theprofessor Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Agreed. For all the Brady backers out there, now that he has quality WR's, a first round pick at RB, first round pick at TE, first round pick on the offensive line, it is time he steps up and challenges the numbers Peyton Manning has been able to produce. If he does not, it proves he is not as good. Brady IS a winner. Something Peyton is trying to simulate. Tom Brady has proven himself to be the best quarterback in the NFL. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) :reelinghimin: Edited July 10, 2007 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Brady IS a winner. Something Peyton is trying to simulate. Tom Brady has proven himself to be the 2nd best quarterback in the NFL. Period. Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted July 10, 2007 Author Share Posted July 10, 2007 And you laugh at my posts. Show me the last time I quoted you or responded to one of your posts. A little paranoid, aren't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Show me the last time I quoted you or responded to one of your posts. A little paranoid, aren't we? It's about time everyone realized what an evil, manipulative man Hugh One is.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Don't understand ...brady has won more often with less offensive talent ( especially at wr ) than manning or basically any other qb ( possibly in history ) , why is it necessary to kill him ? Jealousy is for the weak a wise man once said By the way , no need to kill manning either ..he got his ring ( may get more ) and has put up some if not the best #'s in football history for a qb Let's spread some love instead hate ..lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) Don't understand ...brady has won more often with less offensive talent ( especially at wr ) vastly more defensive talent than manning or basically any other qb ( possibly in history ) , why is it necessary to kill him ? Fixed The point about Brady winning with "less offensive talent than... basically any other QB (possibly in history)" is a bunch of crap. In SB, 36 he had Troy Brown still in his prime and Antowain Smith in a career year. That was as bad as it got for him, yet he had one of the better O-lines in the league and Charlie Weiss for all three. In SB 39, he had Dillon in his last great year, and he had Deion Branch and Daniel Graham in the last two. Throw in the greatest clutch kicker in NFL history in all three and that's a pretty good supporting cast. Not to take away from Brady, what REALLY enabled the Pats to win those three SBs was the fact that their defense and special teams played better than everybody else in the playoffs. Edited July 10, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 In SB, 36 he had Troy Brown still in his prime and Antowain Smith in a career year. Oh, no you didn't...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belushi Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Fixed The point about Brady winning with "less offensive talent than... basically any other QB (possibly in history)" is a bunch of crap. In SB, 36 he had Troy Brown still in his prime and Antowain Smith in a career year. That was as bad as it got for him, yet he had one of the better O-lines in the league and Charlie Weiss for all three. In SB 39, he had Dillon in his last great year, and he had Deion Branch and Daniel Graham in the last two. Throw in the greatest clutch kicker in NFL history in all three and that's a pretty good supporting cast. Not to take away from Brady, what REALLY enabled the Pats to win those three SBs was the fact that their defense and special teams played better than everybody else in the playoffs. Good one. That was pretty funny. Oh, wait. You were serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Oh, no you didn't...... 2001 Antowain Smith - 1157 rushing yds (4.0 avg.), 13 TDs Troy Brown - 101 rec, 1191 yds Smith was a walking injury for most of his career, but he stepped up and performed that year. And you can't argue with a 101 rec season, even if Brown only did it once. Both of those guys were impact players that year and the Pats wouldn't have won it all without them. Sorry, Brady doesn't do it all himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Sorry, Brady doesn't do it all himself. Vick does....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Sorry, Brady doesn't do it all himself. And when have I ever claimed that he does it all himself, or anything remotely close to it? Sure, those two had successful seasons that season. Still, that might be the worst combination of #1 receiver and starting RB in SB championship history, so I am not sure that those two players are much of an example of anything. Maybe the 2000 Ravens had worse...maybe. They also had a historic defense, not just a good defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Sure, those two had successful seasons that season. I'd say that 101 receptions is a little bit better than just "successful." That's a GREAT season. Still, that might be the worst combination of #1 receiver and starting RB in SB championship history, so I am not sure that those two players are much of an example of anything. Maybe the 2000 Ravens had worse...maybe. The '85 Bears and, IIRC, '86 and '90 Giants had crap at WR as well. Having mediocre and/or one-year-wonder players at the skill positions on a SB champion team isn't exactly unheard of. And it's not like the Pats won SB 36 on offense anyway. The only time that the Pats won lacking substantially in one area was with a broken-down Antowain Smith in '03. Their running game was horrific that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I'd say that 101 receptions is a little bit better than just "successful." That's a GREAT season. It was a good season.....but I don't think you watched many Pats games that year. It would be tough to call it a GREAT season. Brown had 101 receptions as a possession receiver in a dink and dunk offense. This would include a very large number of WR screen passes, as this was the year that the Pats started mixing in the WR screen as one of their main weapons. That's about as high percentage a throw as there is in the NFL. Now, looking at Brown's season he averaged 11.9 yards per catch. looking at the 2006 NFL top 30 receivers, only 4 in that group had a lower YPC than 11.9. I am pointing this out not to take anything away from Troy, but to illustrate how he was used in the offense. His very sure hands were a key component to getting the 101 catches, but so was the regularity of his catching the ball within 5 yards of the LOS...in front or behind it. The '85 Bears and, IIRC, '86 and '90 Giants had crap at WR as well. Having mediocre and/or one-year-wonder players at the skill positions on a SB champion team isn't exactly unheard of. And it's not like the Pats won SB 36 on offense anyway. The only time that the Pats won lacking substantially in one area was with a broken-down Antowain Smith in '03. Their running game was horrific that year. the '85 bears had Walter Payton. As I mentioned the #1 WR/ Starting RB combo, just having Sweetness puts that team light years ahead of the Pats. They also had Willie Gault, who was no slouch in his prime. The '90 Giants could rival the 01 Pats. I'd probably