I really don't think so. For years Brady carried the team, I agree with that, but they are building a solid team that will likely be very good with any plug and play QB, much like you suggested with Seattle.
I am sorry if you can't objectively see that the talent around Brady has deteriorated defensively since 2007 when they almost had a perfect season and many of the drafted players from earlier in the decade and free agent mercenaries began to retire. I am not knocking Brady here I am saying that the talent around him defensively deteriorated which is the reason you claim that Kaepernick and Wilson are great now. Do you see Tom Brady having a similar career trajectory if the talent level earlier in his career was similar to the talent now? Literally read what you said over again and then go look at the some of the statistical outputs in some of the playoff games in Brady's career. 2001- 312 yards, 115 yards, 145 yards 2003- 201 yards, 237 yards, 354 yards 2004- 144 yards, 207 yards, 236 yards Key in those 9 games 3 interceptions total, aka game manager. Top 4 QB of all time where it is debatable between Manning, Brady, Marino, Montana.
Not sure if anyone mentioned continuity. I think it's a major factor along with those that's already been mentioned. All the top guys have been playing in the same system for a VERL LONG TIME. They know all the in and outs and nuances of their respective schemes to the point where they can coach it. For the top guys running their offense is instinctual as they know them so well. In the NFL continuity is earned. You have to play well to obtain it. Once you have it, it's an invaluable asset.
That is also a good point. For a player like Jason Campbell he switched offensive systems for 6 or 7 consecutive years and many teams switch offensive systems. Hope that this helps giving Geno more time to study the WCO.
Who was better? Wilt Chamberlain (Dan Marino/Peyton Manning) or Bill Russell (Joe Montana/Tom Brady)? It's kind of interesting that it's so hard to sort out what makes for a great QB because the stats and the big wins don't hold equal weight in the public mind. Was Joe Montana great because Bill Walsh and Eddie DeBartolo Jr were great? Is Tom Brady great because Bill Belichik and Robert Kraft are great? I think it's pretty clear that Dan Marino was great but how much of that was because Don Shula was great? Peyton Manning has just been great, but man he needs that second SB win to cement that opinion in the public mind.
I don't really get where people come up with this stuff. Where's the inside information showing that any particular quarterback prepares more than another? The guys who take preparation lightly as an NFL QB are most likely few and far between.
Though an argument could be made that Brady > Manning or vice versa, it really bothers me when people point to Brady's relative post-season success (or even his head-to-head success) compared to Peyton. The Patriots with Brady are not equivalent (in talent, especially) to the Colts with Peyton or the Broncos with Peyton. Though all three teams have changed over time, Brady's early teams are arguably better than what Peyton has ever had to help him. Brady also has Belichick, a better coach than Peyton has ever had. It really is difficult to compare, though I honestly believe that Sunday's game will do a lot for the legacy of both players for the better or worse. (The Super Bowl will cement it, of course, assuming the winner of the AFC wins the Lombardi).
I do not think it is preparation at all. Here is what I think it is: 100% belief in the organization that the QB is the best QB in the NFL. 100% commitment allows a QB to fully develop his talent and have all the resources needed to maximize his potential. 100% commitment means that even in a down cycle, nothing at all changes about the way the QB plays in a game, or the game plans or anything. 100% commitment means that everyone on the team is 100% behind their QB as the guy, and they rally around them. 100% commitment to a QB is self-prophesizing in that if a team 100% believes that he will be the franchise guy then he will become that franchise guy. Look at Eli. If his name was anything other than Manning, and if the Giants were not 100% behind him (as evidenced by the benching of a future HOFer in a season they were headed for the playoffs), Eli likely would have been benched and replaced by another QB. He was horrible his first 2 or 3 years but the Giants were 100% behind him, and ultimately rewarded with 2 Super Bowls. Look all top QB picks in the draft are extremely talented. But very few of them go to teams that are 100% committed to them as QB. Certainly some are better than others and when you combine that talent with 100% commitment as in the case of a Marino or an Elway, or P. Manning you wind up with an all time great. It is what is lacking in the Jets and specifically Rex Ryan. The Jets are never 100% behind their QB and it limits their development.
And you are basing the idea that those three study more on what? Their on field results? That's all you can be basing it on unless you spend time with all qb's and know how hard each studies.
