Bledsoe to thank for the current Patriots dynasty? (1 Viewer)

[NEUPJ]

Bishop signed with the New England Patriots in 1999, but was inactive for all but one game. It was not until the 2000 season that he actually played in his first ever professional game. During that season, he saw only limited playing time, passing nine times with three completions. After he threw a 44-yard Hail Mary touchdown at the end of the first half in a game against the Indianapolis Colts, several Patriots fans, upset with the poor play of starting quarterback Drew Bledsoe throughout the season, demanded that coach Bill Belichick name Bishop the starter, though this never happened.

I remember the fans crying for Bishop, but I don't see anything saying that he would have actually remained on the team if they had to cut one of them. Bishop was a novelty who excited fans but who really didn't have the makings of an NFL starter or back-up. Unless the guy could play WR and come in for trick plays, I can't see how useful he would be. This is a perfect example of why coaches can't listen to the whining of the fans.If the Pats had any faith in Bishop, they wouldn't have drafted another QB. I could be completely wrong but I have never seen anything saying they were debating cutting Brady or would have. Belichick loved him in camp that first year and saw how hard he worked all during the year even though he had no shot of playing.

 

[switz]

I don't think you can thank Bledsoe or Mo lewis for the entire dynasty... Brady was already improving in practice a lot up to that point and would have overtaken the starting job as the successor at one point no matter what. Although if Bledsoe wasn't injured I doubt they win the SB in 2001.

This is pretty much revisionist history. There was 0 chance Brady was going to beat Bledsoe out of the starting job by what he had done up to that point. It was only after seeing the team rally around him that Belichick considered Beldsoe as expendable. And even then, it wasn't a guarantee that Bledsoe didn't get the job back when he was healthy.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I don't think you can thank Bledsoe or Mo lewis for the entire dynasty... Brady was already improving in practice a lot up to that point and would have overtaken the starting job as the successor at one point no matter what. Although if Bledsoe wasn't injured I doubt they win the SB in 2001.

This is pretty much revisionist history. There was 0 chance Brady was going to beat Bledsoe out of the starting job by what he had done up to that point. It was only after seeing the team rally around him that Belichick considered Beldsoe as expendable. And even then, it wasn't a guarantee that Bledsoe didn't get the job back when he was healthy.

While it may be true that "there was 0 chance Brady was going to beat Bledsoe out of the starting job by what he had done up to that point", you are discounting the possibility that BB had lost confidence in Bledsoe and would be willing to go the Brady route not based on Brady's emonstrated strengths but based on Bledsoe's demonstrated weaknesses (zero mobility, bad decision-making under pressure). As someone who was anti-Brady (for about 3 weeks after the change), I can tell you that it was pretty much acknowledged at the time that this is exactly what happened (I remember thinking at the time that Bledsoe was being treated unfairly; fortunately that was BB's call and not mine).

 

[Borat]

Bellichick seems to get all of the credit but how did he over look Tom Brady on the sidelines? If Bledsoe does not get hurt then the Pats never go on this run, Brady is a career back up or a qb on another team, Brady would not be pulling the ladies he is pulling, and the tuck rule would still live in obscurity.

Read "Patriot Reign." Belichick was already close to benching Bledsoe for Brady when Bledsoe got hurt. Also, Belichick deserves credit for sticking with Brady once Bledsoe was healthy and ready to play again. That was not a no-brainer by any stretch.Finally, Bledsoe was absolutely a major part of turning the Patriots franchise around. He brought the team back to respectability back in the Parcells days.

 

[gregjcross]

I don't think you can thank Bledsoe or Mo lewis for the entire dynasty... Brady was already improving in practice a lot up to that point and would have overtaken the starting job as the successor at one point no matter what. Although if Bledsoe wasn't injured I doubt they win the SB in 2001.

Why cant all topics contain useful informatoin like every post in this one -- rather than the cat fighting usually observedGood show!

 

[Borat]

...in another thread I posted that Brady was one of the best ever, and a Pats fan decided that wasn't good enough, and replied, quoting my post but changing it "the best ever" and wrote "fixed" as the reply.Is that really necessary? Do you really think it's not even debatable? Is it such an insult to be called one of the best ever?Personally, I find it irritating and rather arrogant that a compliment isn't good enough, if it falls short of kissing Brady's back side.

I think you are being a little too sensitive here. Patriots fans are extremely proud and excited for their team and their quarterback. Under the circumstances, who wouldn't be? I didn't see it, but whoever did that "fixed" bit that you are describing was probably just having a little fun with you. I'm surprised that you'd get irritated by that and find it to be so arrogant. Lighten up a bit.

 

[Road Warriors]

Bishop signed with the New England Patriots in 1999, but was inactive for all but one game. It was not until the 2000 season that he actually played in his first ever professional game. During that season, he saw only limited playing time, passing nine times with three completions. After he threw a 44-yard Hail Mary touchdown at the end of the first half in a game against the Indianapolis Colts, several Patriots fans, upset with the poor play of starting quarterback Drew Bledsoe throughout the season, demanded that coach Bill Belichick name Bishop the starter, though this never happened.

I remember the fans crying for Bishop, but I don't see anything saying that he would have actually remained on the team if they had to cut one of them. Bishop was a novelty who excited fans but who really didn't have the makings of an NFL starter or back-up. Unless the guy could play WR and come in for trick plays, I can't see how useful he would be. This is a perfect example of why coaches can't listen to the whining of the fans.If the Pats had any faith in Bishop, they wouldn't have drafted another QB. I could be completely wrong but I have never seen anything saying they were debating cutting Brady or would have. Belichick loved him in camp that first year and saw how hard he worked all during the year even though he had no shot of playing.

The point is that Bishop was the backup the year they drafted Brady, and that year, they kept 4 QBs on the roster, which was unconventional, at best. If they had made the choice to only carry 3, Brady, as an unheralded 6th rounder, was the likely candidate. Bishop, in 2000, would not have been cut. Friesz was the other QB on the roster, and he was more of a Testaverde type veteran, break glass in case of emergency, QB. I don't think they would have gone that route ( cut Friesz ), either, as that would have left NE with Bledsoe and 2 very unproven backups. Most teams like to have on veteran QB available, just in case.You're dead on on the assessment of Bishop's game, and he was cut going into 2001, when Brady showed the staff he was able to handle the backup role. I'll stand by the speculation that in 2000, had the Pats decided to cut one of the 4 QBs, the likely choice would have been Brady.

 

[Ned]

Credit goes to BB and SP for keeping four qbs that year. If they went with three, they were going to cut Brady. They decided to keep four. Pretty big gamble that paid off...

and the trend in the "copycat" NFL was to go with the athletic, mobile QB. The Michael Vick era had begun in the NFL and NE had a similar style player, Michael Bishop, on their roster. Many NE fans were screaming for Bishop. It had become clear to the NE fans that the statuesque. Bledsoe, while a nice guy and all, just wasn't the answer for New England... he lacked "It".Knowing Belichick's style now, he would always want a QB that could manage a game over a scrambling, wild-card like Vick or Bishop. Everything with BB is about control and preparation. Where he lucked out is that Brady is not only a fantastic game manager, he grew into a prolific passer with an unmatched work ethic.But both Bledsoe and Parcells deserve some credit in NE. Their arrival (along with Kraft) stabilized the franchise in the early 90s. Parcells and Bledsoe put NE Patriots' football on the map, for real; they were no longer floundering organization who occasionally produced an upstart season.I think most NE fans see Bledsoe as a necessary building block to getting where they are today. I'd imagine he'd still be well received by most of the fans in NE.

I agree with this. I also think that Belichick deserves all the credit for keeping Brady around - it wasn't by accident. They scouted him and liked his makeup which is why they drafted him, and they noted how hard he worked and how much he'd mastered the playbook. I believe at the beginning of the 2001 season, before Bledsoe's injury, the players were already of the belief that Brady could take over the team and run the offense. They found a diamond in the rough, but it wasn't by accident.

 

[DropKick]

Bellichick seems to get all of the credit but how did he over look Tom Brady on the sidelines? If Bledsoe does not get hurt then the Pats never go on this run, Brady is a career back up or a qb on another team, Brady would not be pulling the ladies he is pulling, and the tuck rule would still live in obscurity.

Read "Patriot Reign." Belichick was already close to benching Bledsoe for Brady when Bledsoe got hurt. Also, Belichick deserves credit for sticking with Brady once Bledsoe was healthy and ready to play again. That was not a no-brainer by any stretch.Finally, Bledsoe was absolutely a major part of turning the Patriots franchise around. He brought the team back to respectability back in the Parcells days.

