After All: He's Only 40!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by steve B

If the defense is average to bad, there's more chance you're playing while behind, and that traditionally means more passing. So it does affect the stats. If I had the time and inclination I'd do some sort of math study of it, but I'm just not that into the math.

I did use that sort of concept playing fantasy FB, which is pretty much about nothing but stats. I only put maybe 2-3 players in my draft list, and by week three there was always a good idea who was becoming "good" and had been overlooked. SO for me the revolving door spun a lot!
Had Welker on the Dolphins when we got points for return yards..
And Gore with SF the same.
Then the guy running it took away return yards.
Had a nice run of kickers with range who played for teams with really average offenses. Made the difference a few times.
The he took away the huge point difference between 30-50 yard FGs and 50+
Had Brady for a change when Moss was on the team.
Next year he changed QB touchdowns from 6 points to 4....

Eventually he gave up.
I think I won 3 times in 7 years, second twice more and only missed the playoffs once.

We not talking about fantasy football. When you are down, yes you can get more passing yards but also at a risk of INTs...you dont see QBs who lose 40-24 usually throw for 3 tds and 0 picks....

its not like Brady is throwing for 220 yards and managing the games. He is throwing for enough yards and 'winning' enough games in my book to reach critical mass to be declared the best even when compared to any players that 'crush' him in yards/tds etc or would have crushed him if they played today.

Plus Brady has shown to win games with a bunch of rotating WR RBs that have cycled throughout the league. Marino clayton and duper is not even closes to montana having Taylor/Rice and many more other better options.

Basically if we list the best options Brady had , i believe for the most part its Brady (and the Brady/Pats system) that made them great.

Matt Cassal did win 10 games though...anyway..


Bill Russell is sort of lumped into the great, but it was his team category. I dont think Brady is remotely close to Russell. In todays modern era in football and salary cap and concussions, good luck ever seeing another QB go and start in 8 superbowls ever again.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

We not talking about fantasy football. When you are down, yes you can get more passing yards but also at a risk of INTs...you dont see QBs who lose 40-24 usually throw for 3 tds and 0 picks....

its not like Brady is throwing for 220 yards and managing the games. He is throwing for enough yards and 'winning' enough games in my book to reach critical mass to be declared the best even when compared to any players that 'crush' him in yards/tds etc or would have crushed him if they played today.

Plus Brady has shown to win games with a bunch of rotating WR RBs that have cycled throughout the league. Marino clayton and duper is not even closes to montana having Taylor/Rice and many more other better options.

Basically if we list the best options Brady had , i believe for the most part its Brady (and the Brady/Pats system) that made them great.

Matt Cassal did win 10 games though...anyway..


Bill Russell is sort of lumped into the great, but it was his team category. I dont think Brady is remotely close to Russell. In todays modern era in football and salary cap and concussions, good luck ever seeing another QB go and start in 8 superbowls ever again.

No, but the results there are directly tied to the real world stats.
Teams with mediocre offenses or good offenses against better defenses will use the kicker more.
A good QB on a team that has a poor defense will throw for more yards more often. - Rogers, Brees



I do think the team has been amazing, and I've been fortunate to be a fan during that run. A long way from them getting crushed by the bears, or Rod Rust nearly getting electrocuted by the microphone at his introductory press conference..

That there are QBs like Rogers and Brees who put up flashy enough stats to make an argument that winning the most might not make you the best player at a position also says a lot about the entire last 20 years.

[frankbmd]

Are you referring to Mr. Roger’s neighborhood or Aaron Rodgers? Good grief!!!

Originally Posted by steve B

No, but the results there are directly tied to the real world stats.
Teams with mediocre offenses or good offenses against better defenses will use the kicker more.
A good QB on a team that has a poor defense will throw for more yards more often. - Rogers, Brees



I do think the team has been amazing, and I've been fortunate to be a fan during that run. A long way from them getting crushed by the bears, or Rod Rust nearly getting electrocuted by the microphone at his introductory press conference..

That there are QBs like Rogers and Brees who put up flashy enough stats to make an argument that winning the most might not make you the best player at a position also says a lot about the entire last 20 years.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Are you referring to Mr. Roger’s neighborhood or Aaron Rodgers? Good grief!!!