The Jets were 100% behind Sanchez from 2009 to 2011. That's where that #6 tattoo on Rex's arm came from. Sanchez didn't develop despite the team being 100% behind him. Then 2012 was a nightmare because the team was no longer 100% behind him, despite the contract extension, and Sanchez lack of development in 2012 made matters worse. The Jets were 100% behind Chad Pennington from 2003 to 2006 also and the injuries did him and the Jets in. The thing that makes a QB great is that he's very talented and very lucky AND the organization is 100% behind him at all times.
Absolutely NOT true. The Jets were committed to Sanchez but they were never 100% behind him. If you are 100% behind your QB you do not come up with a red/yellow/green system for the QB. If you are 100% behind the QB you allow him to be aggressive especially against better teams, the Jets did the exact opposite- the better the team was the more conservative the gameplan they forced on the QB. There is a big difference between the way the Jets have handled Geno and Mark and the way that other teams have handled their potential franchise guys.
This is the stupidest thing I've read on here in a while. No change to game plans? Yeah okay, game plan the same for the Seattle Seahawks as you would for the Packers. That'll get you places in the NFL. Which brings me so perfectly into: You have to work with what you have. Taking stress off of young QBs is part of development. If you have a QB that constantly turns the ball over, you still have to play to win games. When you have injured receivers and tes, you have to slow it down. Rex did exactly that, somehow getting Sanchez deep in the playoffs twice. Sanchez showed some flashes but never really took the next step. So you are saying we shouldn't have run the ball much in 2009 with a great line and running game? We should have let Sanchez just keep turning it over, throwing 30+ picks, right? Rex took Sanchez through 2 deep playoff runs, with our running game. You have to play to team strengths, and take stress off young QBs. They were definitely behind him in 2010 and 2011, he just never got past the turnover problem. Look what happened with Geno. Early on they were doing all kinds of passing plays, but he started to slump and make lots of mistakes, plus Winslow got suspended and Kerley/Holmes were out on and off. As a result they adjusted to running the ball a little bit more and Geno eventually became more comfortable back there, then you see his passing attempts start to go up again as his targets came back. Honestly I think David Lee is miles ahead of Matt Cavanaugh, who is also partially responsible for Sanchez never overcoming fundamental mistakes. I think Lee & MM have made Geno take a bigger step in improvement this year, than Sanchez ever has in a single season. Colin Kaepernick is a perfect contradiction to your theory as well. He had less passing attempts than Geno this year and last year. It's because their running game is top notch and Colin is still young and learning. Are the Niners not committed to him? It's always gotta be some inner ultimate failure conspiracy by the Jets with you guys. We drafted a bad QB and had a shitty QB coach. Time to move on. It's the new era.
Listen to them talk in their interviews... Listen to their teammates and coaches talk about them.. They all gush about how much time these guys spend in the film room... The fuck have you been?
Seldom do players and coaches come out and say "This guy doesn't work hard at all" about their quarterback. Where have you been?
How hard a player prepares is hard to pin point exactly. How many times have we heard Rex say Sanchez is a hard worker.....first one there, last one to leave. No doubt preparation IS important, but it's hare to quantify by specific player. But here's one thing that's more black and white. A great QB always keeps his cool, keeps his head in the game, and always knows exactly what to do and what NOT to do at a specific point in the game. For example, how many times have you seen a clueless QB throw into triple coverage on 1st down late in a game when his team is driving for the winning points? Or a clueless QB takes a sack that knocks his team out of field goal range with with 3 seconds left on the clock, down by 2? It's not just QBs. Look at the Saints receiver last week that after catching a long pass threw an illegal lateral instead of just stepping out of bounds giving Breese one last chance at a hail mary. It's kinda of like the red-yellow-green Sanchez had to use because he never seemed to know where he was in a game situation.
Bingo. Jeff George was a great QB in terms of physical skill yet on the field he could never get it right. Montana didn't have any outstanding skill set yet he had that insane knack for making plays & winning Super Bowls. Being great is not something that's learned, you either have it or you don't. Some have the ability but don't have the head to dedicate themselves to bringing it to the field. Geno has the physical skill but the rest remains to be seen.
