|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 29, 2019 23:54:31 GMT
I'm a Packers fan and love Aaron Rodgers. My favorite player to watch ever and I personally think he's a better QB than Brady skill wise but Brady is obviously the more accomplished. Brady's accomplishments are due to cheating. The reason I hate cheaters and frauds like Brady and don't give credit to cheaters and frauds like Brady is because giving a cheater like Brady credit for accomplishments due to cheating would be a slap in the face to players like Dan Marino and Barry Sanders and plenty of other great players who worked their butts off their entire careers to try to earn a championship while Brady just takes a shortcut and cheated his way to his championships without putting in any of the hard work that other players did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 29, 2019 23:55:05 GMT
When Rodgers comes back from down 10 in the 4th qtr of the Super Bowl against the defending champions with the league's #1 defense, or comes back from down 25 in the second half of a Super Bowl Shady Brady cheated so those are meaningless as Ben Johnson's world record in the 100-meter sprint final at the 1988 Olympics. Apparently not, since Ben Johnson was stripped of his title and Brady wasn't. Come up with something else, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2019 0:07:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Oct 30, 2019 0:15:05 GMT
And it's not like the Patriots weren't any good that year. They lost a tie break to the Dolphins and weren't able to make it in as a wild card team because the Colts had a 12-4 record and they also lost a tie break to the Ravens who had a similar record to the Patriots. The basic answer I can give you for why they didn't make it into the playoffs is really because shit just doesn't work out sometimes. I could probably get more in depth, but I'm really not feeling like dedicating a bunch more time to doing so. Already spent a good deal of time on my response to hehatesshe.  You're making it seem like I'm saying Tom Brady isn't any good. Dude's legitimately great. Definitely one of the greatest QBs of all time. But his continued success is largely because the front office has been able to keep putting a good team around him... and because Belichick is really good at game planning with what pieces he has. That's why QBs like Rodgers, Manning, Favre, Montana, Marino, etc. have had years where they played well but the teams didn't win much. In other words, you have no argument and you know it. you can't refute anything I've said you don't even try. I do have an argument. I presented my argument. What I didn't do is go more into depth with my counter argument. To do so is to spend anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour properly researching and applying my research to my argument. I don't have the time nor the inclination to do that... especially when I already spent about a half hour typing out a response to hehatesshe. Even if I had applied all that time and effort, there would be no guarantee that it would've changed anyone's opinion. Message board people are notoriously resistant to changing their minds on anything. I've been around the block enough to know that it's more often than not a waste of time to giving in depth counter arguments. What I already said should be sufficient enough of a counter argument for you. If you want to do the necessary research to prove me wrong, I will be more than accepting of it. The Patriots rarely have a shitty defense, though. And I'm not just talking about defense, I'm talking about the offensive line, skill positions, and special teams. A QB like Aaron Rodgers rarely ever gets the kind of help that Tom Brady has. But if you want to just talk about defense, then the Packers' defense has largely been awful this decade. That was always the problem they had year in and year out... up until this year, of course. And their improved defense is why everyone's saying they're Super Bowl contenders this year... as opposed to previous years. Don't tell me that, if the Patriots had the same exact defense as the Packers for this decade they'd have won as much as they would've. I challenge you to make a serious argument for how that could be possible. Seriously, try to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2019 0:18:42 GMT
Is Aaron Rodgers even an all-time top 10 quarterback? I don’t know. These are the ten (in some order) I’d put ahead of him: Tom Brady Joe Montana John Elway Peyton Manning Drew Brees Dan Marino Kurt Warner Steve Young Brett Favre Aaron Rodgers He just made it, but this isn’t even including old timers like Unitas and Graham and Tarkenton. It’s not including two guys I’d conceivably insert at 10 - Ben Roethlisberger and Jim Kelly. Rodgers May be more athletically gifted than most of those above him, but that alone isn’t the be all end all qualification. If it was then Michael Vick would be up there too and that’s just ridiculous. He's overhyped because he plays for a storied franchise. If he played in Tampa or Arizona he'd be just another good QB that people forgot about once his career was over. The guy makes bad decisions looking for the home run on every play instead of putting his team in a position to win. It's like nobody told him wins are more important than highlights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2019 0:35:22 GMT