Weren't you saying that Aaron Rogers has done amazingly well despite not having a good defense?

I agree with that, but I also think that the defense not being all that good or reliable has contributed. Typically, a team that's out in front by whatever they think a decent margin is will run more. A team that's not comfortable with the lead or that is behind will throw more, or at least throw as much as usual deeper into the game.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by steve B

No, but the results there are directly tied to the real world stats.
Teams with mediocre offenses or good offenses against better defenses will use the kicker more.
A good QB on a team that has a poor defense will throw for more yards more often. - Rogers, Brees



I do think the team has been amazing, and I've been fortunate to be a fan during that run. A long way from them getting crushed by the bears, or Rod Rust nearly getting electrocuted by the microphone at his introductory press conference..

That there are QBs like Rogers and Brees who put up flashy enough stats to make an argument that winning the most might not make you the best player at a position also says a lot about the entire last 20 years.

theres winning and then theres WINNING.

people used to argue bradshaw/montana etc cause of a whopping 4 superbowls...versus some passing stat stud with 1 or 0 superbowls

when you are getting to 8 superbowls..possibly 10 ...this type of argument really looks silly now when going against a guy with all those SB appearences

manage the game qbs like Dilfer etc , yeah they will get to a super bowl perhaps..but to get into 8, the QB has to be good..again its not like brady averages 200 yards a game either...his passing stats are up there too..and the counting stats etc..

[TUM301]

It seems as though the G O A T discussion as of late more often than not comes down to Brady and A Rodgers. Rodgers can make any type of throw at any time and is the most talented QB I`ve ever seen. Brady has the best understanding and feel for the game of any player I`ve seen. What sets Brady apart from all the rest in my opinion is his complete devotion, on and off the field, to his team winning the championship. In a strange way, documented in an upcoming 6 part series, he seems to eat/sleep/obssess his craft almost 24 hours a day. This attitude and realizing if you want to win you don`t have to be even among the top say 15 highest payed QB`s has led to stronger teams and unequaled longevity. Hey it`s a lot easier to do when the queen`s bringing in another 30+ million a year also.
The final piece to the puzzle is of course Belichick and to a much lessor degree but still, Bob Kraft. Being sports fans we all know and appreciate how tough (basically impossible) it is to be a pro. player in this country in the "Big 4" leagues. To do what Brady/The Pats have done the stars have to align sort ta speak. Brady lasts to pick # 199, mostly luck N E got him. Bel. carries 4 QB`s for some time which is now never done. Bledsoe gets smoked playing the J E T S the "Tuck Rule" etc etc etc. But the coach and this player are the same guy in their approach to the game that met at exactly the right time.
Well my 2 cents and pardon the long winded response, combo of coffee/nite shifts and the N E winter. So, Rodgers as THE most talented and Brady as the best over all. On a side note some of my buddies and I love to play the "what if Belichick coached "fill in the blank" team. Try it with G B, Dallas or Pitts, fun discussions.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

theres winning and then theres WINNING.

people used to argue bradshaw/montana etc cause of a whopping 4 superbowls...versus some passing stat stud with 1 or 0 superbowls

when you are getting to 8 superbowls..possibly 10 ...this type of argument really looks silly now when going against a guy with all those SB appearences

manage the game qbs like Dilfer etc , yeah they will get to a super bowl perhaps..but to get into 8, the QB has to be good..again its not like brady averages 200 yards a game either...his passing stats are up there too..and the counting stats etc..

My friends and I used to have the same sort of debate - Brady or Peyton Manning? Manning was flashier, especially early on, more yards, more TDs. But Brady won more. With us it was a lot more basic than it is here. More like "manning is awesome! he threw for 350" ( or 400 or whatever it was.)
"Brady only threw for 147". Yeah, but the Colts lost and the Pats won, so who's really better?

Brady was a game manager early on, that was the knock against him, that he just killed people with so many 5-10 yard passes and not making to many risky throws or trying to force a play that wasn't there.