Agreed.Also the fan's affinity for "4th quarter pre-season stud" Bishop had more to do with dissatisfaction with Bledsoe's play and the need for a change, ANY change. Bledsoe had his strengths but didn't improve much after his sophomore season. Many recognized there was a definite ceiling with Drew.

 

[encaitar]

It seems there is a lot of circumstance in the NFL. There are other stories of where backups get a chance based on injury or some other reason and the good ones take advantage of it.

I don't doubt Brady would've gotten his shot at some point. Probably not that season unless Bledsoe had gotten hurt, but he was a 2nd year 6th round pick that had already been named the backup QB. Most 6th round QBs are lucky to get to that point in 4 or 5 years. Clearly Belichick saw something in him that he liked.

I like to speculate what would've happened if NE had lost the SB in 2001. Especially if they had lost big. I think the fan outcry would've been HUGE being that Bledsoe was the one who won them the game in the AFC championship. Then to follow it up with their 2002 season and the trading of Bledsoe to a division rival it would be interesting to know what this situation would've caused.

No matter what, you have to give props to BB for going with the right guy and even more so to Brady for taking his limited skills(at the time of the draft) and turning them into elite skills.

 

[Road Warriors]

It seems there is a lot of circumstance in the NFL. There are other stories of where backups get a chance based on injury or some other reason and the good ones take advantage of it.I don't doubt Brady would've gotten his shot at some point. Probably not that season unless Bledsoe had gotten hurt, but he was a 2nd year 6th round pick that had already been named the backup QB. Most 6th round QBs are lucky to get to that point in 4 or 5 years. Clearly Belichick saw something in him that he liked.I like to speculate what would've happened if NE had lost the SB in 2001. Especially if they had lost big. I think the fan outcry would've been HUGE being that Bledsoe was the one who won them the game in the AFC championship. Then to follow it up with their 2002 season and the trading of Bledsoe to a division rival it would be interesting to know what this situation would've caused.No matter what, you have to give props to BB for going with the right guy and even more so to Brady for taking his limited skills(at the time of the draft) and turning them into elite skills.

I recall in the days leading up to that SB that there was some heated debate in the NE area over who should start in the SB. I was one of the most vocal (in my local circles) critics of Belichick at that time, thinking that Bledsoe gave them the best chance to win vs. the high powered Rams.

 

[cstu]

It seems there is a lot of circumstance in the NFL. There are other stories of where backups get a chance based on injury or some other reason and the good ones take advantage of it.I don't doubt Brady would've gotten his shot at some point. Probably not that season unless Bledsoe had gotten hurt, but he was a 2nd year 6th round pick that had already been named the backup QB. Most 6th round QBs are lucky to get to that point in 4 or 5 years. Clearly Belichick saw something in him that he liked.I like to speculate what would've happened if NE had lost the SB in 2001. Especially if they had lost big. I think the fan outcry would've been HUGE being that Bledsoe was the one who won them the game in the AFC championship. Then to follow it up with their 2002 season and the trading of Bledsoe to a division rival it would be interesting to know what this situation would've caused.No matter what, you have to give props to BB for going with the right guy and even more so to Brady for taking his limited skills(at the time of the draft) and turning them into elite skills.

I recall in the days leading up to that SB that there was some heated debate in the NE area over who should start in the SB. I was one of the most vocal (in my local circles) critics of Belichick at that time, thinking that Bledsoe gave them the best chance to win vs. the high powered Rams.

They should have started Bledsoe and won without needing Vinitieri to kick the GW'er.

 

[[scooter]]

The popular belief was that Brady outplayed Drew in the 2001 preseason

2001 preseason:Week 1:T. Brady 8/14 92 0 0D. Huard 9/12 85 0 0D. Bledsoe 3/4 37 0 0M. Bishop 2/7 21 0 0Week 2:T. Brady 11/18 122 1 0D. Bledsoe 9/16 73 0 1D. Huard 3/5 31 0 0Week 3. Bledsoe 10/21 82 0 0T. Brady 1/3 4 0 0D. Huard 1/2 3 0 1Week 4:T. Brady 11/19 166 1 0D. Bledsoe 14/22 145 1 0Totals:Brady: 31/54, 384, 2, 0 (91.9 passer rating)Bledsoe: 36/63, 337, 1, 1 (70.7 passer rating)

 

[Road Warriors]

It seems there is a lot of circumstance in the NFL. There are other stories of where backups get a chance based on injury or some other reason and the good ones take advantage of it.I don't doubt Brady would've gotten his shot at some point. Probably not that season unless Bledsoe had gotten hurt, but he was a 2nd year 6th round pick that had already been named the backup QB. Most 6th round QBs are lucky to get to that point in 4 or 5 years. Clearly Belichick saw something in him that he liked.I like to speculate what would've happened if NE had lost the SB in 2001. Especially if they had lost big. I think the fan outcry would've been HUGE being that Bledsoe was the one who won them the game in the AFC championship. Then to follow it up with their 2002 season and the trading of Bledsoe to a division rival it would be interesting to know what this situation would've caused.No matter what, you have to give props to BB for going with the right guy and even more so to Brady for taking his limited skills(at the time of the draft) and turning them into elite skills.

I recall in the days leading up to that SB that there was some heated debate in the NE area over who should start in the SB. I was one of the most vocal (in my local circles) critics of Belichick at that time, thinking that Bledsoe gave them the best chance to win vs. the high powered Rams.

They should have started Bledsoe and won without needing Vinitieri to kick the GW'er.

I'm pretty sure the NE fanbase is quite happy with the end results and subsequent progress by sticking with the kid back in 2001.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I don't think anyone, even the most ardent Pats fan, would say that the Patriots were not ridiculously lucky with Brady. I don't think Belichick is really given credit for knowing there was a future HOF quarterback who would drop to the second day in the draft.

Belichick's credit begins and ends with developing Brady into the backup role and then sticking with him over Bledsoe, which, at the time, was a pretty controversal decision.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

And let's not forget Brady being smart enough to get with the program and start using steroids to bulk up. If he doesn't do that, he's cut.

 

[Road Warriors]

And let's not forget Brady being smart enough to get with the program and start using steroids to bulk up. If he doesn't do that, he's cut.

TIA

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

And let's not forget Brady being smart enough to get with the program and start using steroids to bulk up. If he doesn't do that, he's cut.

Does that explain the Yankees cap he was sporting a year or so ago? Who's his source? Giambi, Clemens or Petitte?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

And let's not forget Brady being smart enough to get with the program and start using steroids to bulk up. If he doesn't do that, he's cut.

TIA

C'mon guy.

 

[pats3in4]

The popular belief was that Brady outplayed Drew in the 2001 preseason

2001 preseason:Week 1:T. Brady 8/14 92 0 0D. Huard 9/12 85 0 0D. Bledsoe 3/4 37 0 0M. Bishop 2/7 21 0 0Week 2:T. Brady 11/18 122 1 0D. Bledsoe 9/16 73 0 1D. Huard 3/5 31 0 0Week 3. Bledsoe 10/21 82 0 0T. Brady 1/3 4 0 0D. Huard 1/2 3 0 1Week 4:T. Brady 11/19 166 1 0D. Bledsoe 14/22 145 1 0Totals:Brady: 31/54, 384, 2, 0 (91.9 passer rating)Bledsoe: 36/63, 337, 1, 1 (70.7 passer rating)

Heh. Even though those stats kind of help make my point (not really, IMO...they're very close for a 4-game sample, considering Brady faced backups more than Drew did), I mispoke. I should have said the popular belief was the Brady outperformed Drew in the 2001 training camp.I'm impressed that preseason stats from 2001 are archived. Good find.

 

[switz]

And let's not forget Brady being smart enough to get with the program and start using steroids to bulk up. If he doesn't do that, he's cut.

TIA

C'mon guy.

It wouldn't surprise me... most people don't make that leap in a year, no matter how hard they train.Brady's arm at Michigan was nowhere near what is is in the NFL.

 

[TD Ryan]

Brady's arm at Michigan was nowhere near what is is in the NFL.

there's no doubt that Brady has gotten better, bigger, and stronger since coming to the NFL... that happens with most players.still, you should watch this if you don't think he could pass deep as a college QB.

Link to video

still, nothing would surprise me with pro sports and athletes.

I don't know Tom Brady, I only know what I see of his play and what the media presents him as.

Based on that, I don't think Brady has used PEDs.

Based on the fact that he's become a legend to NE sports, I certainly hope he hasn't.

 

[Road Warriors]

And let's not forget Brady being smart enough to get with the program and start using steroids to bulk up. If he doesn't do that, he's cut.

