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.
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:
