Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Rasheed Wallace?! Ben Wallace?!
The argument isn't about Dilfer being the Ravens biggest star. It's actually that he was just a guy and they still won where if you took away an NBA teams best player and replaced him with a Dilfer type they wouldn't be able to win the title. The argument is about the NFL being more team oriented and the NBA being more player oriented.
C'mon Tony Banks got replaced by Trent Dilfer and they still had Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson, Jamal Lewis, and a ton of other players. Are you guys really trying to pitch to me that Tony Banks was a superstar getting replaced by a replacement player? Drew Bledsoe - actual superstar - who already took his team to a SB got replaced by Brady and the difference was night and day. Both for the Patriots and for BB's winning percentage as a coach.
LOL at calling the 2001 Drew Bledsoe a superstar. His play had dropped off years before that (38 TDs, 36 INT's from 1999-2001).
I don't believe anybody said anything about Dilfer replacing a superstar. The whole gist of the conversation is that football is more dependent on the team with 53 players on the roster and that they can absorb the loss of a superstar easier than and NBA team could. I never mentioned anything about this taking away from Brady or giving more props to BB. My comment was that NBA is superstar driven and you go as well as your superstars where football needs a complete team effort to get to the promised land.
You're not following the argument. This was a side question about QBs vs basketball stars. When there are 12 guys in an NBA huddle, the best one is relatively more important than the 1 QB on a roster of 45. Even though QBs are the most important position in football. Its a question of numbers and the nature of the games.
I am following it. I don't disagree that Jordan can carry a team more than Brady. My point is that everyone is acting like somehow, in football, that QB is just 1 of 53. That is disingenuous at best. A QB can carry a team. A QB can turn a poor team into a contender. A coach rarely (and that is being generous) can so it is ludicrous to say that BB is more valuable - in any sense - over TB. BB is important. He isn't more important than Brady. Joe Torre is important - but not more than Jeter or Mariano. Phil Jackson is important - but not more than Jordan or Kobe or Shaq. Brady is the GOAT at the most influential position on a football team. But, for some reason, the GOAT at the most difficult and influential position in the sport isn't more of a factor than the coach?!?! It is just sour grapes period.
We all have different opinions and perspective. Tom Brady does not play defense. Or make roster decisions. Or manage the draft selection process, free agent signings, or the salary cap. Brady does not to my knowledge develop the game plan from week to week that typically has great variation depending upon the opponent (he likely provides some feedback, but I don't believe he creates the game plan). He doesn't play special teams or make clutch kicks. He doesn't determine what the team does in practice. I would suggest that BB does way more in tape review and spotting other teams tendencies than TB does, so Brady may add something after the fact. He doesn't teach tackling, positioning, or proper technique.
Sorry - the logic just doesn't hold.
All that is great but still doesn't fit the bill for what I asked about. What you listed off only enforces my point. Yes, it is easier to win a title or two with a HOF quarterback than not. But all the cases you brought up did not lead to 9 Super Bowl appearances for other elite QBs. The logic being that an elite QB trumps all coaching.
Your fighting a losing battle. Just wait til Brady retires and we see the real Bill. I might actually start watching Patriot games again.
For the same reason that Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp etc. etc. etc. didn't. They were unlucky enough to play in the ERA where the GOAT was active. It is that simple. You may not think Brady is that much better than the QBs listed but, in reality, he is better enough that it translates into him winning while they do not.
Defense wins championships is a myth no different than offenses win championships. Next you will be telling me that you need to establish the run or that a Team X wins 90% of the time if player Y rushes for 100 yards so you need to feed him the rock.
When given a good D Brady converts that into SB appearances/wins better than the other two GOAT contenders.
LOL - Perhaps they should have used their mad coaching skills and coached up their D.
Hmmm... perhaps, given the bulk of Brady's career, you should rethink the rehashed system QB carried by D.
Yes, he has had his failures in the playoffs. No one is arguing perfection here only that he is more important than the coach.
Who isn't giving him blame? As you said, it is a team sport. Manning scored less than 20 in 12 starts out of 27. Montana 5/23. Not only that, Brady often plays in some pretty bad weather in the playoffs which affects scoring.
