This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Please try to stay current on phthalatemagic's latest schtick...WOW, you have got to be joking, right?There's really no reason to keep Brady around IMO. Cassell is going to be a great one and Brady = Bledsoe at this point. Get what you can for him and move on.
While I agree that Tom Brady's injury isn't something that should be wished on anyone, elitist attitudes like that are the reason Patriots fans are among the most hated in sports. Regarding the Miami/Baltimore game, maybe if New England had watched a few more games like that, they would have known what to do when the Giants repeatedly punched them in the mouth last February. Have fun watching your team embark on a riveting round of golf next week.What a crock of BS. How can anyone say that the loss of Tom Brady has been good for football? The guy had the most dominating season for a QB in history. He goes out with a Supermodel for crying out loud. Basically the poster boy for the NFL... The modern day Joe Namath. If you don't like him, fine. But don't deny that his loss isn't a loss for the NFL as well.Have fun watching Baltimore / Miami next week. Should be riveting television...This season has been great, despite Brady being out for almost all of it. The league is much better and bigger than any one player.
You do realize that someone could easily say, "Did you happen to watch the NE/Seattle game? And you expect that team to beat the Ravens by 18 or more?" It cuts both ways.I completely agree with the criticisms of New England's performance and that there are no excuses for not making the playoffs.Saying that doesn't make Miami less of a "one and done" playoff team. Did you happen to watch the Kansas City game? And you expect that team to beat the Ravens? Obviously Vegas wouldn't have a 23 point swing between the games I mentioned, but I think its as obvious that Ravens will be favored.JuniorNB said:SeniorVBDStudent said:That's not being objective. Do you think the Ravens are disappointed to play Miami instead of New England? Do you think anyone would prefer to play New England over Miami right now? I've got Baltimore winning by 18+, and would have New England beating Baltimore by 5 if they were still in it. I doubt the concensus is much different than that, imo.JuniorNB said:If the Pats' VERY overrated coach could have beaten just one good team this year, they'd be playing next week. Why would anyone want to watch a team that wasn't good enough to get into the playoffs, over two teams that were?That is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site.Have fun watching Baltimore / Miami next week. Should be riveting television...
23 point swing! Never give up.
You do realize that New England hasn't beaten a good non-divisional team all year, right? 0-3 against Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Indy. Your homerism is affecting your reality.
Don't bother. He's your typical non-playoff team fan saying the old, "teams are happy we didn't get in". There are four or five fanbases who pull that crap every year. I guess the sixteen game season wasn't enough.You do realize that someone could easily say, "Did you happen to watch the NE/Seattle game? And you expect that team to beat the Ravens by 18 or more?" It cuts both ways.I completely agree with the criticisms of New England's performance and that there are no excuses for not making the playoffs.Saying that doesn't make Miami less of a "one and done" playoff team. Did you happen to watch the Kansas City game? And you expect that team to beat the Ravens? Obviously Vegas wouldn't have a 23 point swing between the games I mentioned, but I think its as obvious that Ravens will be favored.JuniorNB said:SeniorVBDStudent said:That's not being objective. Do you think the Ravens are disappointed to play Miami instead of New England? Do you think anyone would prefer to play New England over Miami right now? I've got Baltimore winning by 18+, and would have New England beating Baltimore by 5 if they were still in it. I doubt the concensus is much different than that, imo.JuniorNB said:If the Pats' VERY overrated coach could have beaten just one good team this year, they'd be playing next week. Why would anyone want to watch a team that wasn't good enough to get into the playoffs, over two teams that were?That is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site.Have fun watching Baltimore / Miami next week. Should be riveting television...You do realize that New England hasn't beaten a good non-divisional team all year, right? 0-3 against Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Indy. Your homerism is affecting your reality.
Why?After this season, I don't think anyone could convince me Brady was anything special as a QB. Sure, he had a GREAT season, playing the Bills, Jets, and Miami twice each, last year with Randy Moss, arguably the best WR talent-wise in the history of the game to throw to.But Matt Cassel stepped in this year, and toward the end of this season looked as good as Brady ever has. Not unless you believe that Matt Cassel's college coaches, and every single Pro Scout is a complete and utter idiot, then you have to agree that Cassel is really nothing special as a QB. Yet in his first season starting, on a much weaker team than Brady's first season, Cassel put up good numbers, and led the team to a good record, despite their near miss of the playoffs.I don't think the Pats are really pressed to have Brady return, or to franchise Cassel. They could bring in any QB and he'd flourish in that system.
