Jump to content

The Tom Brady Thread


BayRaider

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Disagree. You are clearly measuring by championships only which is flawed. Jordans six titles were flawless. 

That's one way to look at it but OTOH Brady has almost 20 freaking full years of excellence in his sport. He has been winning from the get go and didn't take years of.

Now, I wont say anyone's on a team sport is bigger than MJ because MJ single handily made NBA a global success. He was magical for people all over the world. I know it's not related to athletic achievements but that should count. Dude transformed a league and was paid peanuts (compared to what he generated and still generates) while doing it lol;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

If you mean ALL sports, check out Don Bradman (cricket). In cricket if you average 45 or above, you're probably an elite batsman. The sport now is catered for batting (more protection, bigger bats, fielding restrictions etc), the best batsman averages about 55. Bradman played in an era where they didn't have helmets and could (and did) target the head. He averaged just shy of 100, and the reason he didn't average 100 was one series with England where they actually tried to kill him. It was known as the 'bodyline' series. But it is cricket, like I said :D 

The two sporting moments I wish I could change ever so slightly (and not involving teams I support) are Bradman getting the 4 runs he needed in his final test to finish with a test average of 100, and Tom Watson pulling off the 2009 Open. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wwhickok said:

My only comment here is this...

It was mostly Brady and not mostly Belichick. If that's not clear by now... I mean, idk what else to tell you

I agree with this, but this year isn’t a good indication. Brady hasn’t been on a Patriots team as bad as this one ever and it’s likely a big reason he left. But yes it was always more Brady. Belichick have them a high floor. Brady gave them the high ceiling that got them over the top. We probably have two titles instead of 6 without Brady if you put in another serviceable franchise QB. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2020 at 6:22 AM, LaFellSBXLIXMVP said:

That's one way to look at it but OTOH Brady has almost 20 freaking full years of excellence in his sport. He has been winning from the get go and didn't take years of.

20 years of excellence? In the early SB years, his passer ratings were about the same as Kurt Warner's were in his lone season in New York. Without an elite talent to throw to, he usually has put up ratings in the 80's and low-90's. He also has had a weak division that has handed him the division every year. Comparing Brady to MJ as an all-time athlete (and, I don't think that MJ should have been the #1 athlete by ESPN on their 20th century lists. There are several athletes that were better, like Jim Thorpe, Babe Didrickson-Zaharias, Wilt Chamberlain, and Carl Lewis) is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

20 years of excellence? In the early SB years, his passer ratings were about the same as Kurt Warner's were in his lone season in New York.

You know the passing rules were changed in 2004, which led to a steady climb in passer ratings league-wide, right? Even in his first 3 years as a starter, Brady's PR was well above the league average. 

Quote

Without an elite talent to throw to, he usually has put up ratings in the 80's and low-90's.

And? Name a QB playing right now who does better without quality receivers. 

Quote

He also has had a weak division that has handed him the division every year.

Just flat out not true. And even if it were, what would it matter when the guy had NINE Super Bowl appearances. 

You're grasping at straws even more than usual.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

20 years of excellence? In the early SB years, his passer ratings were about the same as Kurt Warner's were in his lone season in New York. Without an elite talent to throw to, he usually has put up ratings in the 80's and low-90's. He also has had a weak division that has handed him the division every year. Comparing Brady to MJ as an all-time athlete (and, I don't think that MJ should have been the #1 athlete by ESPN on their 20th century lists. There are several athletes that were better, like Jim Thorpe, Babe Didrickson-Zaharias, Wilt Chamberlain, and Carl Lewis) is a joke.

that doesn't even make sense. even if it were true, brady and the pats still had to face the best teams in the league in the playoff/superbowl. if they can beat them in the playoffs, what makes you think brady/pats wouldn't crush the other divisions too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wwhickok said:

My only comment here is this...

It was mostly Brady and not mostly Belichick. If that's not clear by now... I mean, idk what else to tell you

Again, I don't think it's quite that simple. Belichick could succeed without Brady when he had a competitive team constructed around whatever other QB he had. He doesn't have that this year for a variety of reasons. The 2021 team will look very different from the 2020 team and could very well be a contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Starless said:

You know the passing rules were changed in 2004, which led to a steady climb in passer ratings league-wide, right? Even in his first 3 years as a starter, Brady's PR was well above the league average. 

Yeah. However, he had a rating of below 90 two years later with practically no weapons.

 

21 minutes ago, Starless said:

Just flat out not true. And even if it were, what would it matter when the guy had NINE Super Bowl appearances. 

You're grasping at straws even more than usual.

From 2001-19, the other three AFC East teams only won five playoff games (all by the Jets, who only got as far as they did because the Colts allowed them to in 2009 and 10). They also combined to have 50 different QB's start at least one game for them, and have around 20 different head coaches. If that's not failure, I don't know what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Asciimo said:

that doesn't even make sense. even if it were true, brady and the pats still had to face the best teams in the league in the playoff/superbowl. if they can beat them in the playoffs, what makes you think brady/pats wouldn't crush the other divisions too?

Brady and the Pats beat beat Tebow, the Texans with Osweiler, and the below-average 13 and 14 Colts in the playoffs. Not exactly quality opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Yeah. However, he had a rating of below 90 two years later with practically no weapons.

Yeah... AND? 

Quote

From 2001-19, the other three AFC East teams only won five playoff games (all by the Jets, who only got as far as they did because the Colts allowed them to in 2009 and 10). They also combined to have 50 different QB's start at least one game for them, and have around 20 different head coaches. If that's not failure, I don't know what is.

There were only three seasons in that span that the 2nd place team in the AFCE had a sub-.500 record. The division produced 10 wild card teams in that span, which is literally the league average, and had 3 other instances of the 2nd place team finishing 10-6 or better without making the playoffs. 

Compare that to the AFC North, which is typically considered the most consistently competitive division in the league over that span. The AFCN (since 2002, when the 8-division alignment was created) has produced the same number of WC teams (10), (and also the Ravens were a wild card in 2001 when they were still in the AFC Central, so that makes 11) and had the second-place team finish 10-6 or better one other time. 

 

Edited by Starless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Brady and the Pats beat beat Tebow, the Texans with Osweiler, and the below-average 13 and 14 Colts in the playoffs. Not exactly quality opponents.

bro... If you want to pick cherries, go to upstate NY in late June and do it there. This isn't the place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Brady and the Pats beat beat Tebow, the Texans with Osweiler, and the below-average 13 and 14 Colts in the playoffs. Not exactly quality opponents.

so you're saying the pats would've crushed the afc west and afc south in those years. I'm glad we can agree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 of the 11 teams to which the Pats lost in the playoffs '05 to '19 ended up winning the Super Bowl. 

They beat 11 teams that were either 1st or 2nd seeds from '01 to '19, and 15 teams that went 12-4 or better in the regular season. In 2004 they defeated the teams with the #1 offense (IND), #1 defense (PIT) and #2 defense (PHI) en route to a championship - something no team has done since then. They've also bounced 7 NFL MVPs from the playoffs. 

But yeah, they've had it easy this whole time. 🙄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Brady and the Pats beat beat Tebow, the Texans with Osweiler, and the below-average 13 and 14 Colts in the playoffs. Not exactly quality opponents.

They also beat 

-the GSOT

-Legion of Boom

-2004 record breaking Cokes 

- the 15-1 2004 Steelers 

-the Chiefs in Mahomes break out year 

-the Falcons in Ryan’s record breaking year 

-the peak Andy Reid Eagles

-the 2006 Chargers at LT’s peak 

Like lol what is your point? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...