He scores enough to win. That is all that is needed. Again, all of this other stuff is just sour grapes...picking nits as to diminish what he has done.
And Brady still wasn't that much of an improvement in 2001 (18/12 with a 86 rating). 18 TDs just screams superstar.
SMH, again i do not believe u can fairly split the BB/TB atom and do not believe it is all TB but I do believe box scores and stats often do not paint a complete picture. "You brought up 2001. Brady averaged 190 yards with 18 TD and 12 INT that year. Was that so outer worldly" no it wasn't other worldly but how many games did NE win in the 18 games prior to TB taking over? I dont see how anyone can dismiss that as not significant. Take your stats and slice them whatever way you want but the difference between a good pro bowl, maybe help get u to a SB QB like Bledsoe and a truly great, ultimate competitor QB like Brady was like night and day. You brought up 2003 and implied the NE def carried NE to the SB win, well I watched SB 38 and im wondering if u did? TB won that SB. BB's bend but dont break defs have given up crap loads of points in some of the biggest games and more often than not NE has won or been very competitive anyway. Not for nothing but how did Manning do at home in playoffs with the #1 def,,,,ya I know low blow. As BB says stats r for losers.
I'm not really buying it. Put Brady on a team with inferior talent and inferior coaching and play calling, and he likely would not win more SB's than other top QBs. I hate playing the let's put players on different teams game, but if Brady went to teams that had really long stretches of nothingness I doubt that suddenly they would become SB champions (CLE, DET, BUF, OAK, etc.). Maybe they might make the playoffs a few times, but the way other teams make mistakes and coaches make dumb decisions, I don't see him going to 9 SB's not on NE.
I;ve decided to stop getting in these debates where we really have nothing but opinions to go with, no hard cold facts to back up an opinion. They go on and on without anything close to actual facts ever being used.
The other atom that can't be split is BB the coach vs. BB the GM. The 2001 Patriots allowed 66 fewer points than the 2000 team did. By 2003, that total decreased to 100 points fewer than the 2000 season. In those early BB drafts, they landed some key pieces. Does BB the GM get credit for drafting Brady . . . or is that off limits as a talking point?NE_REVIVAL said:
The first sentence is true based on what we saw on the field. The second sentence cannot be proven one way or the other, but IMO Belichick could have gotten there with several different QBs playing today.
Again, unprovable, but Brady wouldn't have that combination of numbers and clutch performances without Belichick. So if you had to choose one, you wouldn't be getting that by choosing Brady.
I was not the one that posted the gaudy passing numbers, clutch playoff performances, and selfless play comment, but it shows up as attributed to me. I don't really care . . . just curious if you intended to comment on something I had posted (about the team's record across the two halves of Brady's career).
No, I used the quote function twice to quote highlighted portions of @bostonfred's post. No idea why it shows @Anarchy99 on the second one. Bizarre.
Well, I think Brady leading them to 5 touchdowns and a field goal including two touchdown drives in the final 3 minutes of the afc championship game is more impressive than you seem to, and belichick's defense giving up 10 points in those same 3 minutes is not evidence that suggests to me that belichick would have won that game without brady.
I have posted many times in these forums in recent years that I rank him as the top QB of all time, in his own tier ahead of tier 2 which IMO includes only Montana and Unitas. Most recently here. I recently posted here that he is the most accomplished football player in history. The only reason I or anyone would post these things about him is because of his playoff success, so this statement of yours is incorrect. Maybe it's time to update your notebook.
You claimed that Belichick could not have gotten to this year's Super Bowl without Brady. I disagree. I think Belichick would have won those two playoff games this year with this roster and this coaching staff with several other QBs in place of Brady, as I said. In no particular order, I think he would have done it with Brees, Rodgers (assuming healthy), Rivers, Mahomes, Luck, Ryan, and Wilson. Maybe others, but at least those guys. That is in large part because those are other great QBs (there are other great QBs, you know) but also largely because that is how good Belichick is IMO.
Not sure why you went here, because I didn't, but, if you want to open it up to players in their primes from other seasons, the list gets a lot longer. Montana, Unitas, Young, Peyton, Marino, Favre, Elway, and probably many others.