In other words, you have no argument and you know it. you can't refute anything I've said you don't even try. I do have an argument. I presented my argument. What I didn't do is go more into depth with my counter argument. To do so is to spend anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour properly researching and applying my research to my argument. I don't have the time nor the inclination to do that... especially when I already spent about a half hour typing out a response to hehatesshe. Even if I had applied all that time and effort, there would be no guarantee that it would've changed anyone's opinion. Message board people are notoriously resistant to changing their minds on anything. I've been around the block enough to know that it's more often than not a waste of time to giving in depth counter arguments. What I already said should be sufficient enough of a counter argument for you. If you want to do the necessary research to prove me wrong, I will be more than accepting of it. The Patriots rarely have a shitty defense, though. And I'm not just talking about defense, I'm talking about the offensive line, skill positions, and special teams. A QB like Aaron Rodgers rarely ever gets the kind of help that Tom Brady has. But if you want to just talk about defense, then the Packers' defense has largely been awful this decade. That was always the problem they had year in and year out... up until this year, of course. And their improved defense is why everyone's saying they're Super Bowl contenders this year... as opposed to previous years. Don't tell me that, if the Patriots had the same exact defense as the Packers for this decade they'd have won as much as they would've. I challenge you to make a serious argument for how that could be possible. Seriously, try to do it. I already have, you're just choosing to ignore it. Like you said, you don't want to change your mind like most internet cranks. Brady was successful the second he became a starter, Belichick was a substandard head coach until Brady became his QB. The numbers, the history prove this.
Brady threw a TD pass to take the lead with 31 seconds left in the first half of Super Bowl 49. The Seahawks scored a TD in that span to tie the game at the half. Great defense. Brady comes storming back from down ten in the 4th qtr on the #1 defense in the league to take the lead. The defense immediately gives up a bomb to the red zone. They make a miracle pick when the Seahawks should've ran it in. At least they bailed themselves out of that one.
Where was the great defense in Super Bowl 51? Once they were down 28-3? Where was the great defense in Super Bowl 38? Where was the great defense in the 4th qtr of the AFC championship game last year? Where was the great defense in Brady's second most of all time 35 4th qtr comebacks? Rodgers only has 15, by the way. Brady is leagues ahead of Rodgers as a quarterback, and the team's success has more to do with him than any other factor. He's been a winner since he became the starter while Belichick was a career failure before Brady came along. Again, the results back this up. All you have are conjecture and opinions, "What if this happened?" Everything I'm saying is 100% documented fact. I love Dante Scarnecchia, great coach. What did his teams ever win before Tom Brady came along. Case closed.
|
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Oct 30, 2019 0:36:00 GMT
You see now, friend, that's where you're wrong. You can't double speak. Actually, I can. But you shouldn't.He was injured for pretty much all of 2017 and I think he was playing on a bum leg or with a bum arm for most of last year. Those two years are basically outliers. When he's healthy, the Packers go to the playoffs. When he gets to the playoffs, he usually gets his team to at least the second round. The Packers haven't always had a good team around him even when they were going to the playoffs year after year. So there you go. How does he keep getting injured when its touch football? And since 2014, Brady has won 12 games. 5 of those games the opponent scored 24 points or more. In Rodgers' 17 game playoff career, he has only beaten a team that scored 24 or more twice. In his 7 career losses in the playoffs, he failed to score 24 points in 5 of them. You can't pin that on the defense. You have to hold the ball and score points. Is it any coincidence that when the Packers invest their salary cap and draft equity into defensive players that they get a good defense? It's what the Patriots have been doing for 20 years, and Brady gets the leftovers from the free agency pool. Yeah, no shit. Why would the Patriots ever move on from Tom Brady? He's a great franchise QB. Him being on the team for as long and the team having as much success as it had is largely coincidental. The Patriots probably could've won about as much as they have without him. They did go 11-5 in 2008 when he was injured all season long. The Patriots success is largely because of Bill Belichick, great game planning, and really good players around Tom Brady all the time. Like I said, you might have missed it, or dismissed it, but 11-5 isn't that good. In a single year, yeah, it is top 10 out of 30. But the year before that same team was 16-0. Top 3 out of 3000. Historically great. The difference between a historically great offense and season and an above average offense and season is Tom Brady. 11-5 isn't good when you should have gone 15-1 or 16-0.AGAIN, I'm not saying Tom Brady sucks or isn't great -- he is without a doubt one of the great QBs of all time -- but you simply cannot give him most of the credit for the Patriots' success. Yes, yes you can. And most do.He took them to the Super Bowl? He took them to the Super Bowl? 2,843 passing yards, 18 tds, 12 int, passer rating of 85.7 took the Patriots to the Super Bowl? Dude was a game manager that year. 2001 was a different NFL. His 18 touchdowns (in only 14 games) was still 13th best that year. His interception total was the lowest of any QB to play in as many games besides Rich Gannon. He had the 4th best completion percentage in the league. 6th best QB rating behind names like Kurt Warner. Rich Gannon, Brett Favre and Steve McNair. Ahead of names like Mcnabb, Manning, Brunell, and Culpepper. So yeah, he led them with Buffalo reject Antwain Smith, Troy Brown (made a pro bowl as an alternate), David Patten and Kevin Faulk. All the QBs who had better QB ratings than him, and most the ones I listed who didn't, had better weapons. Brady does more with less, and has since his first year starting. The success of the 2001 Patriots can largely be attributed to the game plan. AND... iirc, they shouldn't have even got past the Divisional Round against the Raiders due to a bullshit call that went the Patriots' way. So... yeah. No it isn't. How do we know this? Because the same game plan led to a 5-13 record before Brady took over. Then magically the same game plan leads to 14-3 and a superbowl? And the call was good. The rule was bad and has since been changed, but the call was correct, and that same call has been called before and after, including earlier that year in a game where the call hurt the Patriots. No one cared about it then.
And he was legitimately great that season. Randy Moss really brought out the best in him as a passer. He's been legitimately great every season. My point is that historically great offense was no different, except the quarterback. So it can't be the system, is the point.Matt Cassell is a scrub, tho. You are comparing a 4th year QB who eventually (not in 2008) went to the pro bowl with the likes of Curtis Painter - a 3rd year QB who never really played again? Or washed up Kerry Collins who was never really good to begin with? Or Dan Orlovsky, who's previous NFL experience came when he went 0-7 as a started for the Lions in 2008? He was supposed to step in for Peyton Manning? Or Brett Hundley? These guys are nobodies who never did anything before or after they took over for those guys. Matt Cassel threw 27 touchdowns with the Chiefs in 2010. That may be more than Hundley, Orlovsky, or Painter threw in their entire career. You are simply lying if you believe they are all the same quarterback. Yes, he did. But it's easier to pinpoint why a team in basketball is having success, whereas it's more difficult in football. Yet you seem to have no problem doing it when it comes to the Green Bay Packers...Is that even quantifiable? Peyton Manning was pretty fucking great at calling audibles and reading defenses too, dude. Yep. Watch the game. Brady knows what the defense is going to do the second the ball is snapped. Defenses didn't even try to blitz him for years. He picked them apart.Ok, I get it. You're a Patriots fan, aren't you? Nope, Cowboys.*cough* 2014 Broncos, 2011 Steelers, 2015 Seahawks, 2013 49ers, 2017 Falcons, 2010 Colts *cough*
I did err, I was going to come back and edit that. But look what those teams did.
2014 Broncos -lost first game
2011 Steelers- lost first game
2015 Seahawks- lost in the divisional
2017 Falcons - lost in the divisional
2010 Colts - lost first game
1998 packers - lost first game
1997 Patritots - lost divisional
1996 Steelers - lost divisional
1995 Chargers - lost first game
12 out of the last 25 (13 if the Rams make it) teams to lose the superbowl have made the playoffs the following year. That's about 50%. Of those 12, only 3 have made it back even to the championship game. The 2012 Patriots, the 2013 49ers, and the 2018 Patriots.
3 out of 25. And Tom Brady was the quarterback for 2 of them. Those intangibles, that leadership.. the proof is in the pudding. But the good news (and bad news) is that he simply can't do it forever. And when he leaves the Patriots, one way or the other, we will see if they continue going to AFC championship games. Which Brady has done in 13 of his 17 healthy, starting seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Oct 30, 2019 0:37:39 GMT
By your definition, so did Rodgers and Rice/Montana. Rodgers, Rice, and Montana were never suspended for cheating. Champion Brady was railroaded for the benefit of mouthbreathers. Fixed
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 30, 2019 0:47:14 GMT
Rodgers, Rice, and Montana were never suspended for cheating. Champion Brady was railroaded for the benefit of mouthbreathers. Fixed You dumb Pats fans are so pathetic and delusional that not only have you accused Ted Wells (who Robert Kraft himself praised for his integrity when Wells was hired to conduct the independent investigation) of railroading Shady Brady but also accusing 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively of railroading Shady Brady. So why the hell would 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively have any motive whatsoever to railroad a supposedly innocent man and re-instate a punishment on a supposedly innocent man, something which goes against the single most important and fundamental principle of the American justice system? Shady Brady definitely cheated. Ted Wells saw that. And the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals saw that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2019 0:53:03 GMT
You dumb Pats fans are so pathetic and delusional that not only have you accused Ted Wells (who Robert Kraft himself praised for his integrity when Wells was hired to conduct the independent investigation) of railroading Shady Brady but also accusing 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively of railroading Shady Brady. So why the hell would 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively have any motive whatsoever to railroad a supposedly innocent man and re-instate a punishment on a supposedly innocent man, something which goes against the single most important and fundamental principle of the American justice system? Shady Brady definitely cheated. Ted Wells saw that. And the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals saw that. I addressed this in my previous post to you which you're choosing to ignore because it makes you look stupid. Anyway, the court didn't decide Brady or the Patriots cheated, it ruled that Goodell had the right to suspend Brady. Again, refer to the links in my previous post for an explanation.
Free Draymond.
|
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Oct 30, 2019 1:02:57 GMT
You dumb Pats fans are so pathetic and delusional that not only have you accused Ted Wells (who Robert Kraft himself praised for his integrity when Wells was hired to conduct the independent investigation) of railroading Shady Brady but also accusing 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively of railroading Shady Brady. So why the hell would 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively have any motive whatsoever to railroad a supposedly innocent man and re-instate a punishment on a supposedly innocent man, something which goes against the single most important and fundamental principle of the American justice system? Shady Brady definitely cheated. Ted Wells saw that. And the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals saw that. The old man brought 2 bags of balls into a small bathroom and proceeded to empty the bags, grab a ball, let out air in a ball, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, THEN GRAB THE OTHER BAG, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then grab those two bags and exit the bathroom...all in less than 90 seconds? Are you sure about that? Do you know how fast he had to have been going to even come close to being able to perform this? Why would he go so fast? Did he think people would come searching for him if he had spend 3 minutes in the bathroom instead of 90 seconds? Science disproves this. Only mouthbreathers believe it. And the judges weren't ruling on Brady's guilt, but you already know that because we (me and you, and you and a lot of other people) have already had this dance. I've caught you misinformed (lying) multiple times.
|
|
|
|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Oct 30, 2019 1:13:51 GMT
I do have an argument. I presented my argument. What I didn't do is go more into depth with my counter argument. To do so is to spend anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour properly researching and applying my research to my argument. I don't have the time nor the inclination to do that... especially when I already spent about a half hour typing out a response to hehatesshe. Even if I had applied all that time and effort, there would be no guarantee that it would've changed anyone's opinion. Message board people are notoriously resistant to changing their minds on anything. I've been around the block enough to know that it's more often than not a waste of time to giving in depth counter arguments. What I already said should be sufficient enough of a counter argument for you. If you want to do the necessary research to prove me wrong, I will be more than accepting of it. The Patriots rarely have a shitty defense, though. And I'm not just talking about defense, I'm talking about the offensive line, skill positions, and special teams. A QB like Aaron Rodgers rarely ever gets the kind of help that Tom Brady has. But if you want to just talk about defense, then the Packers' defense has largely been awful this decade. That was always the problem they had year in and year out... up until this year, of course. And their improved defense is why everyone's saying they're Super Bowl contenders this year... as opposed to previous years. Don't tell me that, if the Patriots