ROBOPUNTER
Footballguy
That doesn't mean anything.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Tom "Freakin" Brady- Fastest to 100 wins! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AngryPatriot
- Start date
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Because the cheating definitely stopped in September 2008. There's no reason to think that the team would continue to cheat after their previous cheating was exposed, or find other ways to cheat. I mean, except for the fact that they were flagrantly cheating before, I guess. But in my experience, cheaters usually only cheat once. When they're caught and given a slap on the wrist they immediately become completely honest and trustworthy.Lets see.... cheating?? Brady is 31-8 counting playoffs, and the first game in 08 after the Spygate game... Pretty freakin good if'n you ask me. Same games in question Peyton Manning is 30-9...pretty freakin good
switz
Footballguy
Oh I agree, that's the goal... I just don't agree it's the best way to measure a single player, as wins and losses are more the result of a team.Brady is an all time great, moreso because he played on a great team than that he simply is a great (statistical) player on his own. His leadership and intangibles are undeniable. Looking at him purely statistically prior to Moss and Welker would leave him out of the conversation of all time greats based on stats. But because his team won multiple SuperBowls, he was already on his way to becoming an all time great prior to putting up stats that support him being an all time great.
Whereas guys like Marino and Manning don't need to be on great teams to still go down as an all time greats.
Does that make sense?
JoeyJoeJoeJrShabadoo
Footballguy
Really? C'mon leave this crap for your local sports radio. Gimme a break.Because the cheating definitely stopped in September 2008. There's no reason to think that the team would continue to cheat after their previous cheating was exposed, or find other ways to cheat. I mean, except for the fact that they were flagrantly cheating before, I guess. But in my experience, cheaters usually only cheat once. When they're caught and given a slap on the wrist they immediately become completely honest and trustworthy.Lets see.... cheating?? Brady is 31-8 counting playoffs, and the first game in 08 after the Spygate game... Pretty freakin good if'n you ask me. Same games in question Peyton Manning is 30-9...pretty freakin good
dansav
Footballguy
Switz... Brady missed out on about 4 offensive series last night with the extrodinary play of NE defense and special teams. So we have no idea what Brady would have done in those 4 possesions.
I guess you will try to convince me that the (28) 4th quarter comebacks that Brady has under his belt is irrelevant.
Last edited by a moderator:
DawnBTVS
Footballguy
What?!?Without Moss & Welker...
- 2843 and 18 vs. 12
- 3764 and 28 vs. 14
- 3620 and 23 vs. 12
- 3692 and 28 vs. 14
- 4110 and 26 vs. 14
- 3529 and 24 vs. 12
With Moss & Welker...
- 4806 and 50 vs. 8
- 4398 and 28 vs. 13
It's not like he was putting up sub 3,000 yard seasons and suddenly vaunted himself to stud status in 2007. The guy was routinely hitting 3,600 to 3,700 yards a year and presumably could have topped 30 TD a season if the Patriots weren't so balanced running the ball. As it was, the guy was still getting around 25 TD a season too. His 2009 season is nearly identical except he threw for more yards.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Are the women of New England as eager to forgive and forget cheating and blindly trust past cheaters as the sports fans are?If so, I may have to move.Really? C'mon leave this crap for your local sports radio. Gimme a break.Because the cheating definitely stopped in September 2008. There's no reason to think that the team would continue to cheat after their previous cheating was exposed, or find other ways to cheat. I mean, except for the fact that they were flagrantly cheating before, I guess. But in my experience, cheaters usually only cheat once. When they're caught and given a slap on the wrist they immediately become completely honest and trustworthy.Lets see.... cheating?? Brady is 31-8 counting playoffs, and the first game in 08 after the Spygate game... Pretty freakin good if'n you ask me. Same games in question Peyton Manning is 30-9...pretty freakin good
switz
Footballguy
There are only three good seasons in there in the context of today's passing games. I didn't say he wasn't a good QB, just that his stats would not have put him with the all time greats, and they don't prior to Moss and Welker. He had one 4,000 yard season out of 6, zero 30 TD seasons.Here's one contemporary:DawnBTVS said:
4,388 34 11
5,069 34 17
4,423 28 18
4,418 26 11
3,576 24 15
Here's another:
4,500 33 16
4,002 27 12
4,040 31 14
4,397 31 9
3,747 28 10
4,557 49 10
4,267 29 10
Here's a more recent contemporary:
4,254 28 9
4,009 34 11
3,152 21 15
3,388 22 9
When you compare the numbers alone, prior to Moss and Welker, Brady wasn't statistically earning a spot among the all time greats. He wasn't among the top 2-3 statistically among his contemporaries, which is how HOF voters typically look at players.