TIA

C'mon guy.

It wouldn't surprise me... most people don't make that leap in a year, no matter how hard they train.Brady's arm at Michigan was nowhere near what is is in the NFL.

What leap did he make in a year? He has gone from 211 at the combine to 225 8 years later. His progression in size and strength is MUCH more consistent with training development than quick fix steroid use. He's gained about 15 lbs over 8 years, not overnight.As much as you hate to see overblown mancrushes on this guy, I hate to see baseless claims such as steroids thrown at players with no history or even reasonable circumstantial observations of using. This is a case where the player should be given the benefit of the doubt, doubly so in this current time of media driven witch-hunting for steroids. IMO, of course.

 

[TommyGilmore]

The popular belief was that Brady outplayed Drew in the 2001 preseason

2001 preseason:Week 1:

T. Brady 8/14 92 0 0

D. Huard 9/12 85 0 0

D. Bledsoe 3/4 37 0 0

M. Bishop 2/7 21 0 0

Week 2:

T. Brady 11/18 122 1 0

D. Bledsoe 9/16 73 0 1

D. Huard 3/5 31 0 0

Week 3:

D. Bledsoe 10/21 82 0 0

T. Brady 1/3 4 0 0

D. Huard 1/2 3 0 1

Week 4:

T. Brady 11/19 166 1 0

D. Bledsoe 14/22 145 1 0

Totals:

Brady: 31/54, 384, 2, 0 (91.9 passer rating)

Bledsoe: 36/63, 337, 1, 1 (70.7 passer rating)

Heh. Even though those stats kind of help make my point (not really, IMO...they're very close for a 4-game sample, considering Brady faced backups more than Drew did), I mispoke. I should have said the popular belief was the Brady outperformed Drew in the 2001 training camp.

Bledsoe's stats are typical for a starter facing 1st team defenses. Brady's stats are a bit better than what you'd expect for a backup playing backup defenses. Also, Brady was clearly favored ahead of Huard which is kind of a surprise since (I thought?) he was brought in specifically to be Bledsoe's backup.Brady's pre-season stats from 2000 (here) are almost as impressive. He clearly outplays Bishop and Friesz.

 

[switz]

And let's not forget Brady being smart enough to get with the program and start using steroids to bulk up. If he doesn't do that, he's cut.

TIA

C'mon guy.

It wouldn't surprise me... most people don't make that leap in a year, no matter how hard they train.Brady's arm at Michigan was nowhere near what is is in the NFL.

What leap did he make in a year? He has gone from 211 at the combine to 225 8 years later. His progression in size and strength is MUCH more consistent with training development than quick fix steroid use. He's gained about 15 lbs over 8 years, not overnight.As much as you hate to see overblown mancrushes on this guy, I hate to see baseless claims such as steroids thrown at players with no history or even reasonable circumstantial observations of using. This is a case where the player should be given the benefit of the doubt, doubly so in this current time of media driven witch-hunting for steroids. IMO, of course.

Note: I never accused Brady of using steroids... I just said it wouldn't surprise me, and to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if ANY player in the NFL used PEDsAs for his growth, it just seemed to me that he made a big progression in strength from his rookie season to his first season, and honestly from his first season to his second. But that easily could be attributed to the difference between training at the college level and training at the NFL level.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I would start by thanking the Raiders for getting the worst call in the history of playoff football. Tuck. Please.

 

[DropKick]

And let's not forget Brady being smart enough to get with the program and start using steroids to bulk up. If he doesn't do that, he's cut.

Does that explain the Yankees cap he was sporting a year or so ago? Who's his source? Giambi, Clemens or Petitte?

I think it is Sheffield.

 

[DropKick]

I would start by thanking the Raiders for getting the worst call in the history of playoff football. Tuck. Please.

Explain.

 

[Road Warriors]

I would start by thanking the Raiders for getting the worst call in the history of playoff football. Tuck. Please.

Ben Dreith down?

 

[Pat Patriot]

I think Kraft played a huge role in that contract.

without question.it took some time before BB had the control he does with both the front office and the Fans.

Kraft has talked at length about how much he had to get up to speed after Parcells hoodwinked him and I doubt he was fully trusting in BB when BB first became HC of the NEP.

How so? Parcells and Bledsoe contributed mightily to resuscitating football in NE. Foxboro Stadium was half empty before Parcells arrived. The day Parcells was announced as coach, I was in Foxboro in a blizzard with thousands of other Patriots fans getting my season tickets. It was Krafts meddling that helped drive Parcells out of town.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Credit goes to BB and SP for keeping four qbs that year. If they went with three, they were going to cut Brady. They decided to keep four. Pretty big gamble that paid off...

... but I thought that he was the best QB ever.

I know I'm taking the bait, but for others who actually are interested in what happened...Brady was drafted in 2000. The reason he lasted until the 6th round was because a lot of the scouting report on him was true: skinny, mediocre arm, poor footwork, etc. His huge plus was that he could read a defense, master a playbook and all the other football smarts that everyone wants in their QB. The Pats QB depth chart was Bledsoe, Friez and Bishop. Brady wasn't physically ready to break that top three, but BB liked his smarts and saw potential. In a rare (if not unprecedented) move, BB kept 4 QBs on the active roster in 2000.

In the following offseason, Brady worked hard at everything he was considered lacking. He bulked up. He worked on his footwork. The Brady that showed up for the 2001 training camp was a different guy than the rookie that showed up in 2000.

Wasn't really dropping bait... was just surprised that Brady was almost cut. If anything I'm impressed by Brady having put in the hard work to make it. But I also can't stand the blind adoration of this guy by what appears to be the majority of Pats fans. He's a good QB, but he's not without flaws. If he didn't have flaws he wouldn't have to work so hard. Kudos to him for his work and for being at the top of his game. I honestly wish every NFL player had his work ethic. I also wish every Pats fan had a more realistic view of their team's QB.

I think a lot of the "blind adoration" comes from Pats fans knowing his story, which is well-chonicled in New England, but not elsewhere. And if you follow his career, you notice improvements, flaws and fixes to those flaws as well. You also notice how he's gone from a guy kept on a fairly tight leash by offensive coordinator Charlie Weis in 2001 to a guy allowed to audible at will the last few years. You also notice how he's gone from "one of many team leaders" in 2003 to "unquestioned alpha male" in 2006 & 2007...this is his team, not Bruschi's, not Seymour's, not Harrison's.Of course he has flaws. He's much better at picking apart a zone than he is at hitting receivers in stride while in man coverage (why Miami has given him trouble in the past), but it's something he's gotten better at over the years. He sometimes locks onto his favorite receiver too much and forces throws into coverage (Troy Brown in the past, Randy Moss this year), but again he's improved a lot in this area (he looked awful for stretches in 2002 when Brown was out...he'd handle things much better now as he handled the Branch situation last year). Like any other QB, hit him enough and he starts losing focus; However I think he is one of the best, if not the best, at overcoming this quickly...Manning closed the gap quickly in 2005/2006 and is right there with him, if not surpassing him. He busts his butt to improve in all of these areas, further leading to the "blind adoration" he receives.

Unless you're rooting for Peyton Manning, who wouldn't have reason to love the guy and want him as their QB?

I honestly don't know an answer to that. I think Brady is a great QB.I honestly think IF NE fans took more the angle of the post I'm replying to, more people would admire Brady. I know myself, the primary reason I get into these Brady threads is not because I don't think Tom is good, rather I think Pats fans have an unrealistic view of him.

For instance, in another thread I posted that Brady was one of the best ever, and a Pats fan decided that wasn't good enough, and replied, quoting my post but changing it "the best ever" and wrote "fixed" as the reply.

Is that really necessary? Do you really think it's not even debatable? Is it such an insult to be called one of the best ever?

Personally, I find it irritating and rather arrogant that a compliment isn't good enough, if it falls short of kissing Brady's back side.

Switz, let's be real here. Of course there are Pats fans who indeed think Brady is the best ever and weirdly take it as an insult if anyone thinks otherwise. However, I suspect the reason you get responses like that has more to do with your posting history. You get into more than your fair share of Brady vs. Manning pissing contests, most of which are arguments hashed over with stats and whatnot at least 50 times. Heck, even here you responded to a post with a sarcastic one liner "...but I thought he was the best QB ever." You just had to throw out a jab, as innocuous as it was. If you're going to do that kind of stuff, people will tweak you and honestly, deservedly so.

I guess it's the chicken-egg argument. I never started those threads, and only jumped in after Pats fans made some ridiculous claims.I've stated time and again that I think Brady is a great QB.

