Jump to content

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, true2form said:

Hate to jump in, but it sounds like you're giving Brady way more credit in those early years than you should.  Because of what Brady has become maybe those early years are forgotten.  Maybe because the "team" was winning he gets all of that credit as the QB.  However, Brady was Andy Dalton at best back then.  Not trying to take anything away from him, he obviously had to be good enough to make plays and have clutch moments when called upon. Everyone points to that first season and coming in for Bledsoe, but I always look at that second season when they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs.  He didn't start carrying the team like he has for a few years into his career.  He had time to develop and continue the winning because of the super bowl roster that was in place around him.

Brady was not BRADY until 2007.  He was still a good QB with a great surrounding cast.  I know stats are not the whole picture but until 2007 he was a good QB that played within the system and his teammates did most of the heavy lifting.

Back to the original point I was really curious how BB felt about Brady the first couple years.  There may not be any proof but wonder if they viewed him as a long shot.

As for 6th round QBs not very many teams expect to get starters there.  3rd stringers with shorter careers tend to be the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, true2form said:

Hate to jump in, but it sounds like you're giving Brady way more credit in those early years than you should.  Because of what Brady has become maybe those early years are forgotten.  Maybe because the "team" was winning he gets all of that credit as the QB.  However, Brady was Andy Dalton at best back then.  Not trying to take anything away from him, he obviously had to be good enough to make plays and have clutch moments when called upon. Everyone points to that first season and coming in for Bledsoe, but I always look at that second season when they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs.  He didn't start carrying the team like he has for a few years into his career.  He had time to develop and continue the winning because of the super bowl roster that was in place around him.

Nah, not really. I wasn't comparing 2000 Brady to current Brady. You're making that connection. Same general case as rookie year Rothlisberger who won a Super Bowl. He definitely wasn't the Rothlisberger he grew into, and even then I gave him little credit because of the excellent team around him. Since then I'm forced to credit Rothlisberger as an excellent and HOF deserving player. 

HOWEVER, Connor Cook compares favorably to neither. And that was and is the crux of my argument. They did what they had to do to win games, which is manage not to f it up and to execute the needed things to get the game won. Despite a QB who might have poor numbers, as these guys might have in their rookie and early years, it is incredibly overlooked that they absolutely contribute to allowing their teams to win games. You can see the distinction only when you see a guy like Cook go into an important game and fail to execute all of the key plays throughout the game, minor key plays and major ones. They did, Cook didn't. To discredit their quality by saying Cook's situation was somehow unfair is to unfairly raise Cook above what he is and diminish the others. Which is a guy who is terribly unlikely to emerge any time soon, and who does not show NFL starter capacity nor high level backup capacity. 

Before Brady and Rothlisberger were the QBs they became, the best thing they were able to do was play within their limitations, execute as needed, minimize errors, and let the team win. That is NOT a small or meaningless thing. It is much harder than it is credited as. But fans love stats so that becomes an afterthought. 

Cook should be jubilant to be compared to the Brady that was "at best Andy Dalton". Because as of right now he's not one inch above Andrew Walter until further notice. And not that it's relevant, but Dalton isn't a good comparison. He racks some stats but never wins the key ones. A slightly better comp would be Rookie Rothlisberger, or even 2002 Brad Johnson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manuel is the best bet for the backup job. He earned it last year over Cook, he's got the most experience, and physically he's the most gifted of the 3.

Cook is nothing special imo and Hack doesnt belong in the NFL. Nothing he did in college ever suggested otherwise either. Dont know what people think we're gonna find in him.

All that said, ill be really worried about our offense if Carr gets hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, holyghost said:

Nah, not really. I wasn't comparing 2000 Brady to current Brady. You're making that connection. Same general case as rookie year Rothlisberger who won a Super Bowl. He definitely wasn't the Rothlisberger he grew into, and even then I gave him little credit because of the excellent team around him. Since then I'm forced to credit Rothlisberger as an excellent and HOF deserving player. 

