What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Waldmans Time Machine (1 Viewer)

NE_REVIVAL

Footballguy
Let me start by saying I very much enjoy the FBG podcasts (great job guys!) and I have great respect for the knowledge, expertise and opinions of the staff. The post is meant as a friendly and respectful (Matt r u serious?) retort to one casual thing he said on the podcast.

I often download and listen to various FF podcasts as I fall off to sleep and that was the case last night. However, while listening I heard Matt say something that did anything but make it easy to fall asleep. Matt said he wished he had a time machine so he could see what would have happened had SF drafted Brady and NE drafted Carmazzi. He then went on to say (I am paraphrasing) he would have liked to see how Brady would have done on a team without a good O-Line, without good recs, where the coaching wasn't strong and the system not perfect for him and how Carmazzi would have done in his place. Apparently Matt believes the 2000 Patriots were a much better situation than the 2000 Niners; I disagree. Matt did of course go on to generously allow that Brady "probably" would have done better than Carmazzi, but implied if not flat out stated that Brady wouldn't have been successful or won any SBs.

I understand the context and the point Matt was making with regard to the importance of young QBs coming into the right situation and I agree completely. No QB is going to be successful without good coaches and players around him, that is an indisputable fact that no one would argue. Had Matt used the time machine to go back and switch Mark Bulger and Brady I would have thought it much more apropos and probably wouldn’t have posted. But, Gio Carmazzi? To suggest or imply that Carmazzi would have succeeded in NE and Brady would have failed in SF is just so denigrating to Brady’s skill as a QB and over the top wrong on so many levels, I just can't believe he said it.

It was probably an off the cuff remark without much thought being put into it and if so we can move on; however if not, I would love to get in the time machine with Matt and discuss what likely would or would not have happened. I think an argument could easily be made that SF probably had a better O-line, receivers and system that would have fit Brady just as well if not better than what he inherited in NE.

It seems obvious to me that a common trait of most of the great QBs (Marino, Montana, and Manning etc.) is first and foremost a burning desire (determination) to win. After that you might include football instincts\intelligence, accuracy, toughness and then maybe a strong arm and mobility. Carmazzi like so many would be potentially great QBs had the latter two traits, but virtually none of the former which Brady has in spades. IMHO, Carmazzi would have likely failed virtually wherever (and in NE most assuredly) he went because he so obviously lacked what is most important in the great QBs; the burning desire to compete and to win.

Carmazzi was a quitter, Tom Brady isn’t. Maybe Brady doesn’t win any SBs if he didn’t go to NE and BB, who knows; does Montana win any SBs without Walsh and a great team and system around him? I do not know the answer to either, but I do know that Brady does so many of the little things that help his team win; things that often do not to show up on the score sheet and are not apparent to those observing from afar.

I will be the first to admit that Brady is not as good a pure passer as some of the other greats (Marino, Manning etc.), but he does so many other things incredibly well that are just as critical to winning football. One small example might be Brady’s record of converting on 3rd\4th down rush attempts. Those conversions do little for his passing stats so those that don’t watch him every game don’t really appreciate or take note of what it means to the success of the Patriots. I watch other teams consistently fail on these attempts and I wonder why they don’t do what Brady’s does and the only logical answer I can come up with is its because they can’t.

It is not that NEs “system” is\was a great fit for Brady; it is that Brady is\was a good fit for virtually any system; in other words, Brady is the system. To those who like to denigrate Brady as a “system” qb I ask you why if it is so simply the “system”, why then don’t other teams simply copy the system and enjoy similar success? Is it because NE drafts so well? What is the constant, is it the small wr’s and short passing game, is it the tall wr and the deep passing game, or the dominate te? In my humble opinion the constant is obviously Brady, not the “system”.

I know the haters will make a civil discussion near impossible, but I wanted to find out if in hindsight Matt would feel very strongly about what he said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brady was a 6th round pick. San Fran had Jeff Garcia as starter and he played every game for multiple years. Brady got to play because Bledsoe got hurt. Brady may not have seen the field much if at all in San Fran for years.

 

Khy

Footballguy
This is ridiculous... Brady was a 6th round pick who only saw playing time because Bledsoe went down. If Brady had been drafted by the 49ers instead he probably would have never been anything more than a journeyman backup for the remainder of his career. Possibly pulling off a few good seasons after Garcia retired or if Garcia ever happened to take a significant injury. In the end, we never would know what would have happened. This is the same thing as the old "What if the Blazer's drafted Jordan?" type of argument. Would they have went on to win 6 NBA titles? Or was Jordan the perfect talent in the perfect situation of coaches and supporting staff? Or... what if the Giants didn't trade for Eli and instead kept Rivers. Would they have two Super Bowl's right now? Or would Eli have won Super Bowl's with the Chargers and LT2 instead?

