|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Nov 19, 2019 23:06:22 GMT
Yeah but that was during college and forcing a woman to sniff your balls doesn’t really do anything to affect one’s on field performance, so it doesn’t count. Or at least I’m not going to count it. He never deflated footballs or spied on another team. And he’s not a system QB. How does having class and making funny commercials have anything to do with on-field performance? Because that's what you brought up when you said Peyton was better than Brady. Meh, I'm just fucking around anyway. I don't really give a shit about arguing which QB is better.
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 19, 2019 23:29:05 GMT
How does having class and making funny commercials have anything to do with on-field performance? Because that's what you brought up when you said Peyton was better than Brady. Meh, I'm just fucking around anyway. I don't really give a shit about arguing which QB is better. So you broke your mic and computer for nothing when you dropped them? Well, at least you got that guy to break his phone so I guess your argument might count for something?
|
|
|
Tom Brady
Nov 19, 2019 23:30:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 19, 2019 23:30:09 GMT
That suggests there's some kind of system. I get the argument that Brady is more crucial to the success than Belichick, but to discount either of them is asinine. They're both much better for having worked together. How does that suggest a system? Cassel inherited a team that had an all time offense the previous season and had an established culture of winning. With all that, he lost five more regular season games than Brady did the previous year. The Patriots went 5-11 the year before Brady became a starter, and they were 0-2 when he became a starter. He went 11-3 as a starter and went on to win the Super Bowl.
What system was Belichick running as he racked up a 41-57 record as a head coach pre-Brady?
It suggests a system because they still won 11 games after losing the player who is being argued as the best ever the drop off is pretty god damn minimal, especially when we are talking about the drop off in quarterback. If the difference between the greatest who has ever played and a footnote in NFL history is 18 and 1 to 10 and 5; then yes, that suggests a successful system. I get the argument for Brady being more important, but the idea that you could put anyone in Belichick's place and it wouldn't make a difference is as absurd as expecting that you could put anyone into Brady's place and they could replicate going 18 and 1. P.S. What an original topic we have going here.
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 19, 2019 23:30:17 GMT
Brady ain’t shit. My ten year old son with cerebral palsy could play QB better than him. The only reason people say Tom Brady is the GOAT is because he won six Super Bowls. If he only won three, people would be saying it’s still Joe Montana or Peyton Manning. *mic drop* Yes, but he didn't win 3, he's won 6, and potentially more. *phone drop* We didn't need the double check on gravity since we already knew it was working when he dropped his mic.
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 19, 2019 23:32:28 GMT
Cheating accusations aside(believe me, there is nary a player that doesn't try to skirt the rules to gain an advantage. The halls of fame are filled with cheaters), how did he become what some consider the GOAT? He wasn't spectacular in college. In fact, he wasn't a starter until his junior year and his numbers are pedestrian at that. So, the question is, would he have been successful anywhere else or is he a system QB? Personally, I think 2 things here: either he's a product of a genius system or he sold his soul to the devil. There really isn't much middle ground. For the system, Matt Cassel went 11-5 but let's say Brady was drafted by Denver or Pittsburgh or some other team that became contenders at the time, would he be wearing 6 rings? Mind you, Belichick is not an offensive mind. He's been a defensive coach pretty much his entire career and his offensive coordinators have been pillaged by other teams to be head coaches so are they, and Brady able to stay on top for so long? You cannot set aside his cheating to bring him up in conversations of him being the GOAT. Only reason why he is the bogus GOAT is because of his cheating.
|
|
|
Tom Brady
Nov 19, 2019 23:41:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Nov 19, 2019 23:41:52 GMT
Meh, I'm just fucking around anyway. I don't really give a shit about arguing which QB is better. So you broke your mic and computer for nothing when you dropped them? Well, at least you got that guy to break his phone so I guess your argument might count for something? I actually borrowed someone else’s mic and computer. Had they known I intended to drop them they probably wouldn’t have lent them to me. But what they don’t know won’t hurt them.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 20, 2019 0:28:32 GMT
How does that suggest a system? Cassel inherited a team that had an all time offense the previous season and had an established culture of winning. With all that, he lost five more regular season games than Brady did the previous year. The Patriots went 5-11 the year before Brady became a starter, and they were 0-2 when he became a starter. He went 11-3 as a starter and went on to win the Super Bowl.
What system was Belichick running as he racked up a 41-57 record as a head coach pre-Brady?
It suggests a system because they still won 11 games after losing the player who is being argued as the best ever the drop off is pretty god damn minimal, especially when we are talking about the drop off in quarterback. If the difference between the greatest who has ever played and a footnote in NFL history is 18 and 1 to 10 and 5; then yes, that suggests a successful system. I get the argument for Brady being more important, but the idea that you could put anyone in Belichick's place and it wouldn't make a difference is as absurd as expecting that you could put anyone into Brady's place and they could replicate going 18 and 1. There are 16 games in a season and a drop off of 5 games, basically a third of a season of losses is minimal? Ok. If it's so minimal why didn't they just keep Cassel? They brought in some serious offensive firepower to compliment Brady and all he did was throw 50 TDs and go 18-1. Cassel went 11-5 and threw 21 TDs-- 5 more losses and less than half the production on offense. That isn't a significant drop off? And for the record, I didn't say you could replace Belichick with anyone. But he's far less important. I started an entire thread on this topic a couple weeks ago. Here are some bullet points:
- As stated earlier, Belichick had a career losing record as a head coach before Tom Brady, and that included having all-pro Drew Bledsoe for a season. Where was his system then? He started winning championships when Brady became his starter. Again, 5-11 the previous season, 0-2 that season; enter Brady 11-3 in the regular season and a Super Bowl championship.
- Brady has the second most 4th qtr comebacks in history. If his defense is always so great, why is he always coming back in the 4th qtr? Brady's career passing yds and TDs suggest the Patriots weren't hurting for offense all this time.
- The Patriots made it to Super Bowl 46 with the 31st ranked defense in the league, the lowest ranked defense to ever make a Super Bowl. What did Belichick contribute that season, and they made it to the Super Bowl anyway.
- Why has the Belichick coaching tree been a total failure? None of his assistants have come close to replicating the success they had here, with Brady on their team. Belichick, as mentioned earlier, has not come close to replicating the success he's had with Brady.
Look at Brady's career path starting in college. He started out 7th on the depth chart and worked himself into the backup role. He got jerked in and out of games and kept bringing the team back during the Henson fiasco. He finally earned the starter's role and again he excelled, culminating in a bowl game against Alabama where he led them back from two TDs down twice. Do you see a trend forming here? Maybe the guy rises to the challenge and keeps getting better?
Fast forward to 2001. Absolutely a game manager. That's what they asked him to do, that's what he did. Even in that season, there's a clip of Bledsoe asking him what plays he liked, and Brady names off a bunch of plays, and Bledsoe jokes about Brady wanting to air it out. He knew what he could do. So after a dink and dunk Super Bowl winning drive, they make it back to the Super Bowl two years later and all Brady does is lead the Patriots to 18 points in the 4th qtr alone (because the defense had given up 19 in the 4th qtr alone). Maybe that's when the light came on for Belichick, and he realized Brady could do anything asked of him?
So for the next 15 years he's been lighting up scoreboards, coming back from 25 down in Super Bowls, taking the worst defense in the league to a Super Bowl, coming back in the 4th qtr 35 times, and so on. Brady had instant success in the NFL. Instant. As soon as he took the field, his team started winning games including the Super Bowl his first year as a starter. He's won as a game manager, and later as one of the most prolific passers in history (again, what was that system?). Meanwhile, Belichick's success as a head coach began...when Brady became his QB. That fact is inescapable. Cassel inherited a culture of winning built by Brady and accomplished nothing. Brady inherited a culture of losing and won a Super Bowl. Both had Belichick as a head coach.
I know I'm on an island with this argument and I always will be. I respect your opinion and if I hadn't spent this much time thinking about it I'd probably think I was crazy, too. But there are two sides to the argument (well, not counting 'selling your soul' or 'Brady ain't shit' or whatever else has been said in this thread). Pro-Brady and pro-Belichick. It's sports so it's all conjecture and nothing can ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But of the two sides to this argument, the raw data only backs up one case, and it sure as hell isn't Belichick's.
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Nov 20, 2019 0:30:43 GMT
Meh, I'm just fucking around anyway. I don't really give a shit about arguing which QB is better. So you broke your mic and computer for nothing when you dropped them? Well, at least you got that guy to break his phone so I guess your argument might count for something? Let's see if the phone still works..... I went to Google, typed in the word "moron", and WarrenPeace came up. Yep, phone still works!
|
|
njcardfan
Sophomore
@njcardfan
Posts: 628
Likes: 353
|
Post by njcardfan on Nov 20, 2019 1:02:45 GMT
Cheating accusations aside(believe me, there is nary a player that doesn't try to skirt the rules to gain an advantage. The halls of fame are filled with cheaters), how did he become what some consider the GOAT? He wasn't spectacular in college. In fact, he wasn't a starter until his junior year and his numbers are pedestrian at that. So, the question is, would he have been successful anywhere else or is he a system QB? Personally, I think 2 things here: either he's a product of a genius system or he sold his soul to the devil. There really isn't much middle ground. For the system, Matt Cassel went 11-5 but let's say Brady was drafted by Denver or Pittsburgh or some other team that became contenders at the time, would he be wearing 6 rings? Mind you, Belichick is not an offensive mind. He's been a defensive coach pretty much his entire career and his offensive coordinators have been pillaged by other teams to be head coaches so are they, and Brady able to stay on top for so long? You cannot set aside his cheating to bring him up in conversations of him being the GOAT. Only reason why he is the bogus GOAT is because of his cheating. And you're being both a hater and intellectually dishonest. He was caught "cheating" once in his career and really, was it that egregious? This would be like a player getting suspended for a banned substance even if all he took was an OTC supplement that contained a trace of said substance. The ball boys lowered the air pressure of the balls less than a pound PSI and if we're being honest, in a game where the final score was 45-7, Brady could have been playing with a brick and they'd still have beaten Indy.
|
|
njcardfan
Sophomore
@njcardfan
Posts: 628
Likes: 353
|
Post by njcardfan on Nov 20, 2019 1:13:59 GMT
It suggests a system because they still won 11 games after losing the player who is being argued as the best ever the drop off is pretty god damn minimal, especially when we are talking about the drop off in quarterback. If the difference between the greatest who has ever played and a footnote in NFL history is 18 and 1 to 10 and 5; then yes, that suggests a successful system. I get the argument for Brady being more important, but the idea that you could put anyone in Belichick's place and it wouldn't make a difference is as absurd as expecting that you could put anyone into Brady's place and they could replicate going 18 and 1. <snip>
You guys are making my argument for me. It's like Mike Trout. Mike Trout was good in high school, good enough to get scouted and drafted in the first round, but he wasn't best player on the planet good. Even his minor and fall league numbers are slightly above average. It wasn't until he came up when he started hitting homeruns. Anyhoo, as I stated above, Brady's numbers in college were pedestrian at best. Middle of the road. Then he comes to the NFL and becomes the GOAT. It's a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 20, 2019 2:31:36 GMT
So you broke your mic and computer for nothing when you dropped them? Well, at least you got that guy to break his phone so I guess your argument might count for something? Let's see if the phone still works..... I went to Google, typed in the word "moron", and WarrenPeace came up. Yep, phone still works! This from a guy who somehow counts playing open mics in coffeehouses as "concerts." And gets butthurt that not enough were "paying attention" because he thinks he is too good for them. "My open mic performances were the best ever! Too bad no one listened to me! Derpderp!" LMAO! So no way am I able to take what you dish at me personally or seriously.
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Nov 20, 2019 3:08:31 GMT
Let's see if the phone still works..... I went to Google, typed in the word "moron", and WarrenPeace came up. Yep, phone still works! This from a guy who somehow counts playing open mics in coffeehouses as "concerts." And gets butthurt that not enough were "paying attention" because he thinks he is too good for them. "My open mic performances were the best ever! Too bad no one listened to me! Derpderp!" LMAO! So no way am I able to take what you dish at me personally or seriously. Humor isn't one of your strong suits.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 20, 2019 3:30:13 GMT
You guys are making my argument for me. It's like Mike Trout. Mike Trout was good in high school, good enough to get scouted and drafted in the first round, but he wasn't best player on the planet good. Even his minor and fall league numbers are slightly above average. It wasn't until he came up when he started hitting homeruns. Anyhoo, as I stated above, Brady's numbers in college were pedestrian at best. Middle of the road. Then he comes to the NFL and becomes the GOAT. It's a mystery. It is a mystery. Tom Brady is possibly the most fascinating athlete in history for that very reason. Look at this thread. Nobody ever asks if other athletes were great because of a system, they just accept that they were great. Manning, Montana, Jordan, LeBron, Gretzky, Lemieux, Ruth, Mays. People debate how much their supporting casts helped them win rings, but nobody (except haters, everyone has haters) questions their individual greatness-- except Tom Brady. You don't come across as a hater, yet here you are asking if he's the product of a system.