While I do agree with teh overall premise of your post, you are discounting the one thing that took Brady from good to great....his remarkable performances in big games.Maybe it will come with experience, but Cassel racked up most of his impressive stats against poor or average teams. His performances in their big games against good teams was very ordinary. Brady would step it up against those teams, not regress.To me, Brady's legacy will always be his clutch performances. Until Moss came along, he couldn't hold a candle to P. Manning as far as an overall QB. It was his unflappable performances when teh pressure was on that made him Manning's equal.
Yeah, it is easy to pull that "If we had gotten in, we would have won by 18" kinda crap. We will never know, since they didn't get in, so it is easy to say something that can never be disproved (or proved, for that matter). What matters is what did happened. The Patriots did not make the playoffs. They were not good enough to get in. Even if you take the crappy AFC West out of the equation, all the Patriots had to do was be one of the five best teams from the other three divisions, but they weren't. They were not good enough to get in.Don't bother. He's your typical non-playoff team fan saying the old, "teams are happy we didn't get in".You do realize that someone could easily say, "Did you happen to watch the NE/Seattle game? And you expect that team to beat the Ravens by 18 or more?" It cuts both ways.I completely agree with the criticisms of New England's performance and that there are no excuses for not making the playoffs.Saying that doesn't make Miami less of a "one and done" playoff team. Did you happen to watch the Kansas City game? And you expect that team to beat the Ravens? Obviously Vegas wouldn't have a 23 point swing between the games I mentioned, but I think its as obvious that Ravens will be favored.JuniorNB said:SeniorVBDStudent said:That's not being objective. Do you think the Ravens are disappointed to play Miami instead of New England? Do you think anyone would prefer to play New England over Miami right now? I've got Baltimore winning by 18+, and would have New England beating Baltimore by 5 if they were still in it. I doubt the concensus is much different than that, imo.JuniorNB said:If the Pats' VERY overrated coach could have beaten just one good team this year, they'd be playing next week. Why would anyone want to watch a team that wasn't good enough to get into the playoffs, over two teams that were?That is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site.Have fun watching Baltimore / Miami next week. Should be riveting television...23 point swing! Never give up.
You do realize that New England hasn't beaten a good non-divisional team all year, right? 0-3 against Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Indy. Your homerism is affecting your reality.
Why do people pretend that Brady has had 1 year in the NFL?
I can't wait to find out how badly he thinks New England would have beaten whoever wins the Super Bowl.Yeah, it is easy to pull that "If we had gotten in, we would have won by 18" kinda crap. We will never know, since they didn't get in, so it is easy to say something that can never be disproved (or proved, for that matter). What matters is what did happened. The Patriots did not make the playoffs. They were not good enough to get in. Even if you take the crappy AFC West out of the equation, all the Patriots had to do was be one of the five best teams from the other three divisions, but they weren't. They were not good enough to get in.Don't bother. He's your typical non-playoff team fan saying the old, "teams are happy we didn't get in".You do realize that someone could easily say, "Did you happen to watch the NE/Seattle game? And you expect that team to beat the Ravens by 18 or more?" It cuts both ways.I completely agree with the criticisms of New England's performance and that there are no excuses for not making the playoffs.Saying that doesn't make Miami less of a "one and done" playoff team. Did you happen to watch the Kansas City game? And you expect that team to beat the Ravens? Obviously Vegas wouldn't have a 23 point swing between the games I mentioned, but I think its as obvious that Ravens will be favored.JuniorNB said:SeniorVBDStudent said:That's not being objective. Do you think the Ravens are disappointed to play Miami instead of New England? Do you think anyone would prefer to play New England over Miami right now? I've got Baltimore winning by 18+, and would have New England beating Baltimore by 5 if they were still in it. I doubt the concensus is much different than that, imo.JuniorNB said:If the Pats' VERY overrated coach could have beaten just one good team this year, they'd be playing next week. Why would anyone want to watch a team that wasn't good enough to get into the playoffs, over two teams that were?That is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site.Have fun watching Baltimore / Miami next week. Should be riveting television...
Who is pretending he only played one year? It's just that the only basis to argue he is a "great" QB is that one year. Look at the rest... which one is the anomaly? If you read the post, I even made reference to Brady's first season, many years ago.
First, Cassel was basically a rookie. It was his first year starting, so that has to be taken into account. Just imagine how he would have done if he'd been in the league 8 years in the same system. The fact Cassel did that as a first year starter speaks volumes of how good that system is for a QB.Second, who exactly did the Pats face last season? Mia 2x (1-15 #30Def), NYJ 2x (4-12 #19Def), Buf 2x (7-9 #18 Def), Cin (7-9 #24 Def), Bal (5-11 #22 Def), SD (during their horrible start), not exactly a stellar cast of opponents.