take OJ Anderson/Maurice Carthon/Dave Meggett over A Smith, but I would probably take Troy Brown over anyone on their receiving crew....except that they had Bavaro... Even still, if I gove you the '90 Giants you one-upped me....but you still are helping to make my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Swerski , you are a funny guy ...the troy brown comment was gold Pats had great teams and great defenses as well as best clutch kicker of all time but they did not have dominant receivers , tight ends or weapons for tom brady in the sb years ..simply did not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 It was a good season.....but I don't think you watched many Pats games that year. It would be tough to call it a GREAT season. You may be correct about that, but dismissing it as a "successful" season is an even tougher sale. Say what you want about his low yds/rec, but 101 receptions is still pretty freaking good. How many WRs catch 100 balls per season, especially with duds like David Patten on the other side of the field? the '85 bears had Walter Payton. As I mentioned the #1 WR/ Starting RB combo, just having Sweetness puts that team light years ahead of the Pats. Sweetness was awesome, but entering the twilight of his career by the time the Bears go to the SB (I think that was his 10th year in the league). He was pretty quiet in the '85 playoffs and his yds/carry began to fall back to average right around then. They also had Willie Gault, who was no slouch in his prime. Willie Gault was a good deep threat, but not an elite receiver in any sense of the word. IMO, he was pretty average overall, maybe slightly above average at best. He never had more than 42 receptions in a season in Chicago and maxed out at 50 in Oakland. He was the '80s/early '90s incarnation of James Jett. I'd take Troy Brown in his prime over Gault in a second. And like I said before, the Pats didn't win SB 36 with offense. It was defense and special teams that did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Swerski , you are a funny guy ...the troy brown comment was gold Pats had great teams and great defenses as well as best clutch kicker of all time but they did not have dominant receivers , tight ends or weapons for tom brady in the sb years ..simply did not Deion Branch wasn't a dominant receiver in the playoffs? LOL, talk about a funny guy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 defense: kept scores low st: gave good field position reliable rb: a smith and dillon. brady is turning into the highly touted qb some of those pats fans were giving too much praise to in the earlier years. he played well within that system: good precission, knew how to manage an offense/clock, didn't give the other team turn overs. he did quite well for his lack of experience. in two of those championships he played a lesser role than many of those pats fans can admit. he's still no montana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Rookie Me........ Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) System>Brady anytime, anyday, anywhere! You could stick Plummer in that system and he would do well. IF you stuck Manning in that system there would be 5 rings instead of three. My hats off to Belichick and the system he has put together. Moss, Stallworth and Seau are going to a play for less $ in a system that is proven in order to get a ring. I hate the Pats ever since they got away with the tuck rule. Luck played essential in that years super bowl and now you have to fight over every Tom, Dick and Harry that come from the woodwork to tell me how great a team and quarterback Tom Brady is. It is friggen annoying. The only thing I have to look forward to is Moss walking off the field with two minutes left in the AFC championship because he has lost to the Steelers!!! Peace Out! Edited July 10, 2007 by Dont Rookie Me........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Deion Branch wasn't a dominant receiver in the playoffs? LOL, talk about a funny guy... You are right ..when I hear deion branch I automatically think of swann , stallworth , rice , art monk and marvin harrison ..lol Not even sure branch was healthy and played in all the playoff games during pats sb winning years You are definitely still funnier than me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Fixed The point about Brady winning with "less offensive talent than... basically any other QB (possibly in history)" is a bunch of crap. In SB, 36 he had Troy Brown still in his prime and Antowain Smith in a career year. That was as bad as it got for him, yet he had one of the better O-lines in the league and Charlie Weiss for all three. In SB 39, he had Dillon in his last great year, and he had Deion Branch and Daniel Graham in the last two. Throw in the greatest clutch kicker in NFL history in all three and that's a pretty good supporting cast. Not to take away from Brady, what REALLY enabled the Pats to win those three SBs was the fact that their defense and special teams played better than everybody else in the playoffs. Troy Brown, Antowain Smith, Charlie Weiss, Deion Branch, Daniel Graham ....... As I said. Thanks for solidifying my point. Brady is the best! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 System>Brady anytime, anyday, anywhere! You could stick Plummer in that system and he would do well. IF you stuck Manning in that system there would be 5 rings instead of three. My hats off to Belichick and the system he has put together. Moss, Stallworth and Seau are going to a play for less $ in a system that is proven in order to get a ring. I hate the Pats ever since they got away with the tuck rule. Luck played essential in that years super bowl and now you have to fight over every Tom, Dick and Harry that come from the woodwork to tell me how great a team and quarterback Tom Brady is. It is friggen annoying. The only thing I have to look forward to is Moss walking off the field with two minutes left in the AFC championship because he has lost to the Steelers!!! Peace Out! Not with that QB or for that matter not with that Defense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 (edited) You are right ..when I hear deion branch I automatically think of swann , stallworth , rice , art monk and marvin harrison ..lol LOL, Branch has three more 100-yd games in the playoffs than Marvin Harrison and one more SB MVP - and Marvin's been in the league six years longer! Not even sure branch was healthy and played in all the playoff games during pats sb winning years Then look it up. Oh, wait, he was: 31 receptions, 440 yds, and 2 TDs in the '03/04 playoffs! Why do you think that the Seahawks were willing to give the Pats a first-round pick for him - and then trade away Darrell Jackson, making Branch their #1? And why do you suppose that Brady was reportedly furious about this behind closed doors? And why did Brady call Hasselbeck and tell him what a great WR he was getting? Hmmm... maybe it's because Deion Branch is actually a pretty good receiver? You are definitely still funnier than me You're right. Your lack of NFL knowledge is so bad it isn't even funny. Edited July 10, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I'll give props where they are due. Hugh One, it is time to take a bow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.