That's what i like about your fantasy land. There's no accountability when the players don't actually have to do things and you can just imagine what you think they'd do.
bull ####. He would be a ham & egger with an idiot like Jeff Fisher. You don't seem to remember HOW they won some of their SBs. Mike Martz gave them a win because he's stupid and out of football beeacse he's stupid. Pete Carroll/Bevell's worst call in Super Bowl history gave them a win. Shanahan's incompetence gave them a win. VS competent coaching he wld be 3-6 in SBs.
At least as many as Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Dan Fouts, are they ham and eggers?
Maybe you didn’t understand the premise of the discussion initiated by your own statement. The premise is that the other QB, such as Luck, would be on the Patriots with Patriots teammates and coaches.
Again, no.Maybe you didn’t understand the premise of the discussion initiated by your own statement. The premise is that the other QB, such as Luck, would be on the Patriots with Patriots teammates and coaches.
It is quite ironic that you accuse me of giving Brady no credit while you are apparently giving zero credit to Brady’s teammates and coaches for the wins under discussIon. If you can’t see how hypocritical and completely off base that is, I can’t help you.
Another QB may not have had to convert 2 comeback drives, because another QB may not have thrown 2 interceptions, including one in the end zone that kept NE points off the board and another at the NE 23 yard line that set up KC for a go ahead score with 7:55 remaining.
None of that was under discussion. I've already said multiple times in this tangent that Brady is the GOAT QB, so obviously that means he did great things.
Once again, you seem very challenged to stay on point. Here, you seem to be addressing whether another QB could have stepped in and had Brady's career. That is not what we have been discussing.
Does a better more efficient offense help a def play better? I certainly believe it does and the 2001 pats also scored about 100 more points than they did in 2000 thanks in part to better 3d and rz conversion rates. Sure the defense got better but having a real leader on offense played a big role in that. Yes in 2003 their def had improved quite a bit but it was nowhere to be found in the 2nd half of the 2003 (04 sb38).
The chiefs scored 31 points against the colts and 31 points against the Patriots despite the Patriots having way more time of possession.
I'm not sure that's true. The Bulls were right in the mix for the championship during Jordan's first retirement. The Knicks were in the mix for a championship during a Ewing injury. Neither won a championship but a few lucky breaks and they could have. And that's just in the last 25 years.
Heck, just look at the Eagles winning the Super Bowl last year after losing their QB in December (who at the time was the favorite to win the MVP). That would never happen in the NBA.
The part that you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that Belichick is completely head and shoulders above any other coach. If this year's super bowl run doesn't cement that, then Pretty much everyone in this thread has already acknowledged that Brady is the greatest QB but maybe a good portion of that success is due to the coach.
So neither won the championship. I cannot remember how that Knicks team sans Ewing finished, but I know the Bulls in that only season without Jordan in 1992-1993 lost in the 2nd round. Winning four rounds is a lot different than winning a round and losing the second.
That 2nd round loss was impacted by a very bad call if you ask any Bulls fan (I am not one myself). Then we're talking a weak Indiana Pacers team away from the finals.
Patriots fans are an interesting bunch when it comes to Belichick. Many of them will defend him like crazy, until anyone suggests that he is as or more important than Brady, and then they have no problem picking nits with him and/or throwing him under the bus (see above where NE_REVIVAL actually said that Belichick did a horrific job at at some point as head coach in the last 18 years). I get that it is more fun to root for the player than the coach, so there will always be more loyalty to the player, but it sure is fascinating to see some Patriots fan turn on their own simply because they cannot handle everyone not genuflecting to Tom Brady.
LeBron in 2016, Dirk in 2011, Wade in '06 are three recent examples of great players who won championships despite not having great teams around them (take those guys off those teams and the Mavs and Heat don't get past the 1st round, and we've see what taking LeBron away does to the Cavs.
If the ATL SB doesn't cement that Brady is completely above any other QB I am not sure what to tell you. I just can't believe there are so many people that think the guy who never touches the ball, never steps on the field, and is never responsible for making a clutch play is considered more important to the team's success than the guy that actually has to go out there and perform. Also, it isn't like this year's run was anything special in regards to gameplan/coaching. The SB was a masterpiece but SD and KC weren't anything amazing.
So much wrong with one post...