I don't recall ever (before your post here) seeing any Pats fan acknowledge that Manning being even close to Brady was debatable.

As to the whole Brady vs. Manning debate, my view is that Brady clearly was the man prior to 2005 as Manning tended to fold under pressure. Something clicked in him in 2005 and especially 2006, though, in which suddenly he decided to man up when the heat was on. That improvement in his game was impressive. If people today argue that Manning and Brady are equal, I have a hard time arguing against that.

Would you agree that Brady folded against SD last season in the playoffs then? 3 INTs and 1 FUM. Did Brady fold against DEN in '05?Did Big Ben fold under pressure last week?

Brady was 10-0 with 3 SB titles before he lost his first playoff in Denver. As for SD, you rarely see a QB accused of folding in a game that his team won. See Peyton Manning 2006. He had some of his worst games statistically in the 2006 playoffs but his team won each game.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The key word isn't "fold", but rather "tended". Just as Brady had rough games (or "folded" if you prefer...it's debatable based on the definition of "fold", but I'll concede that point for now) in those that you pointed out, Montana had rough outings in the '85, '86, '87 and '90 season-ending playoff games. It just goes to show that bad games can happen to the best. Why I wouldn't say these guys tended to fold under pressure is because they built up a resume of playing big when the heat was on (e.g. Brady's 2004 AFCCG victory in Pittsburgh and SB39 victory, Montana's SB23) at other times. Prior to 2005, Manning did not have that. Manning was expected to carve up the weaker teams, especially at home in the dome, but the better defensive teams were licking their chops at getting him outdoors in January. The Jets did this in 2002. The Pats in 2003 & 2004. And it seemed everyone knew it, too. It was a rep, and it was well-deserved. Manning got popped and wasn't very good at bouncing back from those hits.

In 2005, something changed in him. Teams would try and rattle him by hitting him, but he'd bounce back with a vengeance. He could take a hard hit on one play and the very next play he'd have another guy in his face and hit Wayne for a back-breaking 1st down. He got even better in 2006 at this. That tendency he had to wilt against the top teams' pressure was gone. Now he's like Brady and Montana...obviously susceptable to a rough outing, but not predictably susceptable.

I'll buy that Manning had that reputation. But I would also say when Brady was winning, he wasn't in the same situation Manning was when Manning had that reputation. Whereas Brady's situation last year was much closer to Manning's previous situations, and Brady performed the same way Manning had.But I didn't mean to turn this into a Manning vs. Brady debate, which it seems to have...

They are both great QBs.

As for Bledsoe...

How was Brady's situation last year "much closer to Mannings previous situations"? I dont recall Manning having sub-par receivers at any point in his career.

 

[TD Ryan]

How so? Parcells and Bledsoe contributed mightily to resuscitating football in NE. Foxboro Stadium was half empty before Parcells arrived. The day Parcells was announced as coach, I was in Foxboro in a blizzard with thousands of other Patriots fans getting my season tickets. It was Krafts meddling that helped drive Parcells out of town.

Kraft was new to the business of the NFL and relied heavily on Parcells to guide him through these new waters. Parcells was not completely forthcoming with Kraft on all things and NE lost the SuperBowl, ended up with P Carroll, and began what could have been a disastrous downturn had the Krafts not wisened up a bit about owning an NFL franchise.We can argue all day about who's fault the Kraft/Parcells falling out was, but there's no doubt that Kraft felt he was "hoodwinked" (or something like that) by Parcells.I understand that Kraft wanted Glenn and meddled, hopefully he learned from that mistake. I also recognize that Kraft has become such a great owner because he is in part a "fan" as well as an owner. He cares and is emotional about this team but he's also prudent with the business decisions that need to be made.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I would start by thanking the Raiders for getting the worst call in the history of playoff football. Tuck. Please.

Explain.

Um, let me put it simply. They did not win the game -- the game was over after Brady fumbled -- they were handed it.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I would start by thanking the Raiders for getting the worst call in the history of playoff football. Tuck. Please.

Ben Dreith down?

Ah, proof you agree then. Good.

 

[switz]

The key word isn't "fold", but rather "tended". Just as Brady had rough games (or "folded" if you prefer...it's debatable based on the definition of "fold", but I'll concede that point for now) in those that you pointed out, Montana had rough outings in the '85, '86, '87 and '90 season-ending playoff games. It just goes to show that bad games can happen to the best. Why I wouldn't say these guys tended to fold under pressure is because they built up a resume of playing big when the heat was on (e.g. Brady's 2004 AFCCG victory in Pittsburgh and SB39 victory, Montana's SB23) at other times. Prior to 2005, Manning did not have that. Manning was expected to carve up the weaker teams, especially at home in the dome, but the better defensive teams were licking their chops at getting him outdoors in January. The Jets did this in 2002. The Pats in 2003 & 2004. And it seemed everyone knew it, too. It was a rep, and it was well-deserved. Manning got popped and wasn't very good at bouncing back from those hits.

In 2005, something changed in him. Teams would try and rattle him by hitting him, but he'd bounce back with a vengeance. He could take a hard hit on one play and the very next play he'd have another guy in his face and hit Wayne for a back-breaking 1st down. He got even better in 2006 at this. That tendency he had to wilt against the top teams' pressure was gone. Now he's like Brady and Montana...obviously susceptable to a rough outing, but not predictably susceptable.

I'll buy that Manning had that reputation. But I would also say when Brady was winning, he wasn't in the same situation Manning was when Manning had that reputation. Whereas Brady's situation last year was much closer to Manning's previous situations, and Brady performed the same way Manning had.But I didn't mean to turn this into a Manning vs. Brady debate, which it seems to have...

They are both great QBs.

As for Bledsoe...

How was Brady's situation last year "much closer to Mannings previous situations"? I dont recall Manning having sub-par receivers at any point in his career.

Glad you can see past one aspect of a team When Manning won in the playoffs it was due to a strong running team, running philosophy and good performances by the defense.

When Brady won in the playoffs it was due to a strong running team, running philosophy and good performances by the defense.

Last year the Pats became much more dependent on the pass, and lost. Just as when the Colts were imbalanced in their dependency on the pass, and lost.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

The key word isn't "fold", but rather "tended". Just as Brady had rough games (or "folded" if you prefer...it's debatable based on the definition of "fold", but I'll concede that point for now) in those that you pointed out, Montana had rough outings in the '85, '86, '87 and '90 season-ending playoff games. It just goes to show that bad games can happen to the best. Why I wouldn't say these guys tended to fold under pressure is because they built up a resume of playing big when the heat was on (e.g. Brady's 2004 AFCCG victory in Pittsburgh and SB39 victory, Montana's SB23) at other times. Prior to 2005, Manning did not have that. Manning was expected to carve up the weaker teams, especially at home in the dome, but the better defensive teams were licking their chops at getting him outdoors in January. The Jets did this in 2002. The Pats in 2003 & 2004. And it seemed everyone knew it, too. It was a rep, and it was well-deserved. Manning got popped and wasn't very good at bouncing back from those hits.

In 2005, something changed in him. Teams would try and rattle him by hitting him, but he'd bounce back with a vengeance. He could take a hard hit on one play and the very next play he'd have another guy in his face and hit Wayne for a back-breaking 1st down. He got even better in 2006 at this. That tendency he had to wilt against the top teams' pressure was gone. Now he's like Brady and Montana...obviously susceptable to a rough outing, but not predictably susceptable.

I'll buy that Manning had that reputation. But I would also say when Brady was winning, he wasn't in the same situation Manning was when Manning had that reputation. Whereas Brady's situation last year was much closer to Manning's previous situations, and Brady performed the same way Manning had.But I didn't mean to turn this into a Manning vs. Brady debate, which it seems to have...

They are both great QBs.

As for Bledsoe...

How was Brady's situation last year "much closer to Mannings previous situations"? I dont recall Manning having sub-par receivers at any point in his career.

Glad you can see past one aspect of a team When Manning won in the playoffs it was due to a strong running team, running philosophy and good performances by the defense.

When Brady won in the playoffs it was due to a strong running team, running philosophy and good performances by the defense.

Last year the Pats became much more dependent on the pass, and lost. Just as when the Colts were imbalanced in their dependency on the pass, and lost.

Ummm, no.Where to begin?

Yes, you are correct in saying Manning’s success in the playoffs (last year) can be attributed primarily to strong defense and a running philosophy. Obviously 3 tds, 7 ints and a 70.5 QB rating weren't the primary reason.