One of the non-stat things that would make me put him up there as the best would be that over the 18 years he's changed from a fairly conservative manager to someone that throws down field, to someone very different from most, neither a manager or shooting for long plays, but taking what's left available for him. There aren't many players in any sport that can change styles without a few years of adjustment.
That he's got a coaching staff that adjusts plays and styles to match a players abilities, and ownership that provides stability by not panicking if there's a season that isn't spectacular has made that easier, but how many players do you see who can't adjust when there's a new coach with a different style.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by steve B

My friends and I used to have the same sort of debate - Brady or Peyton Manning? Manning was flashier, especially early on, more yards, more TDs. But Brady won more. With us it was a lot more basic than it is here. More like "manning is awesome! he threw for 350" ( or 400 or whatever it was.)
"Brady only threw for 147". Yeah, but the Colts lost and the Pats won, so who's really better?

Brady was a game manager early on, that was the knock against him, that he just killed people with so many 5-10 yard passes and not making to many risky throws or trying to force a play that wasn't there.

One of the non-stat things that would make me put him up there as the best would be that over the 18 years he's changed from a fairly conservative manager to someone that throws down field, to someone very different from most, neither a manager or shooting for long plays, but taking what's left available for him. There aren't many players in any sport that can change styles without a few years of adjustment.
That he's got a coaching staff that adjusts plays and styles to match a players abilities, and ownership that provides stability by not panicking if there's a season that isn't spectacular has made that easier, but how many players do you see who can't adjust when there's a new coach with a different style.

right...i also hate the 'more talented' argument for other players... talent is like potential. The goal is to win games. Id take someone that actually goes to superbowls than someone with all the talent in the world that cant.

Bird in the hand is the QB that's been there and done that. The what if game can work for a little bit (what if this guy was on that team ) if the margin is small but with brady its just silly to compare. There are players that that get hurt and never play again after a few years and I'm sure we can do the 'what if' game being that if the never got hurt and played on X team and since they are the most talented now THEY are the best player...not the guy that actually played 18 years and won more championships than anyone else..


there are also gimmick years. ie run and shoot etc but after a yearly adjustment, the stats change. Brady is no gimmick. Who cares if he doesn't have the strongest arm versus this guy or doesn't do this versus that guy.. If you don't play the seasons, you don't get the credt.

if some guy played 5 years and won 5 superbowls and retired and was the most talented ever, i would still put him behind brady because the guy that plays 10 more years plus gets more credit...

basically if i had a franchise, would i want a guy for 5 years with 500 touchdowns and 5 championships or a guy like brady...

[steve B]

The problem with that reasoning is that none of what a player does happens in a vacuum. There's an entire team, plus the coaching staff, plus the office people and owner. Everything they do affects what happens on the field.

Yes, the individual players have to be good or great. And they all have tendencies, but that only goes so far. Farve was a great QB, but had a tendency to try to force plays and that led to a lot of interceptions.
The Giants beat the Pats twice because they had a tendency to be beatable on long plays especially late in the game. Maybe an over focusing on stopping first downs made the secondary beatable?
I was always surprised that teams didn't try long plays more often against them. Happy, but surprised.
Would you blame Brady for those losses? Of course not.

But that's what happens on other teams, success isn't immediate, so someone, either a QB or coach or someone else is picked as the cause and they're out.
Look at the 49ers. Harbaugh was pretty good for three years, then one not so good year and he's out. The next year they were worse - Bring in another coach, worse still. Blame the QB who was actually just about as good as he'd been the year they went to the Superbowl as he was that year when he was 1-10. Bring in still another coach and QB, and lose everything until one really lucky trade. Is Garoppolo that good? Or were Bethard and Hoyer that bad? Or did Garoppolo simply bring a better attitude and process to things. Or maybe the way the other two guys work best isn't what the coach wanted to do.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think Garoppolo is in for some rough times in SF.


Brady is great, but a part of that has to be due to the team and overall system and the ownership that has the patience to give them the stability to take some risks. (How many other coaches would have survived a 4th and short failure handing the ball to Peyton Manning late in a playoff game? How many other owners would have supported that position and carried on like it was business as usual? )

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course it takes a whole team and organization to win consistently. That misses the point, and there are no "buts" qualifying Brady's greatness. Nobody in the history of the game, in my opinion, has more consistently made good use of that 3 or 4 seconds you have after the snap to choose a target and throw than Brady. He has won with and without great receivers, with and without strong running backs. And here he is at age 40!!! coming off an MVP season and going to yet another Super Bowl. Nuff ced.