Our D didn't force a punt in the 2nd half, he settled for a 50 yd FG. he panicked a bit, we weren't getting pressure on him and he called a roll out which isn't one of his strengths. All he needed was one first down and our season would have been a complete failure. He has an excellent receiving corps, I'd likle to see any other QB try to win w/ the weapons Brady had around him.
Minus the Jets and Ravens, what other WR cores would you rather have? I thought, along with a lot of other people, that GB had one of the best receiving cores in the NFL in the beginning of the season. That seemed pretty accurate.
Having watched Rodgers up close so much lately, do you really think hes couldn't do it? He almost never misses throws. And he's better at avoiding the pass rush Lions, Cardinals, Cowboys, Eagles
Perhaps, but then again, neither do most of us here. So why am I crazy for saying that I'd rather have Rodgers over Brady?
You're fucking with us, right? Didn't you just give Aaron Rodgers credit for succeeding without a good tight end? ...yet three out of these four teams basically have trash cans playing the position. Detroit and Arizona each have elite receivers, but nothing more after that. Philly and Dallas have pretty good receivers: Philadelphia has more speed at the position than any team except for maybe Pittsburgh. Dallas' has a young douche bag with limitless potential, a speed guy in Miles Austin, and arguably the best all-around tight end in the league. Roy Williams is incredibly overrated.
It's a damn shame, isn't it? Tom Brady just won the MVP award with a terribly mediocre backfield, a patchwork offensive line, two rookie tight ends, and Deion fucking Branch as his #1 receiver. Brady is not only the best quarterback in this league, he's the best player.
Manning Brady Rivers Rodgers Roethlisberger Vick and Brees on outside looking in. So Brady would be my 2nd.
I don't care how many touchdowns he had, he's a mediocre running back. Tom Brady basically turned water into wine with the shitty players he was surrounded with in New England.
Boredom gets the best of me. Oh well. Forgive me if I take these out of order, but it better serves my last point before if I address it first. I belittle and attack people for what they actually say. You belittle people by changing their words or simply ignoring their points and pretending they said something different. It's disingenuous and shows a weakness in your own arguments. That's the difference, and that difference means I absolutely can have it both ways. For example, your response to me. I can answer your first two points by quoting what I already said if I'd like to, and yet you ignore that to try to paint me as making an inferior argument. It's just sad. Here, then, are your responses, and the post to which you were responding: Is being a Top 5 (or Top 3 as I noted in my list) QB not thriving? Hence why I listed Brady on top when it came to overall evaluation at the position. He's better at what HE does than Manning is at what HE does. It's also why I made separate listings for QBs as they will truly be evaluated and remembered and lists for QBs as I feel they intrinsically are. Already addressed. Perfect marriage. Belichick and Weis clearly knew exactly what they were getting out of Brady, and both had come a long way since Cleveland. Either way, it's such a silly argument that you consistently make. Of course we can't see what Brady can do w/o Belichick. It proves absolutely nothing, especially given the time between head coaching gigs. I never said any of that, and I never brought up numbers, and yet you insist on the straw man fallacy. Of course you can convince yourself you've won an argument if you're only really arguing with your projections and not the other person. I don't just see numbers either, even W/L, when evaluating a QB. I watch, I rewatch, and I interpret. I go more in depth than the typical fan, and I don't fall for only a slightly more complex view of the game than the typical fan. I'm sorry if you do. Like I said, history will remember Brady as the greatest. History looks at performance and, when it comes to sport, tends to ignore circumstance. I'm well aware of that. Having said that, placing Ben above Peyton because of championships leads me to question how closely you really do watch the game and whether you're a bit more tied into the numbers--albeit, certain types of them--than you'd lead us to believe. Dig deeper.
A crying one, at that. What about Wes Welker? Also, if the Pats backfield was terribly mediocre, what was Green Bay's? Kuhn and Starks don't ring out much. Are they any better than Woodhead and Green Ellis? Is Quarless, the Packers rookie tight end, that much better than the Pats rookie tight ends? The Pats O-line was definitely more injured than the Packers, but they weren't at full strength either. It was a great accomplishment, winning the MVP award with the weapons (or lack of) that Brady had. But what about Aaron Rodgers makes you think he wouldn't be able to excel with the Pats offense? Intangibles? The level Rodgers is playing at, he could throw to the biggest losers and still put up sick numbers.