Way to leave out
allas (number 1 seed in the NFC)NY Giants (number 5 seed in the NFC and eventual champs)Pittsburgh (number 4 seed in the AFC)Washington (number 6 seed in the NFC)Indianapolis (number 2 seed in the AFC)Philadelphia (8-8) 
I have to say Switz you are obviously pullin for one side here instead of being a just a legit critic of the situation, the Cassel man love thread is somewhere else!Oh and I'm curious have you ever watched football before?
You missed the post I was replying to, where Yudkin used 8 opponents to show that the Pats had an easy schedule this year. Hence, I pointed out the Pats also played some pretty weak competition last season.Way to leave out
The Pats schedule in 07 was leaps and bounds tougher than the year Manning had 49 TDs. We could go round and round on this. One would expect top passing teams to put up big numbers against soft passing defenses. Cassel played well . . . but the Pats scored roughly 180 fewer points this year and Cassel had almost 30 fewer TDs than Brady had last year (and this year the Pats had a cupcake schedule). That right there should be evidence enough that Brady trumps Cassel in the production department.You missed the post I was replying to, where Yudkin used 8 opponents to show that the Pats had an easy schedule this year. Hence, I pointed out the Pats also played some pretty weak competition last season.Way to leave out
Cassel = 1 year as a starter.Brady = 8 years as a starter.I should hope Brady in his 8th season would outproduce Cassel in his first. The fact you are even arguing this really weakens your attempt to prove Brady is a great QB. You mean he's better than a guy in his first season starting? Whippdee doo...Funny, Cassel's stats are better than Brady's stats from his first season. I wonder what Cassel would do if he had 8 years in the same system?
Dude, follow your own advice. There's no reason to discuss NE-related topics with Switz.The Pats schedule in 07 was leaps and bounds tougher than the year Manning had 49 TDs. We could go round and round on this. One would expect top passing teams to put up big numbers against soft passing defenses. Cassel played well . . . but the Pats scored roughly 180 fewer points this year and Cassel had almost 30 fewer TDs than Brady had last year (and this year the Pats had a cupcake schedule). That right there should be evidence enough that Brady trumps Cassel in the production department.You missed the post I was replying to, where Yudkin used 8 opponents to show that the Pats had an easy schedule this year. Hence, I pointed out the Pats also played some pretty weak competition last season.Way to leave out
I certainly won't dispute your experiences, especially when health insurance is involved!
I have no experience with the upper eschelon of sports surgeons. My experience is limited to the specialists in my region. I've just had lots of clients whose docs tend to be rather conservative on going back in to cut a second time unless there is clear evidence that something has come undone, disconnected, retorn, etc. Most of the time, those situations can be diagnosed with an MRI, etc. Without that clear diagnostic evidence, they tend to want to wait and see if the symptoms correct during PT. I've seen cases like that go both ways...sometimes they get better, sometimes a follow-up is needed and the doc goes back in after PT fails to resolve the issue.If Brady is in a hurry and feeling under the gun to be back for '09, his docs could take a drastically different approach than would be typical in the cases I've seen. So all bets are off.What is worrying me a little is the idea that a communication chasm may be developing between Brady and the Pats. It isn't on the level of Romo running off to Mexico with Jessica, but I wonder if we're starting to see a little bit of the "I'm a star" syndrome creeping into Brady's world view.
I wonder what Tom Brady would have done in 2001 had he had Randy Moss to throw to.
Newsflash: The Patriots offense in 2001 isn't exactly the "same system" as the Patriots offense in 2007-2008. The 2001 offense was primarily a "run first to set up the pass" offense. Most of the passing game that season was play-action and didn't even remotely resemble the 4-5 wide, empty backfield passing game that was largely in use last year during Brady's MVP year.
I was right there with you until the bolded part. Cassel hasn't supplanted Brady. Brady in '08 would've been better than Cassel of '08. No question.But how in the hell do we know how good Cassel will be or can be? He's played one season after riding the bench since high school. He's showed significant improvement over the course of the season so why isn't it possible he'll get even better with some more time dodging live rounds? Brady wasn't the QB he is now when he first stepped on the field in place of Bledsoe all those years ago. His game has progressed as well.
Okay... intangibles... you mean like the Defensive Signals?I'm not saying Brady isn't an excellent QB but there has certainly gotta be a question as to how legit he is. BelliCheat's a snake. He knew how good his defense could be the year that Tom Brady took over thanks to Drew's saggy lung. Nobody talked about how good of a coach he was prior to that year. Throughout that year, however, the Patriots became known as the 'smartest' team in football. They 'game planned' every team differently and were the best in the league at making 'adjustments' in the second half. The smartest staff... the smartest players... always in position to make plays.