The GOAT isn't supposed to be drafted 199th, so people just can't wrap their minds around it. They make up excuses for his success.
Spygate- The Patriots dug their own grave with this one, but I still want to know how the cameras brought them three titles and yet didn't seem to work in 2002 when they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs, or in 2005 and 2006. Yet Brady and the Patriots actually saw their winning percentage increase in the years after Spygate, and they eventually won three more titles. So much for that theory.
Deflategate- Multiple national publications have debunked Deflategate, and Brady's stats improved across the board the year after Deflategate accusations (from 2014 to 2015), when the balls were supposedly no longer being tampered with. (Not to mention the Patriots once again had the fewest fumbles in the league in 2015.) So much for that theory.
It's the Belichick system - I thoroughly explored this earlier in the thread, but to recap, Brady has had multiple OC's and a head coach known for defense not offense, and none of them have had success without Brady. So much for that theory.
Goodell and the NFL are rigging things for the Patriots - See the above link about the corrupt Deflategate investigation and tell me the league is doing them favors. And as for the 'easy schedule' argument, here is the formula that is used for every team's schedule, and here is how the Patriots do against every division in football (they win at the same rate). So much for that theory.
I can't think of another professional athlete that people go out of their way to invent narratives as to why they're not great. People will say so-and-so is better, but nobody ever says they straight up aren't any good and are only the product of a system. It's incredible.
One of my favorite aspects of Brady's career is that he isn't a product of hype. He had to earn it, maybe that's why he's still motivated at age 42? As I pointed out earlier, his college career mirrors his professional success. When given the opportunity to excel, he makes the most of it. Tell him to be a game manager and he wins the Super Bowl as a first year starter. Rely more on the offense and he starts putting up numbers. Hand him Randy Moss and Wes Welker and he goes 16-0 and throws 50 TD passes. Put him down 10 in the 4th qtr of the Super Bowl against the defending champion Seahawks and their #1 defense and he leads two TD drives to win. Put him down 25 late in the third qtr of a Super Bowl and he comes back to win. Winning is in his DNA. He proved it at Michigan and he keeps proving it in the NFL year after year.
How is he this good? I have no idea. But nobody else needs a reason for their greatness, so I don't bother asking in his case, either.
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Nov 20, 2019 3:37:00 GMT
You guys are making my argument for me. It's like Mike Trout. Mike Trout was good in high school, good enough to get scouted and drafted in the first round, but he wasn't best player on the planet good. Even his minor and fall league numbers are slightly above average. It wasn't until he came up when he started hitting homeruns. Anyhoo, as I stated above, Brady's numbers in college were pedestrian at best. Middle of the road. Then he comes to the NFL and becomes the GOAT. It's a mystery. It is a mystery. Tom Brady is possibly the most fascinating athlete in history for that very reason. Look at this thread. Nobody ever asks if other athletes were great because of a system, they just accept that they were great. Manning, Montana, Jordan, LeBron, Gretzky, Lemieux, Ruth, Mays. People debate how much their supporting casts helped them win rings, but nobody (except haters, everyone has haters) questions their individual greatness-- except Tom Brady. You don't come across as a hater, yet here you are asking if he's the product of a system.
The GOAT isn't supposed to be drafted 199th, so people just can't wrap their minds around it. They make up excuses for his success.
Spygate- The Patriots dug their own grave with this one, but I still want to know how the cameras brought them three titles and yet didn't seem to work in 2002 when they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs, or in 2005 and 2006. Yet Brady and the Patriots actually saw their winning percentage increase in the years after Spygate, and they eventually won three more titles. So much for that theory.
