Bill Swerski Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) However, you can't just dismiss the Super Bowls. And you have to admit that the Packers with Levens and Ahman Green had a far better running game than the Pats, making it easier for Favre to throw the ball. The Packers did not have a "far better running game" with Levens back in the '90s. Except for '96, they were very pedestrian on the ground in the Holmgren era. And by the time Ahman Green became a force, they no longer had a SB-caliber defense. The Brady-era Pats had poor running games in '02 and '03 and that's it. If you want to talk about Super Bowls, you need to talk about defensive talent. Brady has played with elite defenses for all but two of his seven years as a starter (and he's 0-1 in the playoffs in those two years). You can't win without defense. When the Packers had outstanding defenses back in the mid-'90s, Favre was money in the playoffs. When their defense went to crap in the Sherman era, Favre ends up throwing picks to try to come back from 20-point deficits late in the game. You don't win without defense. And as good as Brady is, he hasn't won anything without an elite one. I actually don't think Brady is better than Favre. I just find it amazing that you think he doesn't even belong in the same sentence. In fact, it sounds to me like you think Randy Moss is so important to Brady that you won't even put Brady in the same sentence as Favre even if Brady happens to put up back to back 40+ TD seasons this year and next. He doesn't belong in the same sentence as Favre... yet. Brady's only 30. I won't even put Peyton in the same sentence as Favre. How about we wait until those guys retire before having this conversation? Or at least until Favre retires. Geez... Edited October 22, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 He doesn't belong in the same sentence as Favre... yet. Brady's only 30. I won't even put Peyton in the same sentence as Favre. How about we wait until those guys retire before having this conversation? Or at least until Favre retires. Geez... Bill, by any chance are you a distant relation to John Madden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Bill, by any chance are you a distant relation to John Madden? If I were, I'd be slobbing all over Brady's knob. Haven't you noticed the changing of the nutsack in front of John's mouth over the past few years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 If I were, I'd be slobbing all over Brady's knob. Haven't you noticed the changing of the nutsack in front of John's mouth over the past few years? He's still only flirting with Brady. Favre is still the trophy wife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 nathan and muncie/brooks were not as good (or versitile) as craig..... but still had a lot of rec for rb's... they were their roger craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 1100/12 from antowain and 1600/12 from dillon is not rushing anemia...... you have a back getting 80-100 pg and you get to set the tone..... brady made an impact in 1 of his 3 rings...2 he was along for the ride. that d/st won him games and got him field position that necesitated fg's instead of td's. over the past few seasons he is growing into the qb you guys thought he was in 01..... Sorry dude, but Trent Dilfer was along for the ride when he won the SB with Baltimore. Ditto for Brad Johnson with Tampa. Tom Brady wasn't along for the ride for two Super Bowls (or if he was in any way, it certainly wasn't to the extent of Dilfer and Johnson). I will admit that the 2001 team around Brady would probably have won without him - didn't Bledsoe win a playoff game that year? Enough said. And you are right... the Pats were able to run the ball, but just not on the same level as the Packers. They also don't execute screen passes as well as Favre's heyday Packers did. Sseemed like Favre got a ton of YAC help from those screens. They were a thing of beauty though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 i don't think any qb road the d more than dilfer and mcmahon. 03 was when brady had the least offensive support (the 1 i give him credit for). in 04 ne's passing rank was 20th... rushing was 5th. ask mr aikman about the value of a back who gets you 100/game. over the last few years brady has done more for that team than he did in his 1st 4.... i know it's hard for you to see that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 The Packers did not have a "far better running game" with Levens back in the '90s. Except for '96, they were very pedestrian on the ground in the Holmgren era. And by the time Ahman Green became a force, they no longer had a SB-caliber defense. The Brady-era Pats had poor running games in '02 and '03 and that's it. Touche, though '96 was their SB year, correct? Oh, and it might be early to say it, but you can add '07 to the list of years the Pats have had a poor running game. How about we wait until those guys retire before having this conversation? Or at least until Favre retires. Geez... Agreed. But as fas as doing the most with the least, Elway still gets my vote. Favre comes second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 i don't think any qb road the d more than dilfer and mcmahon. 