But, you can't simply say the same thing about Brady's success; well you can say it, but that doesn't make it so. Sure Brady benefited from a strong defense (have there ever been any SB winners who didn't play solid defense in the playoffs?); but your claim that NE was more dependent on the pass last year and that is why they lost is nonsense. NE's run to pass ratio in the playoffs last year is virtually identical to 2001 and very, very close to what it was in 2003.

You can say NE lost last year because they didn't have the weapons on offense and their depleted defense ran out of gas; but you can't say they lost last year because they were imbalanced on their run to pass ratio. After all, they did score 34 (27 on offense) points in the AFCC and that aint chopped liver.

Manning is an awesome HOF QB and Brady is awesome as well; but the closer you look at their playoff performances the easier it is to see that Brady has to this point, flat out played better more often. Don't go there

PS, I will apologize in advance for calling you out here, but your incessant peeing on Tommyboy and my beloved Patriots has grown tiresome and as Popeye would say "That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more!". Your comment that Moss was the diff between NE getting a bye week and finishing out of the playoffs is pretty silly. Especially when u consider the comments you made in March re the (LOL) premier wr's NE had signed before they even got Moss (Stallworth & Washington). Your "Brady has no excuses now" was sooo wrong on sooo many levels, not the least of which is that Brady never needed any excuses in the first place or that Washington is a premier receiver

Your fixation on the Pats (your a hater) leads you to contradict yourself. Explain how inarguably one of the best teams in the league (see 2006 AFCC) can sign 2 premier wide receivers (as you declared), PLUS the league leader in receptions (Welker) and yet you still feel comfortable saying NE may not of even made the playoffs without Moss? Give it a rest

 

[Pat Patriot]

The key word isn't "fold", but rather "tended". Just as Brady had rough games (or "folded" if you prefer...it's debatable based on the definition of "fold", but I'll concede that point for now) in those that you pointed out, Montana had rough outings in the '85, '86, '87 and '90 season-ending playoff games. It just goes to show that bad games can happen to the best. Why I wouldn't say these guys tended to fold under pressure is because they built up a resume of playing big when the heat was on (e.g. Brady's 2004 AFCCG victory in Pittsburgh and SB39 victory, Montana's SB23) at other times. Prior to 2005, Manning did not have that. Manning was expected to carve up the weaker teams, especially at home in the dome, but the better defensive teams were licking their chops at getting him outdoors in January. The Jets did this in 2002. The Pats in 2003 & 2004. And it seemed everyone knew it, too. It was a rep, and it was well-deserved. Manning got popped and wasn't very good at bouncing back from those hits.

In 2005, something changed in him. Teams would try and rattle him by hitting him, but he'd bounce back with a vengeance. He could take a hard hit on one play and the very next play he'd have another guy in his face and hit Wayne for a back-breaking 1st down. He got even better in 2006 at this. That tendency he had to wilt against the top teams' pressure was gone. Now he's like Brady and Montana...obviously susceptable to a rough outing, but not predictably susceptable.

I'll buy that Manning had that reputation. But I would also say when Brady was winning, he wasn't in the same situation Manning was when Manning had that reputation. Whereas Brady's situation last year was much closer to Manning's previous situations, and Brady performed the same way Manning had.But I didn't mean to turn this into a Manning vs. Brady debate, which it seems to have...

They are both great QBs.

As for Bledsoe...

How was Brady's situation last year "much closer to Mannings previous situations"? I dont recall Manning having sub-par receivers at any point in his career.

Glad you can see past one aspect of a team When Manning won in the playoffs it was due to a strong running team, running philosophy and good performances by the defense.

When Brady won in the playoffs it was due to a strong running team, running philosophy and good performances by the defense.

Last year the Pats became much more dependent on the pass, and lost. Just as when the Colts were imbalanced in their dependency on the pass, and lost.

Brady has won in the playoffs under many different scenarios. In 2001, his first as a starter, he won with dominant defense and ST's (he was very much a game manager). In 2003, the Patriots won the SB because of a great performance by Brady and the passing offense. In 2004, the Patriots won the AFCC game and SB much more because of their passing game than running game. Remember, Deion Branch was the MVP of both games.Last year, the Patriots were fairly balanced. A big contributor to the loss to the Colts was that ALL of the Patriots RB's save Heath Evans got hurt in that game. Losing Kevin Faulk really hurt. This caused the Patriots to become more reliant on the pass game and prevented them from running any clock in the 2nd half with the running game.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

One thing I thought of the other day in the shower. If Bledsoe doesn't go down to injury in that week 3? contest to the Jets, Bellichick might not even be around after the season. Remember he was a loser in Cleveland and went 5-11 in his first year in New England. Another subpar year (say 7-9 or 8-8) and Bellichick may not even be around in 2002. Charlie Weis doesn't go on to coach Notre Dame as an offensive genius. Romeo Crenell isn't coach of the Browns. Who knows what Eric Mangini is up to. Tom Brad may have never gotten a fair shot at the starting job and is bagging groceries in a Safeway. Amazing how that one play may have changed the course of a franchise and several coaches.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Credit goes to BB and SP for keeping four qbs that year. If they went with three, they were going to cut Brady. They decided to keep four. Pretty big gamble that paid off...

link? Don't doubt you...just interested.

 

[Road Warriors]

Credit goes to BB and SP for keeping four qbs that year. If they went with three, they were going to cut Brady. They decided to keep four. Pretty big gamble that paid off...

link? Don't doubt you...just interested.

Nothing documented that he was almost cut, but he was an unheralded rookie 6th round pick. Mike Bishop was the backup at the time, and showed some atheleticism in the preseason that had the NE faithful calling for him to replace the rather immobile Bledsoe, so he wasn't going anywhere in the 2000 season. John Friesz was the 3rd QB, and fit the mold of the stable veteran that often fills the 3rd QB role. Honestly, I don't recall what expectations were for the team at that time, but I think they had some playoff aspirations. With 2 of the typical 3 QB slots taken by Bledsoe & Bishop, the 3rd spot would have come down to a 6th round rookie or an unspectacular, but veteran presence. Add in the fact that at this point of his career, Belichick hasn't accumulated the coaching capital with the organization to go widely against the grain, and it makes sense to me that the likely scenario IF they decide to only hold 3 QBs on the roster, that they would have seen greater benefit to keeping the vet over the kid ( essentially leaving Bledsoe and 2 very unproven QBs behind him )Now, its very possible that through the course of the camp and preseason, they had seen enough of both Bishop ( to know he wasn't a long term solution ) and Brady ( to see some upside to work with ) that drove the decision to keep 4. It certainly played out that way, as Bishop was released going into 2001 ( as was Friesz, replaced by Huard ) and Brady won the backup role in camp 2001.My take on the above statement is more a logical progression based on a scenario of only keeping 3 QBs, but I don't recall any reports that he was on the bubble back in 2000. Of course, I don't recall much of any press at all for the skinny kid out of Michigan back around the start of 2000. My how things have changed.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Credit goes to BB and SP for keeping four qbs that year. If they went with three, they were going to cut Brady. They decided to keep four. Pretty big gamble that paid off...

... but I thought that he was the best QB ever.

I know I'm taking the bait, but for others who actually are interested in what happened...Brady was drafted in 2000. The reason he lasted until the 6th round was because a lot of the scouting report on him was true: skinny, mediocre arm, poor footwork, etc. His huge plus was that he could read a defense, master a playbook and all the other football smarts that everyone wants in their QB. The Pats QB depth chart was Bledsoe, Friez and Bishop. Brady wasn't physically ready to break that top three, but BB liked his smarts and saw potential. In a rare (if not unprecedented) move, BB kept 4 QBs on the active roster in 2000.

In the following offseason, Brady worked hard at everything he was considered lacking. He bulked up. He worked on his footwork. The Brady that showed up for the 2001 training camp was a different guy than the rookie that showed up in 2000.

Wasn't really dropping bait... was just surprised that Brady was almost cut. If anything I'm impressed by Brady having put in the hard work to make it. But I also can't stand the blind adoration of this guy by what appears to be the majority of Pats fans. He's a good QB, but he's not without flaws. If he didn't have flaws he wouldn't have to work so hard. Kudos to him for his work and for being at the top of his game. I honestly wish every NFL player had his work ethic. I also wish every Pats fan had a more realistic view of their team's QB.