had the same exact defense as the Packers for this decade they'd have won as much as they would've. I challenge you to make a serious argument for how that could be possible. Seriously, try to do it. I already have, you're just choosing to ignore it. Like you said, you don't want to change your mind like most internet cranks. Brady was successful the second he became a starter, Belichick was a substandard head coach until Brady became his QB. The numbers, the history prove this. No, you really didn't. Just said that Tom Brady throwing for 2,843 yards, 18 touchdowns, and 12 interceptions in 2001 is why the Patriots were any good that year. Not their defense which only allowed 20.2 points per game. Not the fact that 9 of the 11 wins they had were against sub .500 teams. And let's not forget why they were able to advance past the divisional round in the first place: the refs made an incredibly controversial call in favor of the Patriots which allowed for them to set Vinatieri up for a game tying field goal and send the game into overtime. What I did, instead of ignoring your point, was tell you that it was more than just Tom Brady that got them the 11-5 record and that got them to the Super Bowl. He was part of it, but he wasn't the primary reason. Fuck if I know. Didn't know I said he always had great defenses. Pretty sure I said the Patriots rarely have a shitty defense. You can make the argument that the reason the Patriots won that game was because the Falcons let their foot of the gas and the defense was getting tired because the offense didn't have the ball for as long as they did in the first half. In fact, I think I will make that argument. Defenses get tired, dude. It's all about time of possession, my man. Didn't help they were playing against one of the greatest offenses the NFL has ever seen. And my argument would be that Rodgers' teams haven't always put him in position to make those comebacks... and that Rodgers has played in much less games than Tom Brady. I disagree. Not really. You're doing what I'm doing and drawing conclusions from evidence/facts you've found. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 1:18:43 GMT
Is Aaron Rodgers even an all-time top 10 quarterback? I don’t know. These are the ten (in some order) I’d put ahead of him: Tom Brady Joe Montana John Elway Peyton Manning Drew Brees Dan Marino Kurt Warner Steve Young Brett Favre Aaron Rodgers He just made it, but this isn’t even including old timers like Unitas and Graham and Tarkenton. It’s not including two guys I’d conceivably insert at 10 - Ben Roethlisberger and Jim Kelly. Rodgers May be more athletically gifted than most of those above him, but that alone isn’t the be all end all qualification. If it was then Michael Vick would be up there too and that’s just ridiculous. He's overhyped because he plays for a storied franchise. If he played in Tampa or Arizona he'd be just another good QB that people forgot about once his career was over. The guy makes bad decisions looking for the home run on every play instead of putting his team in a position to win. It's like nobody told him wins are more important than highlights. The way some of you guys talk about him is as if he was Baker Mayfield and never won anything. The home run thing is a thing he does tend to do but it's not every play. He looks to get the most yards he can on any given play with his first read, I wouldn't necessarily say that's a bad thing. He's done it far less this year with a new head coach and a new scheme. The winning thing? Not so much. Dude has a .640 winning % so I'd say he puts his team in position to win more often than not. Not that wins are a QB stat of course. GB is 9-7 in the playoffs with him under center with 4 of those losses happening in the final possession in which his defense couldn't get off the field. So I'd say those 4 losses he put them in position to potentially win but the defense couldn't do their part.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 30, 2019 1:53:56 GMT
You dumb Pats fans are so pathetic and delusional that not only have you accused Ted Wells (who Robert Kraft himself praised for his integrity when Wells was hired to conduct the independent investigation) of railroading Shady Brady but also accusing 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively of railroading Shady Brady. So why the hell would 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively have any motive whatsoever to railroad a supposedly innocent man and re-instate a punishment on a supposedly innocent man, something which goes against the single most important and fundamental principle of the American justice system? Shady Brady definitely cheated. Ted Wells saw that. And the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals saw that. I addressed this in my previous post to you which you're choosing to ignore because it makes you look stupid. Anyway, the court didn't decide Brady or the Patriots cheated, it ruled that Goodell had the right to suspend Brady.
Free Draymond.
1st, Judge Chin said on the record in open court: "The evidence of ball tampering is compelling." So the court certainly agreed that Brady did cheat. 2nd, saying that the court wasn't deciding whether Brady or the Pats cheated but was only deciding on whether Goodell had the right to suspend Brady is as stupid as saying the Supreme Court in 2000 wasn't deciding on whether Bush or Gore would be POTUS but only deciding on whether Florida could proceed with the recount. All 9 of the Supreme Court justices knew full well that the consequence of their decision would be deciding who would be the next POTUS.
Similarly, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't deciding whether Goodell had the right to punish Brady. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals knew full well that the consequence of their decision would be either: 1) Uphold the lower-court decision by Berman to strike down a punishment against Brady or 2) Overrule the lower-court decision by Berman and re-instate the punishment against Brady.