I listened to the same podcast and honestly thought that Waldman had an amazing point. If you look at every other rookie QB who we now look at as a elite or even simply a successful NFL QB, they all had a decent or good coaching staff and all had a good to elite veteran WR that they could place their trust in... which is the real point Waldman was trying to make.

Rodgers had Donald Driver

Eli had Plaxico and Toomer

Ben had Ward

Luck has Wayne

Wilson has Rice

RG3 has Moss

Brady had Troy Brown

Cam has Steve Smith

Montana had Clark

Young had Rice

They don't 'all' have veteran WRs but most of them do. The entire point of the argument was based on the discussion of why Sam Bradford may never become the QB he had the potential to become. Which is that since he came into the league he's always just had young developing talent around him. He never had the type of veteran these guys had/have.

Bradford's WRs in 2010 (rookie year) were... Amendola (2nd year), Gibson (2nd year), Laurent Robinson (4th year but a nobody), Alexander (rookie).

The point wasn't to degrade Brady at all, it was to question whether or not Bradford could be considered one of the elite pocket passers of today if he was more properly groomed in the early stages of his career. If instead of Steve Spagnolo they had a good offensive minded coach. And instead of Danny Amendola they got him a solid (not elite just a solid) veteran WR that he could trust. Someone he knew that he could go through his progressions and count on that man being where he was supposed to be when he went to throw.

 

Leroy Hoard

Footballguy
Just think if someone like the Lions had drafted Brady in the 5th round. He'd be the best 3rd string QB who never saw a snap.

 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
I think it's easy to forget how bad the Patriots looked in the era immediately preceding Brady. They were 5-11 in 2000 with Bledoe, and then got off to a 1-3 start in 2001 with Bledsoe before Brady took over. I remember at the beginning of the 2001 season, Joel Buchsbaum stated that aside from Bledsoe, the Patriots didn't have a single player who would have started for more than 1/3 of the teams in the league, or something to that effect. They were a tremendously well coached team, but they really lacked individual talent at pretty much every position besides QB.

The coaching staff and the entire team that season deserve a ton of credit for vastly outperforming any reasonable expectations, and Brady's contribution should not be underestimated. Great coaching can't make up for being physically outgunned without hardworking, smart players with strong leadership to execute the game plan. Brady was all of that.

Not sure Carmazzi would have been nearly as good as Bledsoe as a Patriot, much less Brady.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

socrates

Footballguy
I think it's easy to forget how bad the Patriots looked in the era immediately preceding Brady. They were 5-11 in 2000 with Bledoe, and then got off to a 1-3 start in 2001 with Bledsoe before Brady took over. I remember at the beginning of the 2001 season, Joel Buchsbaum stated that aside from Bledsoe, the Patriots didn't have a single player who would have started for more than 1/3 of the teams in the league, or something to that effect. They were a tremendously well coached team, but they really lacked individual talent at pretty much every position besides QB.

The coaching staff and the entire team that season deserve a ton of credit for vastly outperforming any reasonable expectations, and Brady's contribution should not be underestimated. Great coaching can't make up for being physically outgunned without hardworking, smart players with strong leadership to execute the game plan. Brady was all of that.

Not sure Carmazzi would have been nearly as good as Bledsoe as a Patriot, much less Brady.
:goodposting:

 

tsarc888

Footballguy
I listened to the same podcast and I am neither a Patriots fan nor a "hater". I can honestly say I'm neutral on the Patriots, I respect what they have done but they aren't my team nor does my team (Vikings) really have any rivalry or negative history with the Patriots.

anyways.....I didn't hear it the way the OP did. He was making a point and took extreme examples to make that point. I really didn't see it as any slight at all on Brady or the Patriots. Just my opinion.

 

NE_REVIVAL

Footballguy
This is ridiculous... Brady was a 6th round pick who only saw playing time because Bledsoe went down. If Brady had been drafted by the 49ers instead he probably would have never been anything more than a journeyman backup for the remainder of his career. Possibly pulling off a few good seasons after Garcia retired or if Garcia ever happened to take a significant injury. In the end, we never would know what would have happened. This is the same thing as the old "What if the Blazer's drafted Jordan?" type of argument. Would they have went on to win 6 NBA titles? Or was Jordan the perfect talent in the perfect situation of coaches and supporting staff? Or... what if the Giants didn't trade for Eli and instead kept Rivers. Would they have two Super Bowl's right now? Or would Eli have won Super Bowl's with the Chargers and LT2 instead?

I listened to the same podcast and honestly thought that Waldman had an amazing point. If you look at every other rookie QB who we now look at as a elite or even simply a successful NFL QB, they all had a decent or good coaching staff and all had a good to elite veteran WR that they could place their trust in... which is the real point Waldman was trying to make.