Deflategate- Multiple national publications have debunked Deflategate, and Brady's stats improved across the board the year after Deflategate accusations (from 2014 to 2015), when the balls were supposedly no longer being tampered with. (Not to mention the Patriots once again had the fewest fumbles in the league in 2015.) So much for that theory.
It's the Belichick system - I thoroughly explored this earlier in the thread, but to recap, Brady has had multiple OC's and a head coach known for defense not offense, and none of them have had success without Brady. So much for that theory.
Goodell and the NFL are rigging things for the Patriots - See the above link about the corrupt Deflategate investigation and tell me the league is doing them favors. And as for the 'easy schedule' argument, here is the formula that is used for every team's schedule, and here is how the Patriots do against every division in football (they win at the same rate). So much for that theory.
I can't think of another professional athlete that people go out of their way to invent narratives as to why they're not great. People will say so-and-so is better, but nobody ever says they straight up aren't any good and are only the product of a system. It's incredible.
One of my favorite aspects of Brady's career is that he isn't a product of hype. He had to earn it, maybe that's why he's still motivated at age 42? As I pointed out earlier, his college career mirrors his professional success. When given the opportunity to excel, he makes the most of it. Tell him to be a game manager and he wins the Super Bowl as a first year starter. Rely more on the offense and he starts putting up numbers. Hand him Randy Moss and Wes Welker and he goes 16-0 and throws 50 TD passes. Put him down 10 in the 4th qtr of the Super Bowl against the defending champion Seahawks and their #1 defense and he leads two TD drives to win. Put him down 25 late in the third qtr of a Super Bowl and he comes back to win. Winning is in his DNA. He proved it at Michigan and he keeps proving it in the NFL year after year.
How is he this good? I have no idea. But nobody else needs a reason for their greatness, so I don't bother asking in his case, either.
I wish he would grow his hair long again.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 20, 2019 4:01:40 GMT
I wish he would grow his hair long again. I wish he'd cut me a check for defending his honor on IMDb V2.1 This research is only a hobby, but I still deserve compensation.
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 20, 2019 5:53:21 GMT
This from a guy who somehow counts playing open mics in coffeehouses as "concerts." And gets butthurt that not enough were "paying attention" because he thinks he is too good for them. "My open mic performances were the best ever! Too bad no one listened to me! Derpderp!" LMAO! So no way am I able to take what you dish at me personally or seriously. Humor isn't one of your strong suits. Comedic delivery isn't yours. How am I supposed to tell when past posts from you have been sarcastic and mean spirited and when you get likes on your post with calling me a "moron" from other posters who hate me. If you really are joking around then you have to make that more clear somehow.
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Nov 20, 2019 6:07:01 GMT
He’s only won three in my book. Dude isn’t the GOAT. Peyton Manning is. He had class, never cheated, was the sole reason his teams were any good for like twenty years and he makes the best commercials. Nuff said. *computer drop* Didn't Peyton force a girl to sniff his balls or something like that when he was at Tennessee? He does make nice commercials though, so yeah that should solve the "who's the greatest quarterback" argument. To be fair, he's soooooo good at making commercials. He's gotta be considered the greatest at it. He's like the Tom Brady of making commercials.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Nov 20, 2019 9:18:06 GMT
Browsing YouTube and this godforsaken video came up in my "Recommended" list. I'm not sure if they were mocking me but I did not care for it. However, I'm sure our resident "Idiot Brady fanboys" will enjoy!
|
|
|
Tom Brady
Nov 20, 2019 9:39:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by millar70 on Nov 20, 2019 9:39:45 GMT
Humor isn't one of your strong suits. Comedic delivery isn't yours. How am I supposed to tell when past posts from you have been sarcastic and mean spirited and when you get likes on your post with calling me a "moron" from other posters who hate me. If you really are joking around then you have to make that more clear somehow. Always keep them guessing, that's my motto. 😉
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Nov 20, 2019 11:29:47 GMT
Browsing YouTube and this godforsaken video came up in my "Recommended" list. I'm not sure if they were mocking me but I did not care for it. However, I'm sure our resident "Idiot Brady fanboys" will enjoy! You're crazy if you don't think we've already seen that. Also, that's the top 10 comebacks so far
|
|