This is why Rodgers is way better than Brady.

Oct 30, 2019 2:41:15 GMT 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 said:

Oct 30, 2019 1:55:43 GMT Rey Kahuka said:

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? 

I thought I was doing a good job of answering the questions, but I guess not.

Ok...

why doesn't it work for anyone else

I guess because Tom Brady's a great QB. 

why was Belichick a failure without Brady?

I wouldn't say he was a failure without Brady. Dude inherited a Browns team that went 3-13 the year before, and managed to get them to the playoffs a few years later. I'd call that a success. 

Why does Brady have 20 more 4th qtr comebacks than Rodgers if his defense is always so much better than Rodgers?

Idk... maybe because Brady has played in more games than Rodgers.

"Hey man, defenses get tired." Yeah, especially when they can't get stops.

Why are you only using the 4th quarter of last years AFC Championship game as an example for their defense being bad anyway? You're acting like two weeks later they didn't hold the second best offense in the league to just 3 points and like 260 total yards of offense. 

But I will dissect this AFC Championship game point you're making: you're making the argument that because the Chiefs scored 24 points in the 4th quarter the Patriots had a terrible defense. But you also say about Super Bowl 49 that Tom Brady was able to put the Patriots in position to win in spite of the fact that he was up against the Legion of Boom, and that's further example of him being great. So, I guess I would say the Chiefs scoring all those points was more a testament to Mahomes' greatness than an indictment on the Patriots defense... who help the Chiefs to only 7 points through the first three quarter. 

I hope that's an adequate response to that point. I doubt it is, but whatever.
 

His teams haven't put him in a position to make those comebacks? You mean they haven't put him behind?

I think a point smurfbate made earlier is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about: "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."

Or are you going to say the SB 51 comeback only happened because of Edelman's juggling catch again?

I'm saying the Falcons thinking they had the game in the bag and doing literally fuck all to run the score up on the Patriots while making the necessary adjustments on defense to stop the bleeding is why that comeback victory happened. Brady was great in the second half of that game, but it's like I said, the Falcons being a bunch of useless twats is why the Patriots won that game. Wouldn't have happened if the Falcons kept their foots on the gas.

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.

And I never said he couldn't make those throws. You're acting like me saying he's not the GOAT is basically me saying he isn't shit. Dude, I've said numerous times that I think he's great and that the Patriots are great because of him... and other factors. What you're entire point of contention is that I both stop short of saying he's the greatest and refuse to give him all of of most of the credit for their continued success. 

By all means, chop this post up like you did the others without actually saying anything.

Actually, I've been saying a lot. It's just that none of what I said is what you want to hear. 


Gonna have to table this discussion for another day, my dude. It's getting kind of late, and I've been procrastinating long enough on some homework I should've got done a while ago. 

Talk to you later, mate.

36-44 is a success? He was 5-11 in his final year in Cleveland, and went to the playoffs once in five years. 

Yes I dwell on the 4th quarter because it's the last and most important one.  Super Bowl 38 was a shootout, as was the AFC championship game last year.  Imagine me trying to argue Brady did his job if they scored 24 points in the first half and nothing after that as the Chiefs came back and won.  The defense gave up 24 4th quarter points, man.  That's not good, and you can't give them credit for the win at that point.

You may as well table the discussion until you can back up your claims:

It's just dumb.  You said it was the defense, the receivers and the 'game plan' that helped him out.  I'm not saying Brady does it alone, I never did.  I said he deserves the majority of the credit, which you said was ludicrous.  All my evidence is fact while you constantly throw out what ifs.  'If only Rodgers had clutch receivers or a 'game plan' to help him out.  In his six titles and all the years in between, Brady has put up consistent numbers and done a fair amount of winning despite the turnover on the team.  And the 35 4th quarter comebacks prove the defense isn't winning games for them all the time.  God only knows how many shootouts the Patriots never trailed in so I can't even count them here. 

You said it's ludicrous to give Brady a majority of the credit, then I proved-- proved -- Belichick had a lousy record as a head coach before Brady and none of the coaches have gone on to any success without Brady.  It's not opinion buddy, it's fact.  These things are undeniable whether you write "I disagree" or not.

As far as Rodgers being better in your mind, I can't force you out of denial.  I'm a Celtics fan, Larry Bird was one of the greatest players of all time.  But I can admit Magic and Jordan were better.  If you want to stay in denial, that's your choice.  Just don't make absurd statements about other people deserving more credit than Brady when the only one in the entire organization that's been a winner from the moment he took the field was Brady. 

"Would Brady have been successful in Green Bay?"  "Would Rodgers have won six rings with a better defense?"  "Is Belichick the greatest coach of all time?"  The answers are conjecture.  All we know for certain is that Brady has more wins, more titles and is hovering around the top of every significant passing record list, and was proven capable the first year he was given the reins.  Belichick had 1 winning season in his head coaching career before Tom Brady became his starter (six seasons, no small sample size) and he hasn't had a losing season since.  Guess he was saving that game plan for the right guy.        

(Also as an aside, baseball?  Counting rings works in baseball?  It's the most individual 'team sport' we have, a great player has the fewest opportunities to contribute in baseball.  And unlike every other sport, half the league doesn't make the playoffs, making it that much harder to win.  I'd say rings count the least toward legacy in baseball.)