Rodgers had Donald Driver

Eli had Plaxico and Toomer

Ben had Ward

Luck has Wayne

Wilson has Rice

RG3 has Moss

Brady had Troy Brown

Cam has Steve Smith

Montana had Clark

Young had Rice

They don't 'all' have veteran WRs but most of them do. The entire point of the argument was based on the discussion of why Sam Bradford may never become the QB he had the potential to become. Which is that since he came into the league he's always just had young developing talent around him. He never had the type of veteran these guys had/have.

Bradford's WRs in 2010 (rookie year) were... Amendola (2nd year), Gibson (2nd year), Laurent Robinson (4th year but a nobody), Alexander (rookie).

The point wasn't to degrade Brady at all, it was to question whether or not Bradford could be considered one of the elite pocket passers of today if he was more properly groomed in the early stages of his career. If instead of Steve Spagnolo they had a good offensive minded coach. And instead of Danny Amendola they got him a solid (not elite just a solid) veteran WR that he could trust. Someone he knew that he could go through his progressions and count on that man being where he was supposed to be when he went to throw.
Hi Khy,

I agreed 100% (and said as much) with Matts primary point in that young QBs need good situations in order to be successful, so I hope that is clear to everyone. I also happen to agree with you that SF was a better situation than NE; however, that appears to be almost exactly the opposite of what Matt implied. That was one of my primary points. I don't think Matts point was to try and denigrate Brady's skills, but that was (imho) the end result when he made the Carmazzi comparison. As I said, had he used Bulger for the comparison I probably wouldn't have posted; however, to use a stiff like Carmazzi who is the antithesis of Brady, just seemed over the top wrong. No great harm or foul here, just disagreeing with the example.

As for Brady never seeing the field if Bledsoe didn't get hurt, I respectfully disagree for a couple of reasons. The first being that BB has said that Brady had essentially outplayed Bledsoe in training camp that year. The second being that had the Patriots continued to lose that year (as they had the previous couple of years) there is (I believe) a good chance BB would have replaced him during the year with Brady. There is little doubt in my mind that had Bledsoe remained the starter for the rest of that year the Patriots likely would have continued to lose (as they had been under Bledsoe). Had that happened, BB would have been going into his third year knowing that another losing season might mean his job. Brady and Bledsoe would have competed for the job the following TC and I have no doubt Brady would have again outplayed him and BB would have known his best shot to win was with Brady.

Brady didn't luck his way into a great situation, he worked his butt off and the cream rose to the top. FTR, imho, to think that he wouldn't have been successful in SFs WC offense doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me; I think his skill set fits in perfectly with it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

cstu

Footballguy
This is ridiculous... Brady was a 6th round pick who only saw playing time because Bledsoe went down. If Brady had been drafted by the 49ers instead he probably would have never been anything more than a journeyman backup for the remainder of his career. Possibly pulling off a few good seasons after Garcia retired or if Garcia ever happened to take a significant injury.
No, this is ridiculous. Even if Brady had to sit behind Garcia he would have taken over for him in 2003. I don't know how someone could think he wouldn't have done better than Tim Rattay.

 

drummer

Footballguy
This is ridiculous... Brady was a 6th round pick who only saw playing time because Bledsoe went down. If Brady had been drafted by the 49ers instead he probably would have never been anything more than a journeyman backup for the remainder of his career. Possibly pulling off a few good seasons after Garcia retired or if Garcia ever happened to take a significant injury.
No, this is ridiculous. Even if Brady had to sit behind Garcia he would have taken over for him in 2003. I don't know how someone could think he wouldn't have done better than Tim Rattay.
:goodposting:

TO would had demanded for Brady to start too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

ShaHBucks

Footballguy
The answer to me lies in the middle. NFL GMs are not as efficient with the draft as many like to believe. Tom Brady was a miss, it's not even debatable. His price was a 6th round pick, but his value far exceeded that. He would have been fine anywhere, but of course he benifited from the way NE has ran their franchise. A better example, to me, is The Jets and Mark Sanchez. Sanchez was a great prospect and had all the surrounding pieces you could ask for when he entered the league. He almost took the Jets to the superbowl in his first two seasons. Now he's a laughing stock and wrongfully accused to a certain extent on how bad the team is. You could only imagine how his career would have turned out in a better offense, with better offensive coaching. He was clearly able to exacute a gameplan well enough to win consistently in the NFL. As far as Carmazzi goes, if he wasn't a talent then he wouldn't have succeded under any circumstance. Sam Bradford can go in the Sanchez category in my book as well.

 

cstu

Footballguy
Go back and watch Brady in the Orange Bowl just picking apart the Alabama defense. The funny thing is that he was no different in that game than he was his first 3 years as a starter in the NFL and two SB titles.

 

5Rings

Lurker
I think the OP is way too sensitive.

Sidenote, at the time, there was a pretty significant Bay Area contingent calling for hometown hero Brady to be picked by SF. It would have been fun to see how it would have played out.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top