If a lower-court judge blocks an execution against a prisoner whom he thought might be innocent and the prosecution argues that the lower-court judge didn't have exculpatory evidence to support his ruling, do you think the Supreme Court would actually overrule the lower-court judge and re-instate the death sentence if they thought the prisoner was innocent? The Supreme Court would over-rule the lower-court judge and re-instate the punishment only if they believed the prisoner was guilty.
I'll ask the question again that delusional Pats fans have never been able to answer: Why the hell would 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively have any motive whatsoever to railroad a supposedly innocent man and re-instate a punishment on a supposedly innocent man, something which goes against the single most important and fundamental principle of the American justice system?
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals would overrule the lower-court decision by Berman and re-instate the punishment against Brady only if they believed that Brady was guilty. The fact is Brady did cheat. Ted Wells proved that. And the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that by overruling the lower-court decision and re-instating the punishment against Brady, something which no appellate court would ever do unless they believed he was truly guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2019 1:55:43 GMT
I already have, you're just choosing to ignore it. Like you said, you don't want to change your mind like most internet cranks. Brady was successful the second he became a starter, Belichick was a substandard head coach until Brady became his QB. The numbers, the history prove this. No, you really didn't. Just said that Tom Brady throwing for 2,843 yards, 18 touchdowns, and 12 interceptions in 2001 is why the Patriots were any good that year. Not their defense which only allowed 20.2 points per game. Not the fact that 9 of the 11 wins they had were against sub .500 teams. And let's not forget why they were able to advance past the divisional round in the first place: the refs made an incredibly controversial call in favor of the Patriots which allowed for them to set Vinatieri up for a game tying field goal and send the game into overtime. What I did, instead of ignoring your point, was tell you that it was more than just Tom Brady that got them the 11-5 record and that got them to the Super Bowl. He was part of it, but he wasn't the primary reason. Fuck if I know. Didn't know I said he always had great defenses. Pretty sure I said the Patriots rarely have a shitty defense. You can make the argument that the reason the Patriots won that game was because the Falcons let their foot of the gas and the defense was getting tired because the offense didn't have the ball for as long as they did in the first half. In fact, I think I will make that argument. Defenses get tired, dude. It's all about time of possession, my man. Didn't help they were playing against one of the greatest offenses the NFL has ever seen. And my argument would be that Rodgers' teams haven't always put him in position to make those comebacks... and that Rodgers has played in much less games than Tom Brady. I disagree. Not really. You're doing what I'm doing and drawing conclusions from evidence/facts you've found. Breaking down my post to cherry pick your responses isn't going to fool anyone. You're dancing around the questions you can't answer. What's the system, why doesn't it work for anyone else, why was Belichick a failure without Brady? Why does Brady have 20 more 4th qtr comebacks than Rodgers if his defense is always so much better than Rodgers?
"Hey man, defenses get tired." Yeah, especially when they can't get stops. Good thing Brady and the offense didn't get tired against the defending champion #1 defense Seahawks in Super Bowl 49. Empty argument on your part, as usual.
Probably the saddest argument you made:
His teams haven't put him in a position to make those comebacks? You mean they haven't put him behind? Or are you going to say the SB 51 comeback only happened because of Edelman's juggling catch again? I could post a highlight video of the throws Brady made in the 4th qtr/OT of that game that would blow your mind, but you wouldn't watch it anyway. Look it up if you want. But you're right, it's all the game plan. Scarnecchia, Edelman, Gronk, McDaniels, Weis, Bruschi, Law, Hightower, Crennell, Patricia. All names Brady has won titles with and without. Good thing Belichick was here to set him up with a great supporting cast and an 0-2 team to game manage for the next 20 years.
Still waiting to hear what the system/game plan is that causes Brady to excel. Waiting to hear about the success of the coordinators that have left the Patriots. Waiting to hear why Belichick was 5-13 as the Patriots coach when Brady took over, then he suddenly became a genius. I agree Brady was a game manager in 2001 because that's all they asked him to do. Eventually they figured out he could make all the throws (again, I could post endless highlight videos to prove my point here but you can look them up yourself) and he became one of the most prolific passers in history-- oh yeah, and he kept winning Super Bowls.