03 was when brady had the least offensive support (the 1 i give him credit for). in 04 ne's passing rank was 20th... rushing was 5th. ask mr aikman about the value of a back who gets you 100/game. over the last few years brady has done more for that team than he did in his 1st 4.... i know it's hard for you to see that I'm not even a Pats fan or Brady fan, so I'm not sure why you assume as much with your comments. You are right about Brady relying on the defense and (somewhat) running game in the beginning of his career. Geez, I only got involved in this thread because I was a little surprised that Swierski didn't think Brady belonged in the same conversation as Favre. I have a little more insight as to why that is now. But part of being a great quarterback is making plays when your team needs you to, and even though Brady didn't carry the team when they won their first two SBs, he still made plenty of important plays for them. I actually think Brady only won 3 SBs because the defense was good enough to shut down the Colts' offense. Without that D, there's no way Brady matches Manning throw for throw (well, maybe this year he can, but not previous years). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Touche, though '96 was their SB year, correct? Oh, and it might be early to say it, but you can add '07 to the list of years the Pats have had a poor running game. that's still to be determined... right now they are #1 in rushing attempts, #3 in yards, but #15 in ypa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I'm not even a Pats fan or Brady fan, so I'm not sure why you assume as much with your comments. You are right about Brady relying on the defense and (somewhat) running game in the beginning of his career. Geez, I only got involved in this thread because I was a little surprised that Swierski didn't think Brady belonged in the same conversation as Favre. I have a little more insight as to why that is now. But part of being a great quarterback is making plays when your team needs you to, and even though Brady didn't carry the team when they won their first two SBs, he still made plenty of important plays for them. I actually think Brady only won 3 SBs because the defense was good enough to shut down the Colts' offense. Without that D, there's no way Brady matches Manning throw for throw (well, maybe this year he can, but not previous years). my mistake. your posts have had...let's just say... a familiar flavor i actually believe he played his biggest role in their 2nd sb. he had dillon for his 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 that's still to be determined... right now they are #1 in rushing attempts, #3 in yards, but #15 in ypa Funny how that prolific passing game coupled with Maroney's injury gives the impression that they aren't running the ball well. Then again, when you're up 3+ TDs at half time, you're going to have a lot of carries I guess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Funny how that prolific passing game coupled with Maroney's injury gives the impression that they aren't running the ball well. Then again, when you're up 3+ TDs at half time, you're going to have a lot of carries I guess... agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Funny how that prolific passing game coupled with Maroney's injury gives the impression that they aren't running the ball well. Then again, when you're up 3+ TDs at half time, you're going to have a lot of carries I guess... Yep.and when you are up that much you are gonna run safe runs which will lower your YPA as all you are worried about is not turning the ball over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 early on, the 9ers didn't have the offensive weapons that mia and sd had..... the more i think about it, the more i believe that:- marino and fouts would have a ring, just not as quickly as joe - marino and fouts would have made playoffs more (or gone further) - both would have lower stats - but would not have had as many as montana i would also like to see montana with duper/clayton or jefferson/joiner/chandler/winslow early in his career wait a sec. you're saying marino would have lower stats throwing to rice, taylor, clark et al in bill walsh's offense than he did throwing to duper, clayton, oj mcduffie and co? you think montana would do better statistically throwing to the marks? i can't agree with that at all. montana did have a couple years early on where the talent around him wasn't off-the-charts (his stats weren't off the charts, either, by any means), but overall he has had more to work with that just about any other QB in the history of the game. i mean, he threw to the best WR in the history of the game, for the best offensive coach in the history of the game, for what, 6 or 7 years straight? fouts may be close in terms of having a lot to work with. but those guys had SO much more talent around them, on average for their careers, than marino, elway, etc. -- especially when you consider "system" -- walsh and corryell versus dan reeves and don shula. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesMarauders Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) Funny how that prolific passing game coupled with Maroney's injury gives the impression that they aren't running the ball well. Then again, when you're up 3+ TDs at half time, you're going to have a lot of carries I guess... Yep and when your up by that much your defense is going to play a soft defense which the patriots have been doing...... Man just think if they start playing there complex defense and start bringing more pressure instead of staying vanilla Edited October 22, 2007 by MikesMarauders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 wait a sec. you're saying marino would have lower stats throwing to rice, taylor, clark et al in bill walsh's offense than he did throwing to duper, clayton, oj mcduffie and co? you think montana would do better statistically throwing to the marks? i can't agree with that