I don't know, he did struggle a bit at times this season. He has a great receiving corps, I am not sure any QB besides Brady could win w/ what Brady had to work w/ this year AND w/ the D being mediocre. When he had less talent and won SBs his D was alot better than he had this year. I don't belittle anyone. There are times I may post some digs but I do get attacked alot on here, it's amazing I don't lose it w/ some posters. Then again, I know this stuff is all in fun whole some others don't seem to get that. I don't change any words or ignore points. I answer all questions and counter the points I think are weak. You can say "system QB" isn't derogatory but it is and even after explaining it, it still looks derogatory. Who are these QBs that have been great in BB's system? if there was a track record I could agree w/ you. The ONLY QB to ever win in that system under BB has been Brady. How is it silly? The facts show BB has been awful w/o him and great w/ him. Was it magic that NE started winning in 2001 the moment Brady became the starter? I don't have to convince myself I have won anything, I am WINNING but these arguments aren't won and lost when these guys have years to go on their careers. Peyton could have great postseasons the next 2-3 years and Brady could continue to struggle and he could catch him. Right now there's no doubt when you factor in everything(Peyton plays more than half his games in domes, better talent around him, had a coach who won w/ other QBs, Brady 14-5 in postseason, manning 9-10,...) Brady is well ahead of manning RIGHT NOW. I happen to go more in depth too which is why I, unlike most fans, know that Brady is better than Manning. It's why I can see a 35 rating from ben and know Pitt doesn't beat us w/o him. Ben is not a better QB but ben makes more big plays to help his team win. That list is from this year when peyton almost threw away his teams season while ben led his team to another SB. I like to win, Pitt, NE, Indy all have had SB caliber rosters around their QBs for most of the last decade- the difference has been at QB in postseason and that is why I would put Ben ahead of him. I don't get wowed by meaningless fantasy #s, I get wowed by QBs who make plays to WIN games(more importantly big games).
if i were starting a team and had any pick at QB 1. Manning (knock his playoff record but the guy is a coach on the field. plain and simple.) 2. Brady (his track record speaks for itself, as much as I despise him what he did this year was insane. im just glad we redeemed ourselves after he disected us) 3. Brees (pocket presence, the ability to read defenses as easily as a Dr.Seuss book, and a true leader/motivator. need i say more?) 4. Rodgers (loved him coming out of Cal and im usually weary of Pac 10 offensive prospects cause of defensive competition within the conference. He had some bumps this year but what he did to get his team in the playoffs let alone how he kept it going was impressive. and some of those throws he made in the SB were jaw dropping) 5. Schaub/Ryan (close race for that spot. Schaub is nasty when hes not banged up. but people have been waiting on them to get over the hump for years. they have yet to knock the colts off the throne though so theres plenty of case to be made against him. Ive been on the Mat Ryan bandwagon since his days at BC. the guy is mature beyond his years and it shows in his play, and record at home specifically) notable mentions: Vick, Rivers edit: on a side note though watching Vick evolve into a NFL version of a legit dual threat QB was amazing. the guy finally took note of what Brees/Manning/Brady do and it showed this year. almost feel stupid for not having him make the top 5 the guy was in beast mode.
Is it really great? Is Driver that much of a difference maker at this point, or measurably better than Deion Branch? Jennings is definitely better than Branch or Welker, I'll give you that. But I don't think the Packers WRs are great as a whole by any stretch. I also think Rivers could have made it work with the Pats offense. Probably not to the level of Brady, but an approximation. Again, I'm basing my opinion on what I saw from Rodgers in the latter portion of the season and especially the playoffs. He was playing nearly perfect football.
Jennings and Driver are MUCH better than Welker and Branch and the GB WR corps is deep too. If Rivers is playing that weak AFC West sched he could win some games. Rodgers is great, I'm not arguing against him. based on the reg and postseason it's hard not to say he was the best.