By all means, chop this post up like you did the others without actually saying anything. I keep posting results while you keep posting conjecture and dancing around the obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Oct 30, 2019 1:55:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2019 1:57:29 GMT
I addressed this in my previous post to you which you're choosing to ignore because it makes you look stupid. Anyway, the court didn't decide Brady or the Patriots cheated, it ruled that Goodell had the right to suspend Brady.
Free Draymond.
1st, Judge Chin said on the record in open court: "The evidence of ball tampering is compelling." So the court certainly agreed that Brady did cheat. 2nd, saying that the court wasn't deciding whether Brady or the Pats cheated but was only deciding on whether Goodell had the right to suspend Brady is as stupid as saying the Supreme Court in 2000 wasn't deciding on whether Bush or Gore would be POTUS but only deciding on whether Florida could proceed with the recount. All 9 of the Supreme Court justices knew full well that the consequence of their decision would be deciding who would be the next POTUS.
Similarly, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't deciding whether Goodell had the right to punish Brady. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals knew full well that the consequence of their decision would be either: 1) Uphold the lower-court decision by Berman to strike down a punishment against Brady or 2) Overrule the lower-court decision by Berman and re-instate the punishment against Brady.
If a lower-court judge blocks an execution against a prisoner whom he thought might be innocent and the prosecution argues that the lower-court judge didn't have exculpatory evidence to support his ruling, do you think the Supreme Court would actually overrule the lower-court judge and re-instate the death sentence if they thought the prisoner was innocent? The Supreme Court would over-rule the lower-court judge and re-instate the punishment only if they believed the prisoner was guilty.
I'll ask the question again that delusional Pats fans have never been able to answer: Why the hell would 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively have any motive whatsoever to railroad a supposedly innocent man and re-instate a punishment on a supposedly innocent man, something which goes against the single most important and fundamental principle of the American justice system?
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals would overrule the lower-court decision by Berman and re-instate the punishment against Brady only if they believed that Brady was guilty. The fact is Brady did cheat. Ted Wells proved that. And that 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that by overruling the lower-court decision and re-instating the punishment against Brady, something which no appellate court would do unless they believed he was truly guilty. The case was about Goodell's right to suspend Brady. All the bold font in the world won't change that.
Free Draymond.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 30, 2019 2:08:28 GMT
You dumb Pats fans are so pathetic and delusional that not only have you accused Ted Wells (who Robert Kraft himself praised for his integrity when Wells was hired to conduct the independent investigation) of railroading Shady Brady but also accusing 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively of railroading Shady Brady. So why the hell would 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively have any motive whatsoever to railroad a supposedly innocent man and re-instate a punishment on a supposedly innocent man, something which goes against the single most important and fundamental principle of the American justice system? Shady Brady definitely cheated. Ted Wells saw that. And the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals saw that. The old man brought 2 bags of balls into a small bathroom and proceeded to empty the bags, grab a ball, let out air in a ball, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, THEN GRAB THE OTHER BAG, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then pick up another ball, let out air, open the bag back up and put the ball back in, then grab those two bags and exit the bathroom...all in less than 90 seconds? A car is refueled, the tires changed, and the windshield is cleaned...all in about 13 seconds? Yes, in fact 13 seconds is considered an average, not a top, time in NASCAR. How can they do it that fast? Because they've done it hundreds of times before and have gotten so good at the process that they could do it really quickly. The AFC Championship Game wasn't the 1st time Jim "The Deflator" McNally deflated footballs for Brady to use in games. It was just the 1st time the Pats got caught doing it. McNally called himself "The Deflator"! Obviously, Jim "The Deflator" McNally had deflated footballs for Brady to use in games many, many times before and had gotten so good at the process that he could do it in 90 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 30, 2019 2:14:47 GMT
1st, Judge Chin said on the record in open court: "The evidence of ball tampering is compelling." So the court certainly agreed that Brady did cheat. 2nd, saying that the court wasn't deciding whether Brady or the Pats cheated but was only deciding on whether Goodell had the right to suspend Brady is as stupid as saying the Supreme Court in 2000 wasn't deciding on whether Bush or Gore would be POTUS but only deciding on whether Florida could proceed with the recount. All 9 of the Supreme Court justices knew full well that the consequence of their decision would be deciding who would be the next POTUS.
Similarly, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't deciding whether Goodell had the right to punish Brady. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals knew full well that the consequence of their decision would be either: 1) Uphold the lower-court decision by Berman to strike down a punishment against Brady or 2) Overrule the lower-court decision by Berman and re-instate the punishment against Brady.