I think a lot of the "blind adoration" comes from Pats fans knowing his story, which is well-chonicled in New England, but not elsewhere. And if you follow his career, you notice improvements, flaws and fixes to those flaws as well. You also notice how he's gone from a guy kept on a fairly tight leash by offensive coordinator Charlie Weis in 2001 to a guy allowed to audible at will the last few years. You also notice how he's gone from "one of many team leaders" in 2003 to "unquestioned alpha male" in 2006 & 2007...this is his team, not Bruschi's, not Seymour's, not Harrison's.Of course he has flaws. He's much better at picking apart a zone than he is at hitting receivers in stride while in man coverage (why Miami has given him trouble in the past), but it's something he's gotten better at over the years. He sometimes locks onto his favorite receiver too much and forces throws into coverage (Troy Brown in the past, Randy Moss this year), but again he's improved a lot in this area (he looked awful for stretches in 2002 when Brown was out...he'd handle things much better now as he handled the Branch situation last year). Like any other QB, hit him enough and he starts losing focus; However I think he is one of the best, if not the best, at overcoming this quickly...Manning closed the gap quickly in 2005/2006 and is right there with him, if not surpassing him. He busts his butt to improve in all of these areas, further leading to the "blind adoration" he receives.

Unless you're rooting for Peyton Manning, who wouldn't have reason to love the guy and want him as their QB?

I honestly don't know an answer to that. I think Brady is a great QB.I honestly think IF NE fans took more the angle of the post I'm replying to, more people would admire Brady. I know myself, the primary reason I get into these Brady threads is not because I don't think Tom is good, rather I think Pats fans have an unrealistic view of him.

For instance, in another thread I posted that Brady was one of the best ever, and a Pats fan decided that wasn't good enough, and replied, quoting my post but changing it "the best ever" and wrote "fixed" as the reply.

Is that really necessary? Do you really think it's not even debatable? Is it such an insult to be called one of the best ever?

Personally, I find it irritating and rather arrogant that a compliment isn't good enough, if it falls short of kissing Brady's back side.

Switz, let's be real here. Of course there are Pats fans who indeed think Brady is the best ever and weirdly take it as an insult if anyone thinks otherwise. However, I suspect the reason you get responses like that has more to do with your posting history. You get into more than your fair share of Brady vs. Manning pissing contests, most of which are arguments hashed over with stats and whatnot at least 50 times. Heck, even here you responded to a post with a sarcastic one liner "...but I thought he was the best QB ever." You just had to throw out a jab, as innocuous as it was. If you're going to do that kind of stuff, people will tweak you and honestly, deservedly so.As to the whole Brady vs. Manning debate, my view is that Brady clearly was the man prior to 2005 as Manning tended to fold under pressure. Something clicked in him in 2005 and especially 2006, though, in which suddenly he decided to man up when the heat was on. That improvement in his game was impressive. If people today argue that Manning and Brady are equal, I have a hard time arguing against that.

God I hate this line of thought. The entire "clutchness" thought is a myth imo. Do an experiement: Take 1000 quarters and flip them 10 times each. A few of them will land on heads all ten times. A few will land on heads zero times. Why is that? Everyone will understand that its just random variance. Well I think its the same thing with "clutchness"- taking hundreds of athletes and giving them all 10 or so 'big games" a few will randomly happen to play their best in those games and a few will randomly happen to play their worst in those games. Of course, the public won't chalk it up to variance but will instead label them as either "clutch" or a "choker."

 

[Pat Patriot]

How so? Parcells and Bledsoe contributed mightily to resuscitating football in NE. Foxboro Stadium was half empty before Parcells arrived. The day Parcells was announced as coach, I was in Foxboro in a blizzard with thousands of other Patriots fans getting my season tickets. It was Krafts meddling that helped drive Parcells out of town.

Kraft was new to the business of the NFL and relied heavily on Parcells to guide him through these new waters. Parcells was not completely forthcoming with Kraft on all things and NE lost the SuperBowl, ended up with P Carroll, and began what could have been a disastrous downturn had the Krafts not wisened up a bit about owning an NFL franchise.We can argue all day about who's fault the Kraft/Parcells falling out was, but there's no doubt that Kraft felt he was "hoodwinked" (or something like that) by Parcells.

I understand that Kraft wanted Glenn and meddled, hopefully he learned from that mistake. I also recognize that Kraft has become such a great owner because he is in part a "fan" as well as an owner. He cares and is emotional about this team but he's also prudent with the business decisions that need to be made.

You never answered my question. How do you contend that Parcells was not forthcoming with Kraft? Did Kraft not know that Parcells was a control freak and would want complete control of the draft? What are you talking about here?

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Credit goes to BB and SP for keeping four qbs that year. If they went with three, they were going to cut Brady. They decided to keep four. Pretty big gamble that paid off...

... but I thought that he was the best QB ever.

I know I'm taking the bait, but for others who actually are interested in what happened...Brady was drafted in 2000. The reason he lasted until the 6th round was because a lot of the scouting report on him was true: skinny, mediocre arm, poor footwork, etc. His huge plus was that he could read a defense, master a playbook and all the other football smarts that everyone wants in their QB. The Pats QB depth chart was Bledsoe, Friez and Bishop. Brady wasn't physically ready to break that top three, but BB liked his smarts and saw potential. In a rare (if not unprecedented) move, BB kept 4 QBs on the active roster in 2000.

In the following offseason, Brady worked hard at everything he was considered lacking. He bulked up. He worked on his footwork. The Brady that showed up for the 2001 training camp was a different guy than the rookie that showed up in 2000.

Wasn't really dropping bait... was just surprised that Brady was almost cut. If anything I'm impressed by Brady having put in the hard work to make it. But I also can't stand the blind adoration of this guy by what appears to be the majority of Pats fans. He's a good QB, but he's not without flaws. If he didn't have flaws he wouldn't have to work so hard. Kudos to him for his work and for being at the top of his game. I honestly wish every NFL player had his work ethic. I also wish every Pats fan had a more realistic view of their team's QB.

I think a lot of the "blind adoration" comes from Pats fans knowing his story, which is well-chonicled in New England, but not elsewhere. And if you follow his career, you notice improvements, flaws and fixes to those flaws as well. You also notice how he's gone from a guy kept on a fairly tight leash by offensive coordinator Charlie Weis in 2001 to a guy allowed to audible at will the last few years. You also notice how he's gone from "one of many team leaders" in 2003 to "unquestioned alpha male" in 2006 & 2007...this is his team, not Bruschi's, not Seymour's, not Harrison's.Of course he has flaws. He's much better at picking apart a zone than he is at hitting receivers in stride while in man coverage (why Miami has given him trouble in the past), but it's something he's gotten better at over the years. He sometimes locks onto his favorite receiver too much and forces throws into coverage (Troy Brown in the past, Randy Moss this year), but again he's improved a lot in this area (he looked awful for stretches in 2002 when Brown was out...he'd handle things much better now as he handled the Branch situation last year). Like any other QB, hit him enough and he starts losing focus; However I think he is one of the best, if not the best, at overcoming this quickly...Manning closed the gap quickly in 2005/2006 and is right there with him, if not surpassing him. He busts his butt to improve in all of these areas, further leading to the "blind adoration" he receives.

Unless you're rooting for Peyton Manning, who wouldn't have reason to love the guy and want him as their QB?

I honestly don't know an answer to that. I think Brady is a great QB.I honestly think IF NE fans took more the angle of the post I'm replying to, more people would admire Brady. I know myself, the primary reason I get into these Brady threads is not because I don't think Tom is good, rather I think Pats fans have an unrealistic view of him.

For instance, in another thread I posted that Brady was one of the best ever, and a Pats fan decided that wasn't good enough, and replied, quoting my post but changing it "the best ever" and wrote "fixed" as the reply.

Is that really necessary? Do you really think it's not even debatable? Is it such an insult to be called one of the best ever?

Personally, I find it irritating and rather arrogant that a compliment isn't good enough, if it falls short of kissing Brady's back side.

Switz, let's be real here. Of course there are Pats fans who indeed think Brady is the best ever and weirdly take it as an insult if anyone thinks otherwise. However, I suspect the reason you get responses like that has more to do with your posting history. You get into more than your fair share of Brady vs. Manning pissing contests, most of which are arguments hashed over with stats and whatnot at least 50 times. Heck, even here you responded to a post with a sarcastic one liner "...but I thought he was the best QB ever." You just had to throw out a jab, as innocuous as it was. If you're going to do that kind of stuff, people will tweak you and honestly, deservedly so.

I guess it's the chicken-egg argument. I never started those threads, and only jumped in after Pats fans made some ridiculous claims.I've stated time and again that I think Brady is a great QB.

I don't recall ever (before your post here) seeing any Pats fan acknowledge that Manning being even close to Brady was debatable.

You most certainly have started threads on Brady and you constantly make countless antagonistic type posts.Yes, you have stated that Brady is a great QB (how could u not?) all the while peeing on him and his accomplishments and calling into question everything from is morality to not being surprised if he was using PEDs.

