Jump to content

Media obsession with putting Rodgers in the GOAT convo

King Joffrey

By King Joffrey
in NFL General

Recommended Posts

7DnBrnc53

7DnBrnc53

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, lancerman said:

The Cleveland Belichick played in is NOT the current Cleveland Browns. Belichick coached the team that effectively became the Ravens and won a Super Bowl about 5 years later. The coach in Cleveland two years prior to Belichick had more playoff wins than him and 3 of the 4 coaches immediately preceding him all took them to playoffs. The current Browns team is a glorified expansion team and it's not the team Belichick coached. In fact there's a real argument that Belichick is legitimately the least successful longterm coach of the original Cleveland Browns (there's like two guys with a lower win percentage than him and one was a replacement after a coach got fired and the other lasted like a season or two). 

The team that Belichick was coaching isn't the current Browns, but they were pretty bad when he took over (3-13 in 1990). He got them moving in the right direction, and they went to the playoffs in 1994. Brady fans don't seem to give him credit for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
footbull3196

footbull3196

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Broncofan said:

To be fair, if you put ARod with BB there are at least 2-3 SB’s.   BB is a 3-4 WAR coach.  

You put Brady with McCarthy he may have remained the backup his whole career and I’d be married to Gisele.   Ok the last part is a stretch.  :D

(But seriously McCarthy is a -2 to -3 WAR coach).

Meh, I wouldnt necessarily say that.  Crazier things have happened right

Anyways, Rodgers is already a top 10 QB of all time.  People put Favre as a top 10 QB of all time and I believe that Rodgers plays the position so much more efficiently than Favre.  Rodgers has always had to go against Brady and Manning and Brees throughout his entire career to be considered the best QB in the game, and yet he's done so and thrived.  Favre had an aging Steve Young as his best competition in the mid to late 90s and that was about as close as anyone got to touching him, but that said less about how good he was and more about how inferior the rest of the competition at QB was.  Yeah, Favre had a good number of 4th quarter comebacks, but he was way too much of a gunslinger.  You couldnt trust him with the ball in his hands with the game on the line when it mattered most because he would ruin his own team for it time after time after time.  Rodgers has never really had any moments where he's screwed the pooch other than the 2009 wild card game against Arizona where he just missed a wide open Greg Jennings on the first play of OT and then got strip sacked for the game winning touchdown by Karlos Dansby

Link to comment
Share on other sites
footbull3196

footbull3196

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

The team that Belichick was coaching isn't the current Browns, but they were pretty bad when he took over (3-13 in 1990). He got them moving in the right direction, and they went to the playoffs in 1994. Brady fans don't seem to give him credit for that.

They even won a playoff game.  Over (who else of course) the Patriots

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkippyX

SkippyX

Posted
Posted

Belichick and Brady are each the greatest at what they do.

If you think that their association diminishes any of them then you are trying to hard for the hot take.

 

Joe Montana was the greatest QB before Brady came along.

  • He beat the Giants in the 1984 playoffs 21-10 on the way to his second Super Bowl.

Belichick took over the Giants D the next season and they played 3 more times in the playoffs.

  • Montana faced that Belichick D in the 85, 86, and 90 playoffs and SF scored 3, 3, and 13 points, with Joe getting injured twice.
  • Belichick's game plan vs Buffalo went into the Hall of Fame because it was perfection.

He was great before Brady entered the league.

 

The 'Brady's teams / defense were so good argument is flawed

The 2001 team was 11-5 and a 14 point underdog. (and had a worse defense than the Steelers or Rams)

The 2004 team had to play the AFCCG on the road vs a 15-1 team and then had to beat a team that was 13-1 before they rested starters.

Brady faces great defenses in the playoffs at least as often as he has them on his side.

'01 Rams, '01 Steelers,  '04 Steelers, '04 Eagles, '11 Ravens, '14 Seahawks, '16 Texans, '15 Broncos, '17 Eagles

His team has been a mess for the last 2 years but they win because he is amazing.

  • LaAdrian Waddle is playing serious minutes at tackle
  • James White and Kenjon Barner might be the least impressive RB corps in the league right now.
  • Every single one of his current WRs were unwanted by the rest of the league. (except maybe Dorsett?)
  • That D can't stop anybody (except the Bills)

 

Another classic flawed argument is that Brady's team was good enough to go 11-5 without him in 2008.

  • The facts are that they went 16-0 with him and then got to the Super Bowl.
  • That means Brady's WAR was 5.0 (or 7.0) in a 16+postseason game league.
  • His detractors are pointing out one of the most impressive things about Brady and trying to use it against him in their ignorance.

The problem with the concept of WAR is that the replacement guy has to be league average.

  • Its fair to say the Cassel is at least close to a league average QB.

These QBs are being compared to players who are far worse than average NFL QBs.

  • Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck being 8 or 9 games better than Painter/Orlovsky/39 year-old Collins
  • Rodgers being 2 games better than Hundley or 3 games better than Flynn/Tolzien/Wallace

The other side would be trying to come up with a WAR for Montana when his replacement was also a Hall of Fame QB in Young.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lancerman

lancerman

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

The team that Belichick was coaching isn't the current Browns, but they were pretty bad when he took over (3-13 in 1990). He got them moving in the right direction, and they went to the playoffs in 1994. Brady fans don't seem to give him credit for that.