Just to add to this:
2001 - not in top-5 in pass yards or TD
2002 - not in top-5 in pass yards (#1 in TD)
2003 - not in top-5 in pass yards or TD
2004 - not in top-5 in pass yards or TD
2005 - #1 in pass yards (#3 in TD)
2006 - not in top-5 in pass yards (#4 in TD)
You have to measure a player among his contemporaries, and Brady was not statistically dominating at all until he got Moss and Welker, with only once finishing in the top-5 pass yards for a season, and only three times in 6 seasons finishing top-5 in TD passes. Never top-5 in passer rating until Moss and Welker came along.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
And a lot of people take themselves way too seriously.Look at the OP, my friend. This thread is a complete joke. You expected that a Pats fan posting a hilariously over the top homage to his hero (on the heels of a virtuoso 150 yard, 1 TD passing performance) would be met with serious discourse regarding the Patriots?
Masked Vigilante
Footballguy
Keyshawn Johnson
Fantaholic
Footballguy
Here we go again. Manning vs. Brady. Year after year the same debate and usually a totally subjective one at that.
Someone already alluded to this in a recent post, but why don't we stop the 4th grader bickering and just appreciate the fact that we get to watch two guys that could arguably go down as the best two QB's of all time when it's all said and done. Their careers have been extraordinary to this point, and I don't think either one is close to done yet. The thing that I think is most important is that they're both great, but they do it right. They are extremely competitive and have had their moments, but overall top class individuals. They just do it right. They say the right things, they portray the right persona both on the field and off. which makes them great role models for our kids. Which one is better is completely subjective, and all depends on what you perceive as great quarterback play. Wins, stats, superbowls, whatever. I don't like the Colts or Manning, but I would never talk badly about Manning simply because he doesn't play for my favorite team. The guy is awesome.
Someone already alluded to this in a recent post, but why don't we stop the 4th grader bickering and just appreciate the fact that we get to watch two guys that could arguably go down as the best two QB's of all time when it's all said and done. Their careers have been extraordinary to this point, and I don't think either one is close to done yet. The thing that I think is most important is that they're both great, but they do it right. They are extremely competitive and have had their moments, but overall top class individuals. They just do it right. They say the right things, they portray the right persona both on the field and off. which makes them great role models for our kids. Which one is better is completely subjective, and all depends on what you perceive as great quarterback play. Wins, stats, superbowls, whatever. I don't like the Colts or Manning, but I would never talk badly about Manning simply because he doesn't play for my favorite team. The guy is awesome.
Warsteinner
Footballguy
Can we get a list of the WRs these contemporaries were/are throwing too? You wouldn't take Deion Branch, Troy Brown, or David Patton over any of them.
road warrior
Footballguy
Let's see. Switz just said Brady didn't win the game for you LAST NIGHT.... and you argue? Talk about being sensitive.dansav said:Switz... Brady missed out on about 4 offensive series last night with the extrodinary play of NE defense and special teams. So we have no idea what Brady would have done in those 4 possesions.I guess you will try to convince me that the (28) 4th quarter comebacks that Brady has under his belt is irrelevant.
switz
Footballguy
First, you do Troy Brown a great disservice by speaking of him as if he was not a good WR.Second, two of the QBs had no really good WRs to speak of to throw to, instead they used a great TE, just as Brady did early in his career. One has since moved to another team where he's turned UFAs and 7th round picks into superstars.Third, I'm pretty sure ALL of those QBs, would have done just as well with Brady's receiving corps, just as Manning has been doing fine this season throwing to Austin Collie and Blair White, and has in the past done just fine without Clark or Wayne.Funny thing: I have no problem admitting that Manning hasn't been able to win the big one as much as Brady has, but as soon as you say anything negative about Brady, even well documented, factual stuff - Pats fans get all upset.I think pretty much everyone in this thread has acknowledged Brady is going to go down as an all time great.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
Agreed.W's & L's are a team effort; so are passing statistics.You give 1 guy a Ferrari and another a guy a Yugo and have them race around a track. The guy in the Ferrari (better car) goes faster (better stats) and wins. Does that make him a better driver than the guy in the Yugo? For some it would; others might recognize that the comparison is irreperably flawed from the outset.Guys don't feed the trolls, they are not interested in any sort of rational discussion.
switz
Footballguy
I agree with you 100%... which is why some guys get into the HOF without great stats, but as SB winners, and others get into the HOF with the stats, but perhaps not as many SB wins. Either way they are HOF QBs.Unfortunately when it comes to Brady, some people aren't willing to acknowledge that. You talk about trolls not interested in a rational discussion, but what about those that when rational facts are evident, what about the NE/Brady fans who won't acknowledge rational arguments?