I don't watch football players play golf. I'll probably watch the Celtics or Bruins. Boston area sports is fun no matter which one you watch.While I agree that Tom Brady's injury isn't something that should be wished on anyone, elitist attitudes like that are the reason Patriots fans are among the most hated in sports. Regarding the Miami/Baltimore game, maybe if New England had watched a few more games like that, they would have known what to do when the Giants repeatedly punched them in the mouth last February. Have fun watching your team embark on a riveting round of golf next week.What a crock of BS. How can anyone say that the loss of Tom Brady has been good for football? The guy had the most dominating season for a QB in history. He goes out with a Supermodel for crying out loud. Basically the poster boy for the NFL... The modern day Joe Namath. If you don't like him, fine. But don't deny that his loss isn't a loss for the NFL as well.Have fun watching Baltimore / Miami next week. Should be riveting television...
very
Definitely a respectable perspective, though may not be 100% accurate on every point.Congrats, I guess.
I wasn't looking for congratulations. But thanks, I guess.
It wouldn't be the first time a player took less money to play in NE.
Cassel isn't some veteran who is looking to get a ring. This is his payday. Probably his only one.
David Yudkin said:
FWIW, I believe Curran is doing the 6-10 time slot on EEI tomorrow with Michael Felgar with D&C on vacation. I'm guessing that the entire time slot will be devoted to this story.In addition to Curran's reputation, the other thing that makes this story more true and disturbing is how much medical detail he seems to have about the problems with the surgeries. Curran is not making this up - he's either being used as a mouthpiece for some kind of negotiating ploy by the Patriots or his story is 100% true IMO.As for me, I'm sliding Brady down my dynasty rankings...
Three years behind Brady in a very competitive spot (#2 NE QB) is hardly a rookie. Rodgers just started this year too. Does that mean he is practically a rookie as well? Three years as a back up - especially to a very good-> great qb - is a tremendous amount of experience. And, it is a huge benefit over starting straight out of college.switz said:
JuniorNB said:
Thank you... I am not gonna diminish his ability to throw the ball... move in the pocket to buy time... and ultimately the 'coolness' with which he plays. It is unfortunate that this whole spygate deal blemishes his legacy but clearly it does.
This is only true amongst Pats homers.This team/coach and it's players are the Barry Bonds of football. Rightly or wrongly.The legacy is definitively tainted.
Bonds' legacy took a hit, why wouldn't Brady's?
Probably because they're not remotely the same thing.
Both benefitted from cheating to gain an unfair advantage over their opponent. That certainly is 'remotely the same thing'.
Sorry, it can't happen. Not to Brady. Nobody has any evidence whatsoever that Brady did anything wrong. You can keep saying it's just a homer thing, you can keep your conjecture and your speculation as it is your right, but "legacy" is not defined by Patriot haters or Patriot homers...ultimately the keepers of legacies are the talking heads, and ex-players turned talking heads, and there hasn't been a single one that has put the stink of Spygate on #12, and as time goes by and legacies get the nostalgic glow to them, this will not change.So yeah, you can post on the internet how "it DOES" and I can say it "NUH-UH," but ultimately, the rings are in the books, and nobody who matters has ever or will ever take Brady out of the discussion as an all-time great because of something that Belichick did. Even the most ardent Belichick-hater cannot, in any meaningful way, touch Brady with it beyond posts on the internet.
Maybe not to you... but apparently to many it does. You can't say it doesn't when so many people bring it up.I'm not basing my opinion of Brady on the Pats whole scandal anyway. I just have watched football long enough to know the difference between great players and great systems. For years the Broncos had a great running system, and the OL to implement it. They cranked out runners with gaudy stats annually. It doesn't mean Terrell Davis stunk, just that he wasn't "great." Same thing with the Pats system, Brady doesn't stink, he's just not "great."Even if you look at the small sample of the game they both played in this year, Cassel outperformed Brady, same cast, same opponent.Brady 7-11, 76, 0, 0Cassel 13-18, 152, 1, 0Cassel had better completion %, better YPA, TD-INT ratio
Only Pats fans and Brady lovers refuse to see that he was merely a product of a very good system.
You should be above this. Brady had 76 passing yards in 7 minutes. Cassel had 152 yards in 53 minutes.Even if you look at the small sample of the game they both played in this year, Cassel outperformed Brady, same cast, same opponent.Brady 7-11, 76, 0, 0Cassel 13-18, 152, 1, 0Cassel had better completion %, better YPA, TD-INT ratio
Not to anyone who feels like being objective it isn't. Listen to me very carefully in case my meandering post before this was too long for you to read: your opinion doesn't matter in any meaningful way with respect to Brady's legacy. You and I can F5 until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't change his "legacy" - turn on the NFL Network, open up the sports page, or go to ESPN.com. Brady is in the discussion as one of the all-time greats, and nothing that has happened, or internet messageboards, can change that.