He does get credit for going to the playoffs. He gets far more credit than he deserves for that single playoff appearance. The Browns went to and won a playoff game literally two seasons before Belichick got there and that was the 5th consecutive playoff appearance for the team. So Belichick inherited a team that went to the playoffs 5 years in a row followed by one subpar season. They also won playoff games in 3 of those 5 years. Belichick took that team and went 1/5 in winning seasons. Then that franchise became the Ravens and they literally won a Super Bowl 5 years later and have made the playoffs more times than not ever since. 

It's kind of overstated what he did because people associate the current Browns with the team Belichick coached. 

Like if you take that actual franchise, Belichick finished with a .450 win percentage. 

Paul Brown had an over .700 win percentage

Blanton Collier had a .690 win percentage

Nick Skorich had a 535 win percentage

Sam Rutigliano had a .485

Marty Schottenheimer had a .690 win percentage. 

Bud Carson had a .460 win percentage. 

So in the whole Browns franchise up to that point only Forest Gregg had a worse win percentage than Belichick. 

Then they became the Ravens and....

Brian Billick had a .556 win percentage

John Harbaugh has a .590 win percentage. 

(Marchibroda was the only bad one)

So like literally only two coaches were actually outright worse win percentage wise for that franchise. It's just not a great argument to prop up his run with the Browns for one 11-5 season and 1 playoff win

Link to comment
Share on other sites
uk9erfan

uk9erfan

Posted
Posted

The G.O.A.T argument is fun but ultimately pointless.  All these great QBs played in different eras or with a different surrounding support cast of players.

They also played when the game was different, less pass oriented, more run oriented, and vice versa today.  The rules were different too.  The argument

for one being better than another because of how many titles they won is nonsense.  Is Otto Graham better than Tom Brady because he was on seven title winning teams to Brady's five?

'Defense wins championships', it always has.  

And last time I checked none of these QBs ever played defense.  It's a team game - probably the ultimate one.  They're all great QBs in their own way and for their own reasons.

Marino's incredible quick release and pocket presence.  Montana's incredibly calm efficiency under pressure (see also Tom Brady).  Rodger's amazing ability to throw from any angle into the tightest windows.  Pick your fave thing about each one.  It doesn't make one better than the other.  And some really great QBs get forgotten because of this argument.  Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Terry Bradshaw to name but a few.

The only irony about the statement that 'defense wins championships' is that I think we are now in an era where offense will win championships because defense is not being allowed to play the way it used to be and should be.  It would not surprise me at all to see the Super Bowl decided in effect by a really dubious pass interference call on a defender..

Anyway, speech over, let the argument continue...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TecmoSuperJoe

TecmoSuperJoe

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, uk9erfan said:

The G.O.A.T argument is fun but ultimately pointless.  All these great QBs played in different eras or with a different surrounding support cast of players.

They also played when the game was different, less pass oriented, more run oriented, and vice versa today.  The rules were different too.  The argument

for one being better than another because of how many titles they won is nonsense.  Is Otto Graham better than Tom Brady because he was on seven title winning teams to Brady's five?

'Defense wins championships', it always has.  

And last time I checked none of these QBs ever played defense.  It's a team game - probably the ultimate one.  They're all great QBs in their own way and for their own reasons.

Marino's incredible quick release and pocket presence.  Montana's incredibly calm efficiency under pressure (see also Tom Brady).  Rodger's amazing ability to throw from any angle into the tightest windows.  Pick your fave thing about each one.  It doesn't make one better than the other.  And some really great QBs get forgotten because of this argument.  Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Terry Bradshaw to name but a few.

The only irony about the statement that 'defense wins championships' is that I think we are now in an era where offense will win championships because defense is not being allowed to play the way it used to be and should be.  It would not surprise me at all to see the Super Bowl decided in effect by a really dubious pass interference call on a defender..

Anyway, speech over, let the argument continue...

 

 

Great response. The thread should end on this point here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danger

Danger

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Broncofan said:

To be fair, if you put ARod with BB there are at least 2-3 SB’s.   BB is a 3-4 WAR coach.  

You put Brady with McCarthy he may have remained the backup his whole career and I’d be married to Gisele.   Ok the last part is a stretch.  :D

(But seriously McCarthy is a -2 to -3 WAR coach).

That's 100% inaccurate. Tom Brady is the carry of that team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
7DnBrnc53

7DnBrnc53

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, lancerman said:

Blanton Collier had a .690 win percentage

Nick Skorich had a 535 win percentage

Sam Rutigliano had a .485

Marty Schottenheimer had a .690 win percentage. 

Bud Carson had a .460 win percentage. 

So in the whole Browns franchise up to that point only Forest Gregg had a worse win percentage than Belichick. 

Those coaches took over better teams than Belichick did. For example, the Browns were 9-5 and 6-8 in the two years before Rutigliano took over. And, Bud Carson took over a team that had been to the playoffs four straight years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lancerman

lancerman

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Those coaches took over better teams than Belichick did. For example, the Browns were 9-5 and 6-8 in the two years before Rutigliano took over. And, Bud Carson took over a team that had been to the playoffs four straight years.

The Browns went to the playoffs 5 out of the 6 previous years before Belichick. 

He literally has one of the three worst win percentages in that franchises history 

I don’t need to hear a story about how the great Bill Belichick ressurected the franchise because in 5 years he had one winning season. 

It’s super revionnist to prob up Belichick to diminish Brady 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...