If a lower-court judge blocks an execution against a prisoner whom he thought might be innocent and the prosecution argues that the lower-court judge didn't have exculpatory evidence to support his ruling, do you think the Supreme Court would actually overrule the lower-court judge and re-instate the death sentence if they thought the prisoner was innocent? The Supreme Court would over-rule the lower-court judge and re-instate the punishment only if they believed the prisoner was guilty.
I'll ask the question again that delusional Pats fans have never been able to answer: Why the hell would 2 federal appellate court judges who have no affiliation with the NFL and who took an oath to judge fairly and objectively have any motive whatsoever to railroad a supposedly innocent man and re-instate a punishment on a supposedly innocent man, something which goes against the single most important and fundamental principle of the American justice system?
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals would overrule the lower-court decision by Berman and re-instate the punishment against Brady only if they believed that Brady was guilty. The fact is Brady did cheat. Ted Wells proved that. And that 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that by overruling the lower-court decision and re-instating the punishment against Brady, something which no appellate court would do unless they believed he was truly guilty.The case was about Goodell's right to suspend Brady. All the bold font in the world won't change that.
Free Draymond.
The decision was about allowing a lower-court ruling to stand OR over-ruling a lower-court ruling and re-instating a punishment against Brady. All the spin-control by you stupid and delusional Pats fans wont' change that. I'll ask another question which you stupid and delusional Pats fans have never been able to answer: If the case was only about Goodell's right to suspend Brady and not about Brady's guilt, then why would Judge Chen say on the record in open court "The evidence of ball tampering is compelling"? "THE EVIDENCE OF BALL TAMPERING IS COMPELLING". Why would Judge Chen say that if the case wasn't about Brady's guilt?
BECAUSE THE CASE WAS INDEED ABOUT BRADY'S GUILT. IT WASN'T AT FIRST, BUT WHEN JUDGE BERMAN ASKED ABOUT THE EVIDENCE, THAT MADE THE CASE ABOUT BRADY'S GUILT AND OPENED THE DOOR FOR THE QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED ABOUT BRADY'S GUILT. AND THE 2ND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT BRADY WAS GUILTY (AS JUDGE CHEN CONFIRMED WITH HIS STATEMENT), WHICH IS WHY THEY OVERRULED BERMAN AND RE-INSTATED BRADY'S PUNISHMENT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 30, 2019 2:22:02 GMT
The case was about Goodell's right to suspend Brady. All the bold font in the world won't change that.
Free Draymond.
The decision was about allowing a lower-court ruling to stand OR over-ruling a lower-court ruling and re-instating a punishment against Brady. All the spin-control by you stupid and delusional Pats fans wont' change that. I'll ask another question which you stupid and delusional Pats fans have never been able to answer: If the case was only about Goodell's right to suspend Brady and not about Brady's guilt, then why would Judge Chen say on the record in open court "The evidence of ball tampering is compelling"? "THE EVIDENCE OF BALL TAMPERING IS COMPELLING". Why would Judge Chen say that if the case wasn't about Brady's guilt?
BECAUSE THE CASE WAS INDEED ABOUT BRADY'S GUILT. IT WASN'T AT FIRST, BUT WHEN JUDGE BERMAN ASKED ABOUT THE EVIDENCE, THAT MADE THE CASE ABOUT BRADY'S GUILT AND OPENED THE DOOR FOR THE QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED ABOUT BRADY'S GUILT. AND THE 2ND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT BRADY WAS GUILTY (AS JUDGE CHEN CONFIRMED WITH HIS STATEMENT), WHICH IS WHY THEY OVERRULED BERMAN AND RE-INSTATED BRADY'S PUNISHMENT. How come you won't respond to this?
www.si.com/nfl/2016/10/04/tom-brady-deflategate-ideal-gas-law
www.huffpost.com/entry/21-scientists-say-tom-brady-is-right-and-the-nfl-is-wrong_n_5745fb9ce4b0dacf7ad3c55d
www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/sports/football/nfl-ignores-ball-deflation-science-at-new-england-patriots-expense.html
Who should I trust regarding the science involved here? The scientists, you or judge Chen? They overruled the lower court because the CBA said Goodell had the right to suspend Brady, which is what the case was about. Good try, though.
|
|
