stating how the Pats have sold out every home game since 1993. Bring it on, sister.

[Dan Gross]

Do you know what's really hard to say?

"I slit the sheet, the sheet I slit, and on the slitted sheet I sit."

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I'm saying that, under Belichick and Weis, the Patriots were 5-13 before Brady, and 60-17 since.

 

If you want to credit that success to the likes of Antowain Smith, that's fine, but don't be surprised if that view isn't taken seriously.

No that is NOT what I'm saying, but it's not surprising that that's the only thing you gleaned from it.

[Ramius]

Which team has sold out all its home games consecutively since 1993?   

 

480961[/snapback]

 

If you are gonna say the pats, you are even more full of sh-- than i thought...

 

What about all those games in the 90's when foxboro made the cards stadium look full?

[IDBillzFan]

If you are gonna say the pats, you are even more full of sh-- than i thought...

 

What about all those games in the 90's when foxboro made the cards stadium look full?

481404[/snapback]

Typical bandwagon Patsy troll. Tells you to stick to the facts, then makes some facts up on his own.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

If you are gonna say the pats, you are even more full of sh-- than i thought...

 

What about all those games in the 90's when foxboro made the cards stadium look full?

http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=...d=13124&pcid=41

 

Today's game was the 119th consecutive home sellout for the Patriots, including regular-season, preseason and playoff games. The sellout streak dates back to the 1994 season opener and is now in its 12th season. The streak began on Sept. 11, 1994 - Robert Kraft’s first regular-season game as owner of the Patriots. Additionally, today’s game is the 247th straight Patriots game to be televised locally. New England fans have not had a blacked-out home game since Dec. 26, 1993 against Indianapolis at Foxboro Stadium.

You're right in that it wasn't '93, it was '94, but the difference is negligible.