at all. montana did have a couple years early on where the talent around him wasn't off-the-charts (his stats weren't off the charts, either, by any means), but overall he has had more to work with that just about any other QB in the history of the game. i mean, he threw to the best WR in the history of the game, for the best offensive coach in the history of the game, for what, 6 or 7 years straight? fouts may be close in terms of having a lot to work with. but those guys had SO much more talent around them, on average for their careers, than marino, elway, etc. -- especially when you consider "system" -- walsh and corryell versus dan reeves and don shula. yes...due to the early years and the balanced attack. i think fouts and marino get fewer pass attmepts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 wait a sec. you're saying marino would have lower stats throwing to rice, taylor, clark et al in bill walsh's offense than he did throwing to duper, clayton, oj mcduffie and co? you think montana would do better statistically throwing to the marks? i can't agree with that at all. montana did have a couple years early on where the talent around him wasn't off-the-charts (his stats weren't off the charts, either, by any means), but overall he has had more to work with that just about any other QB in the history of the game. i mean, he threw to the best WR in the history of the game, for the best offensive coach in the history of the game, for what, 6 or 7 years straight? fouts may be close in terms of having a lot to work with. but those guys had SO much more talent around them, on average for their careers, than marino, elway, etc. -- especially when you consider "system" -- walsh and corryell versus dan reeves and don shula. My biggest problem with saying Montana was the best ever is he was in a line with 4 other QB's who played and set records. of course only him and Young got rings. but before Montana took over it was Deberg setting records. after him it was Young setting records. after him it was Garcia to every pro bowl. that system/coaching staff made QB's look great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Um, how about those 3 League MVPs, eight 30-TD seasons (in which he never had an elite WR), 59,000+ yds and 420+ TDs? Favre was hands-down the best QB in the NFL in the mid/late '90s. And he's still playing well at age 38. Brady is not even the clear-cut best QB of this decade. sterling sharpe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 yes...due to the early years and the balanced attack. i think fouts and marino get fewer pass attmepts fouts, yes. marino, no. if anything, marino's attempts go way UP in the WCO. unless you want to try and argue that don shula ran an inherently more pass-happy offense than bill walsh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 My biggest problem with saying Montana was the best ever is he was in a line with 4 other QB's who played and set records. of course only him and Young got rings. but before Montana took over it was Deberg setting records. after him it was Young setting records. after him it was Garcia to every pro bowl. that system/coaching staff made QB's look great. deberg set no records.... in 79 he led the league in attmepts and completions, was 5th in yards, but was 17/21 td/int. montana was part of the system as it was being built.... didn't have it handed to him on a platter as it was with young and garcia. again, i would have liked to see him finish his career with that offense he left to young (he also trained young) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 sterling sharpe? Favre didn't win an MVP until '95. Sharpe's last game was in '94. Favre also put up better numbers in the post-Sharpe era (which likely has more to do with Favre maturing as a QB than Sharpe). (he also trained young) Not exactly. Montana was angry that Young was brought in to succeed him and the two did not have a good relationship. Holmgren and Shanahan had a lot more to do with Young's development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 fouts, yes. marino, no. if anything, marino's attempts go way UP in the WCO. unless you want to try and argue that don shula ran an inherently more pass-happy offense than bill walsh? marino was getting 500+attmepts a year...montana was around 350-400.... balanced attack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) deberg set no records.... in 79 he led the league in attmepts and completions, was 5th in yards, but was 17/21 td/int. montana was part of the system as it was being built.... didn't have it handed to him on a platter as it was with young and garcia. again, i would have liked to see him finish his career with that offense he left to young (he also trained young) Deberg set the completion record in 1979 along with a number of S.F. passing records at that time. Young went from T.B where he had 8 TD's and 13 INT's in 86 to S.F. where he thew 10 TD's and 0 int's when coming in for a hurt Montana in 87. Montana was not such a great teacher that he could transform someone thought to be a bust into someone amazing in 1 year. Edited October 22, 2007 by Doc Holliday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Not exactly. Montana was angry that Young was brought in to succeed him and the two did not have a good relationship. Holmgren and Shanahan had a lot more to do with Young's development. they did not have a great relationship. but he was still competetive and wanted to win...... he still trained him... prob held back a bit, but he had the best training him 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.