HOWEVER, Connor Cook compares favorably to neither. And that was and is the crux of my argument. They did what they had to do to win games, which is manage not to f it up and to execute the needed things to get the game won. Despite a QB who might have poor numbers, as these guys might have in their rookie and early years, it is incredibly overlooked that they absolutely contribute to allowing their teams to win games. You can see the distinction only when you see a guy like Cook go into an important game and fail to execute all of the key plays throughout the game, minor key plays and major ones. They did, Cook didn't. To discredit their quality by saying Cook's situation was somehow unfair is to unfairly raise Cook above what he is and diminish the others. Which is a guy who is terribly unlikely to emerge any time soon, and who does not show NFL starter capacity nor high level backup capacity. 

Before Brady and Rothlisberger were the QBs they became, the best thing they were able to do was play within their limitations, execute as needed, minimize errors, and let the team win. That is NOT a small or meaningless thing. It is much harder than it is credited as. But fans love stats so that becomes an afterthought. 

Cook should be jubilant to be compared to the Brady that was "at best Andy Dalton". Because as of right now he's not one inch above Andrew Walter until further notice. And not that it's relevant, but Dalton isn't a good comparison. He racks some stats but never wins the key ones. A slightly better comp would be Rookie Rothlisberger, or even 2002 Brad Johnson.

Well I agree with everything you're saying.  My lone point was about the Brady comparison.  It is a valid comparison because of where Brady came from and where he was drafted.  No one in the league thought anything of him. Not even BB. That's why it's such a great draft story, because you know he was skipped 198 times by all 32 teams.  It may have just been the way I read it, but you're opening line "It's hard for me to even reply to this. You're using as a reference perhaps the best QB ever to play. And somehow relating that to Connor Cook." speaks like there is no comparison(which you've stuck to).  My point was only that Brady was not Brady, until he was Brady :) .  Cook may never amount to anything, but Brady may never have either if not for Bledsoe getting hurt.  It's easy to say now how great Brady is.  Back then, he was a 6th round pick for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow, can we quit quibbling about backup QBs and rejoice that all reports are that the team is refreshed and buying in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Silver&Black88 said:

Holy cow, can we quit quibbling about backup QBs and rejoice that all reports are that the team is refreshed and buying in?

As much as I like this post, I’d like to point out it’s still may. Last year reports where fairly positive especially coming off of a playoff appearance. Could be hype because of who Gruden is or this could be the real thing. All I know is that  we won’t know anything until that first Monday night in LA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Chali21 said:

As much as I like this post, I’d like to point out it’s still may. Last year reports where fairly positive especially coming off of a playoff appearance. Could be hype because of who Gruden is or this could be the real thing. All I know is that  we won’t know anything until that first Monday night in LA. 

I don't know. I'm excited thinking about the kind of offense we can possess if it gels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silver&Black88 said:

I don't know. I'm excited thinking about the kind of offense we can possess if it gels.

There also 31 other teams excited about what they could do this year and all of them think they have improved.  We should all be optimistic right now because we have change in one of the most needed areas from last year (Coaching) but it does not mean we will improve year one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Silver&Black88 said:

Holy cow, can we quit quibbling about backup QBs and rejoice that all reports are that the team is refreshed and buying in?

Just joining in the convo that is presented.  Got a different topic to discuss? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, true2form said:

Just joining in the convo that is presented.  Got a different topic to discuss? ;)

I just suggested the offense but @drfrey13decided to go full Negative Nancy 😂

 

Seriously there's so many to discuss:

- Doug Martin possibly not being bad

- Mack's lack of a contract extension

- Gareon Conley apparently looking good and being healthy

- Jared Cook taking a subtle shot at the old staff

- Coop, Nelson, Roberts all being hurt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll believe the hype when I see it with Doug Martin. Every RB should look good in OTAs, if you dont then there's a problem. He looked done last year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Silver&Black88 said:

I just suggested the offense but @drfrey13decided to go full Negative Nancy 😂

 

Seriously there's so many to discuss:

- Doug Martin possibly not being bad

- Mack's lack of a contract extension

- Gareon Conley apparently looking good and being healthy

- Jared Cook taking a subtle shot at the old staff

- Coop, Nelson, Roberts all being hurt

Sorry, just a little cautious after getting excited last year to get kicked in the teeth again.  I still see some red flags and areas that we keep ignoring.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard we may even use playaction this year fellas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×