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
I can't speak for over the top Brady fans who won't acknowledge the valid point you make with regard to the importance of rings over stats. However, cherry picking stats is not a rational arguement; for instance, one cannot fairly evaluate Brady's stats by removing the best 2 receivers he has ever had or refuse to acknowledge the fact that the type of offense he has played in for most of his career was not conducive to putting up prolific passing statisitcs. That is no more rational than completly discounting the fact that someone like Manning as great as he is has often not had the luxury of a solid defense behind him. You don't put up off the chart passing statistics without the benefit of scheme and complimentary players to help you. Just like you don't win championships without complimentary schemes and players around you. They are both outstanding players, as far as who is better, I think that has yet to be determined; in the end it comes down to what people consider to be most important in evaluating what is most important in a qb.I agree with you 100%... which is why some guys get into the HOF without great stats, but as SB winners, and others get into the HOF with the stats, but perhaps not as many SB wins. Either way they are HOF QBs.Unfortunately when it comes to Brady, some people aren't willing to acknowledge that. You talk about trolls not interested in a rational discussion, but what about those that when rational facts are evident, what about the NE/Brady fans who won't acknowledge rational arguments?
switz
Footballguy
My point wasn't to cherry pick stats, or take away Brady's two best receivers... it was to highlight the difference between why players get to be considered all time greats. I think you and I agree that there are different reasons, and that prior to '07, the reason Brady was considered on his way to being an all time great was because of SB rings, not stats. Just as the reason Manning was considered on his way to being an all time great prior to '07 was due to stats, and not SB rings.Since that time Brady has put up greater stats, and Manning had made 2 SB appearances with 1 win. Because they are contemporaries, I don't think the argument will ever really be put to rest about who is "better", unless Manning goes on to win like 5 SBs, and Tom Brady totally busts - or Brady puts up another season like '07 and Manning tanks. They're both great QBs and like a previous poster said (and as I said in a similar thread last year) we are fortunate to watch them.I can't speak for over the top Brady fans who won't acknowledge the valid point you make with regard to the importance of rings over stats. However, cherry picking stats is not a rational arguement; for instance, one cannot fairly evaluate Brady's stats by removing the best 2 receivers he has ever had or refuse to acknowledge the fact that the type of offense he has played in for most of his career was not conducive to putting up prolific passing statisitcs. That is no more rational than completly discounting the fact that someone like Manning as great as he is has often not had the luxury of a solid defense behind him. You don't put up off the chart passing statistics without the benefit of scheme and complimentary players to help you. Just like you don't win championships without complimentary schemes and players around you. They are both outstanding players, as far as who is better, I think that has yet to be determined; in the end it comes down to what people consider to be most important in evaluating what is most important in a qb.I agree with you 100%... which is why some guys get into the HOF without great stats, but as SB winners, and others get into the HOF with the stats, but perhaps not as many SB wins. Either way they are HOF QBs.Unfortunately when it comes to Brady, some people aren't willing to acknowledge that. You talk about trolls not interested in a rational discussion, but what about those that when rational facts are evident, what about the NE/Brady fans who won't acknowledge rational arguments?
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
Has hell really frozen over?AgreedMy point wasn't to cherry pick stats, or take away Brady's two best receivers... it was to highlight the difference between why players get to be considered all time greats. I think you and I agree that there are different reasons, and that prior to '07, the reason Brady was considered on his way to being an all time great was because of SB rings, not stats. Just as the reason Manning was considered on his way to being an all time great prior to '07 was due to stats, and not SB rings.Since that time Brady has put up greater stats, and Manning had made 2 SB appearances with 1 win. Because they are contemporaries, I don't think the argument will ever really be put to rest about who is "better", unless Manning goes on to win like 5 SBs, and Tom Brady totally busts - or Brady puts up another season like '07 and Manning tanks. They're both great QBs and like a previous poster said (and as I said in a similar thread last year) we are fortunate to watch them.I can't speak for over the top Brady fans who won't acknowledge the valid point you make with regard to the importance of rings over stats. However, cherry picking stats is not a rational arguement; for instance, one cannot fairly evaluate Brady's stats by removing the best 2 receivers he has ever had or refuse to acknowledge the fact that the type of offense he has played in for most of his career was not conducive to putting up prolific passing statisitcs. That is no more rational than completly discounting the fact that someone like Manning as great as he is has often not had the luxury of a solid defense behind him. You don't put up off the chart passing statistics without the benefit of scheme and complimentary players to help you. Just like you don't win championships without complimentary schemes and players around you. They are both outstanding players, as far as who is better, I think that has yet to be determined; in the end it comes down to what people consider to be most important in evaluating what is most important in a qb.I agree with you 100%... which is why some guys get into the HOF without great stats, but as SB winners, and others get into the HOF with the stats, but perhaps not as many SB wins. Either way they are HOF QBs.Unfortunately when it comes to Brady, some people aren't willing to acknowledge that. You talk about trolls not interested in a rational discussion, but what about those that when rational facts are evident, what about the NE/Brady fans who won't acknowledge rational arguments?
Trading Moss? Say it aint so 
DANNY WELKER CRABTACULOUS
Footballguy
Speaking of "Tom terrific" I need me some bye week replacement! I cut Palmer to suppliment my RB's (thanks LT for ruining Greene, apriciate it), and now I am backupless. Less than a "shark" level move getting all the way to the bye week with nothing in th cubbord, I know, I know. Orton, Palmer, or Bradford, pretty much everything else is gone.