You claiming that you don't recall any Pats fans acknowledging Manning as being comparable to Brady is LOL ludicrous.

Your are as big a Pats hater and atagonist as there is on this board and that says a lot, not about Pats fans, but about you

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Credit goes to BB and SP for keeping four qbs that year. If they went with three, they were going to cut Brady. They decided to keep four. Pretty big gamble that paid off...

... but I thought that he was the best QB ever.

I know I'm taking the bait, but for others who actually are interested in what happened...Brady was drafted in 2000. The reason he lasted until the 6th round was because a lot of the scouting report on him was true: skinny, mediocre arm, poor footwork, etc. His huge plus was that he could read a defense, master a playbook and all the other football smarts that everyone wants in their QB. The Pats QB depth chart was Bledsoe, Friez and Bishop. Brady wasn't physically ready to break that top three, but BB liked his smarts and saw potential. In a rare (if not unprecedented) move, BB kept 4 QBs on the active roster in 2000.

In the following offseason, Brady worked hard at everything he was considered lacking. He bulked up. He worked on his footwork. The Brady that showed up for the 2001 training camp was a different guy than the rookie that showed up in 2000.

Wasn't really dropping bait... was just surprised that Brady was almost cut. If anything I'm impressed by Brady having put in the hard work to make it. But I also can't stand the blind adoration of this guy by what appears to be the majority of Pats fans. He's a good QB, but he's not without flaws. If he didn't have flaws he wouldn't have to work so hard. Kudos to him for his work and for being at the top of his game. I honestly wish every NFL player had his work ethic. I also wish every Pats fan had a more realistic view of their team's QB.

I think a lot of the "blind adoration" comes from Pats fans knowing his story, which is well-chonicled in New England, but not elsewhere. And if you follow his career, you notice improvements, flaws and fixes to those flaws as well. You also notice how he's gone from a guy kept on a fairly tight leash by offensive coordinator Charlie Weis in 2001 to a guy allowed to audible at will the last few years. You also notice how he's gone from "one of many team leaders" in 2003 to "unquestioned alpha male" in 2006 & 2007...this is his team, not Bruschi's, not Seymour's, not Harrison's.Of course he has flaws. He's much better at picking apart a zone than he is at hitting receivers in stride while in man coverage (why Miami has given him trouble in the past), but it's something he's gotten better at over the years. He sometimes locks onto his favorite receiver too much and forces throws into coverage (Troy Brown in the past, Randy Moss this year), but again he's improved a lot in this area (he looked awful for stretches in 2002 when Brown was out...he'd handle things much better now as he handled the Branch situation last year). Like any other QB, hit him enough and he starts losing focus; However I think he is one of the best, if not the best, at overcoming this quickly...Manning closed the gap quickly in 2005/2006 and is right there with him, if not surpassing him. He busts his butt to improve in all of these areas, further leading to the "blind adoration" he receives.

Unless you're rooting for Peyton Manning, who wouldn't have reason to love the guy and want him as their QB?

I honestly don't know an answer to that. I think Brady is a great QB.I honestly think IF NE fans took more the angle of the post I'm replying to, more people would admire Brady. I know myself, the primary reason I get into these Brady threads is not because I don't think Tom is good, rather I think Pats fans have an unrealistic view of him.

For instance, in another thread I posted that Brady was one of the best ever, and a Pats fan decided that wasn't good enough, and replied, quoting my post but changing it "the best ever" and wrote "fixed" as the reply.

Is that really necessary? Do you really think it's not even debatable? Is it such an insult to be called one of the best ever?

Personally, I find it irritating and rather arrogant that a compliment isn't good enough, if it falls short of kissing Brady's back side.

Switz, let's be real here. Of course there are Pats fans who indeed think Brady is the best ever and weirdly take it as an insult if anyone thinks otherwise. However, I suspect the reason you get responses like that has more to do with your posting history. You get into more than your fair share of Brady vs. Manning pissing contests, most of which are arguments hashed over with stats and whatnot at least 50 times. Heck, even here you responded to a post with a sarcastic one liner "...but I thought he was the best QB ever." You just had to throw out a jab, as innocuous as it was. If you're going to do that kind of stuff, people will tweak you and honestly, deservedly so.

I guess it's the chicken-egg argument. I never started those threads, and only jumped in after Pats fans made some ridiculous claims.I've stated time and again that I think Brady is a great QB.

I don't recall ever (before your post here) seeing any Pats fan acknowledge that Manning being even close to Brady was debatable.

You most certainly have started threads on Brady and you constantly make countless antagonistic type posts.Yes, you have stated that Brady is a great QB (how could u not?) all the while peeing on him and his accomplishments and calling into question everything from is morality to not being surprised if he was using PEDs.

You claiming that you don't recall any Pats fans acknowledging Manning as being comparable to Brady is LOL ludicrous.

Your are as big a Pats hater and atagonist as there is on this board and that says a lot, not about Pats fans, but about you

Not much you can do bud......it's lonely at the top. People are jealous at how good the Patriots are, including myself. People just want them to lose.......doesn't really matter to who, just lose.I have to admit I'm one of them because I like Peyton Manning, I'm a Cowboy's fan and I think if I had a choice to see someone win one more SB, I'd really like to just watch Brett Farve do it one more time as I've just grown such admiration for him the way he plays the game.

With all that said.....none of that will PROBABLY happen as the Pats are just a machine.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Credit goes to BB and SP for keeping four qbs that year. If they went with three, they were going to cut Brady. They decided to keep four. Pretty big gamble that paid off...

... but I thought that he was the best QB ever.

I know I'm taking the bait, but for others who actually are interested in what happened...Brady was drafted in 2000. The reason he lasted until the 6th round was because a lot of the scouting report on him was true: skinny, mediocre arm, poor footwork, etc. His huge plus was that he could read a defense, master a playbook and all the other football smarts that everyone wants in their QB. The Pats QB depth chart was Bledsoe, Friez and Bishop. Brady wasn't physically ready to break that top three, but BB liked his smarts and saw potential. In a rare (if not unprecedented) move, BB kept 4 QBs on the active roster in 2000.

In the following offseason, Brady worked hard at everything he was considered lacking. He bulked up. He worked on his footwork. The Brady that showed up for the 2001 training camp was a different guy than the rookie that showed up in 2000.

Wasn't really dropping bait... was just surprised that Brady was almost cut. If anything I'm impressed by Brady having put in the hard work to make it. But I also can't stand the blind adoration of this guy by what appears to be the majority of Pats fans. He's a good QB, but he's not without flaws. If he didn't have flaws he wouldn't have to work so hard. Kudos to him for his work and for being at the top of his game. I honestly wish every NFL player had his work ethic. I also wish every Pats fan had a more realistic view of their team's QB.

I think a lot of the "blind adoration" comes from Pats fans knowing his story, which is well-chonicled in New England, but not elsewhere. And if you follow his career, you notice improvements, flaws and fixes to those flaws as well. You also notice how he's gone from a guy kept on a fairly tight leash by offensive coordinator Charlie Weis in 2001 to a guy allowed to audible at will the last few years. You also notice how he's gone from "one of many team leaders" in 2003 to "unquestioned alpha male" in 2006 & 2007...this is his team, not Bruschi's, not Seymour's, not Harrison's.Of course he has flaws. He's much better at picking apart a zone than he is at hitting receivers in stride while in man coverage (why Miami has given him trouble in the past), but it's something he's gotten better at over the years. He sometimes locks onto his favorite receiver too much and forces throws into coverage (Troy Brown in the past, Randy Moss this year), but again he's improved a lot in this area (he looked awful for stretches in 2002 when Brown was out...he'd handle things much better now as he handled the Branch situation last year). Like any other QB, hit him enough and he starts losing focus; However I think he is one of the best, if not the best, at overcoming this quickly...Manning closed the gap quickly in 2005/2006 and is right there with him, if not surpassing him. He busts his butt to improve in all of these areas, further leading to the "blind adoration" he receives.

Unless you're rooting for Peyton Manning, who wouldn't have reason to love the guy and want him as their QB?

I honestly don't know an answer to that. I think Brady is a great QB.I honestly think IF NE fans took more the angle of the post I'm replying to, more people would admire Brady. I know myself, the primary reason I get into these Brady threads is not because I don't think Tom is good, rather I think Pats fans have an unrealistic view of him.

For instance, in another thread I posted that Brady was one of the best ever, and a Pats fan decided that wasn't good enough, and replied, quoting my post but changing it "the best ever" and wrote "fixed" as the reply.

Is that really necessary? Do you really think it's not even debatable? Is it such an insult to be called one of the best ever?

Personally, I find it irritating and rather arrogant that a compliment isn't good enough, if it falls short of kissing Brady's back side.

Switz, let's be real here. Of course there are Pats fans who indeed think Brady is the best ever and weirdly take it as an insult if anyone thinks otherwise. However, I suspect the reason you get responses like that has more to do with your posting history. You get into more than your fair share of Brady vs. Manning pissing contests, most of which are arguments hashed over with stats and whatnot at least 50 times. Heck, even here you responded to a post with a sarcastic one liner "...but I thought he was the best QB ever." You just had to throw out a jab, as innocuous as it was. If you're going to do that kind of stuff, people will tweak you and honestly, deservedly so.

I guess it's the chicken-egg argument. I never started those threads, and only jumped in after Pats fans made some ridiculous claims.I've stated time and again that I think Brady is a great QB.

I don't recall ever (before your post here) seeing any Pats fan acknowledge that Manning being even close to Brady was debatable.

You most certainly have started threads on Brady and you constantly make countless antagonistic type posts.Yes, you have stated that Brady is a great QB (how could u not?) all the while peeing on him and his accomplishments and calling into question everything from is morality to not being surprised if he was using PEDs.

You claiming that you don't recall any Pats fans acknowledging Manning as being comparable to Brady is LOL ludicrous.

Your are as big a Pats hater and atagonist as there is on this board and that says a lot, not about Pats fans, but about you

Not much you can do bud......it's lonely at the top. People are jealous at how good the Patriots are, including myself. People just want them to lose.......doesn't really matter to who, just lose.I have to admit I'm one of them because I like Peyton Manning, I'm a Cowboy's fan and I think if I had a choice to see someone win one more SB, I'd really like to just watch Brett Farve do it one more time as I've just grown such admiration for him the way he plays the game.

With all that said.....none of that will PROBABLY happen as the Pats are just a machine.

I understand the hate, people are tired of seeing NE win and I know how they feel as I used to feel the same way about your Cowboys Fans of 31 teams are unhappy every year and it is only natural for there to be lots of jealousy and resentment. But certain posters live to dump on the Pats under the guise of just responding to all the overboard Pats fans. While certainly there are a some over the board Pats fans and posts there are many more haters who constantly antagonize and provoke for the sake of it. I understand it, but it is ridiculous when these same posters then try and claim that they are only responding to Pats fans.No skin off my back, just calling a spade a spade.

 

[pats3in4]

Credit goes to BB and SP for keeping four qbs that year. If they went with three, they were going to cut Brady. They decided to keep four. Pretty big gamble that paid off...

... but I thought that he was the best QB ever.

I know I'm taking the bait, but for others who actually are interested in what happened...Brady was drafted in 2000. The reason he lasted until the 6th round was because a lot of the scouting report on him was true: skinny, mediocre arm, poor footwork, etc. His huge plus was that he could read a defense, master a playbook and all the other football smarts that everyone wants in their QB. The Pats QB depth chart was Bledsoe, Friez and Bishop. Brady wasn't physically ready to break that top three, but BB liked his smarts and saw potential. In a rare (if not unprecedented) move, BB kept 4 QBs on the active roster in 2000.

In the following offseason, Brady worked hard at everything he was considered lacking. He bulked up. He worked on his footwork. The Brady that showed up for the 2001 training camp was a different guy than the rookie that showed up in 2000.

Wasn't really dropping bait... was just surprised that Brady was almost cut. If anything I'm impressed by Brady having put in the hard work to make it. But I also can't stand the blind adoration of this guy by what appears to be the majority of Pats fans. He's a good QB, but he's not without flaws. If he didn't have flaws he wouldn't have to work so hard. Kudos to him for his work and for being at the top of his game. I honestly wish every NFL player had his work ethic. I also wish every Pats fan had a more realistic view of their team's QB.

I think a lot of the "blind adoration" comes from Pats fans knowing his story, which is well-chonicled in New England, but not elsewhere. And if you follow his career, you notice improvements, flaws and fixes to those flaws as well. You also notice how he's gone from a guy kept on a fairly tight leash by offensive coordinator Charlie Weis in 2001 to a guy allowed to audible at will the last few years. You also notice how he's gone from "one of many team leaders" in 2003 to "unquestioned alpha male" in 2006 & 2007...this is his team, not Bruschi's, not Seymour's, not Harrison's.Of course he has flaws. He's much better at picking apart a zone than he is at hitting receivers in stride while in man coverage (why Miami has given him trouble in the past), but it's something he's gotten better at over the years. He sometimes locks onto his favorite receiver too much and forces throws into coverage (Troy Brown in the past, Randy Moss this year), but again he's improved a lot in this area (he looked awful for stretches in 2002 when Brown was out...he'd handle things much better now as he handled the Branch situation last year). Like any other QB, hit him enough and he starts losing focus; However I think he is one of the best, if not the best, at overcoming this quickly...Manning closed the gap quickly in 2005/2006 and is right there with him, if not surpassing him. He busts his butt to improve in all of these areas, further leading to the "blind adoration" he receives.

Unless you're rooting for Peyton Manning, who wouldn't have reason to love the guy and want him as their QB?

I honestly don't know an answer to that. I think Brady is a great QB.I honestly think IF NE fans took more the angle of the post I'm replying to, more people would admire Brady. I know myself, the primary reason I get into these Brady threads is not because I don't think Tom is good, rather I think Pats fans have an unrealistic view of him.

For instance, in another thread I posted that Brady was one of the best ever, and a Pats fan decided that wasn't good enough, and replied, quoting my post but changing it "the best ever" and wrote "fixed" as the reply.

Is that really necessary? Do you really think it's not even debatable? Is it such an insult to be called one of the best ever?

Personally, I find it irritating and rather arrogant that a compliment isn't good enough, if it falls short of kissing Brady's back side.

Switz, let's be real here. Of course there are Pats fans who indeed think Brady is the best ever and weirdly take it as an insult if anyone thinks otherwise. However, I suspect the reason you get responses like that has more to do with your posting history. You get into more than your fair share of Brady vs. Manning pissing contests, most of which are arguments hashed over with stats and whatnot at least 50 times. Heck, even here you responded to a post with a sarcastic one liner "...but I thought he was the best QB ever." You just had to throw out a jab, as innocuous as it was. If you're going to do that kind of stuff, people will tweak you and honestly, deservedly so.As to the whole Brady vs. Manning debate, my view is that Brady clearly was the man prior to 2005 as Manning tended to fold under pressure. Something clicked in him in 2005 and especially 2006, though, in which suddenly he decided to man up when the heat was on. That improvement in his game was impressive. If people today argue that Manning and Brady are equal, I have a hard time arguing against that.

God I hate this line of thought. The entire "clutchness" thought is a myth imo. Do an experiement: Take 1000 quarters and flip them 10 times each. A few of them will land on heads all ten times. A few will land on heads zero times. Why is that? Everyone will understand that its just random variance. Well I think its the same thing with "clutchness"- taking hundreds of athletes and giving them all 10 or so 'big games" a few will randomly happen to play their best in those games and a few will randomly happen to play their worst in those games. Of course, the public won't chalk it up to variance but will instead label them as either "clutch" or a "choker."

No, it has nothing to do with variance and everything to do with watching the guy play. I know the "clutchness" issue has been debated heavily in baseball (for example...I know you didn't bring baseball up), but baseball and football are apples and oranges. There have been plenty of QBs who get happy feet when the pressure is on. Manning WAS the same way. If he had all day to throw, he was awesome. Once pressure was on, he started to lose it. I mentioned just a few postseason examples, but I can also point to various games throughout his career (especially a handful during the 2001 season).I'd say that pre-2005, it wasn't variance that pointed to Manning's good games vs. bad games, but rather that he had exploitable flaws. After 2005, he really started handling the pass rush better and only now would I chaulk up a bad game to variance, much like Brady and Montana their entire careers.

 

[Borat]

God I hate this line of thought. The entire "clutchness" thought is a myth imo. Do an experiement: Take 1000 quarters and flip them 10 times each. A few of them will land on heads all ten times. A few will land on heads zero times. Why is that? Everyone will understand that its just random variance. Well I think its the same thing with "clutchness"- taking hundreds of athletes and giving them all 10 or so 'big games" a few will randomly happen to play their best in those games and a few will randomly happen to play their worst in those games. Of course, the public won't chalk it up to variance but will instead label them as either "clutch" or a "choker."

Nonsense. It is foolish to think that different people won't react in different ways when exposed to higher amounts of pressure and stress.