http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cnnsi-thenflsnewpower&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

plus I'm still trying to figure out how he associates Sean Payton with Bill Belichick...

>plus I'm still trying to figure out how he associates Sean
>Payton with Bill Belichick...

The melanin must have blinded him.


----------------------------
"I don't want to die because I ate too many cheeseburgers" The Big Kid aka Shawn Andrews

So Payton fits in. But it was poorly written so it made it seem like Payton was somehow part of the Belicheck lineage. And honestly, he gave so few examples that the whole point was lost.

"In the Denver Broncos' surprising 28-point, Week 8 rout of Philadelphia, left cornerback Darrent Williams, a brash, 23-year-old rookie, ran to the line of scrimmage as Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was barking signals. Just outside the right offensive tackle slot, against air, Williams bobbed toward the line, then jumped back a step. During his cadence, McNabb looked at him, wondering: Is he coming? Is he faking? "You've got to make it look like a decoy,'' Williams said last week. "You've got to act like you've done it before.'' At the snap, the Eagles thought it was a fake, thinking he'd retreat into coverage. Nope. The 5-8 coverman became a sacker, sprinting at McNabb -- who has seven inches and 30 pounds on Williams -- and leveling him with a rib-jarring hit."

I went on to write that Williams shut out Terrell Owens in 15 man-coverage snaps that day.

"I learned never to back down growing up,'' Williams said. "When you're a corner my size, it's something you need to remember all the time.''

The other day, Denver coach Mike Shanahan told me he thought Williams, 24, was going to a Pro Bowl someday. "We were playing Oakland last year,'' Shanahan said, and he reads a pass play in the flat, and he breaks on it and picks it off and goes 80 yards for a touchdown. Broke open the game. I'd like people to know what a good player he was, and a good person.''

What a sin. An unarmed guy not meaning anyone any harm, out on New Year's Eve, in a limo with friends, not driving because it's not smart to drink and drive. Dead, for no reason.

9. Dallas (9-8). John Madden sort of made this same point on the telecast. But did you see the ball that was snapped to Tony Romo on the botched field-goal hold? Looked very shiny, perhaps slippery. It was one of the "K'' balls. Each game, 12 balls used only for special teams plays are kept on the sidelines, and when there's a punt or a kickoff or a placekick, one of those 12 balls is put into play. The ball came back to Romo on a good snap, and as he transferred the ball in his hands to put it down for the kick, it slipped from his grip. Wish I had a chance to ask him about it after the game. The way it slipped made the ball look like some of the waxy sheen was still on it from having just come out of the box.

10. Seattle (10-7). Good gut-it-out win over Dallas, but a weird one. I still don't know what to think of the Seahawks. They haven't overcome the loss of Steve Hutchinson in free-agency because they still struggle to run with any consistency. Matt Hasselbeck looks like he's running for his life half the time. You're going to ask why I have Dallas ahead of Seattle in these rankings, of course, after Seattle beat Dallas in a playoff game. Simple. I think Dallas is better.

The Doc was alive for Montana.

so you're right, he might hate the Niners, but I think he hates sanity more.

sounding like those crazy Giants fans that claim 50 Football titles.

I like Steve McNair too.

shit, maybe Jim Kelly, too.

shit, maybe Jim Kelly, too.

----------------------------
"I don't want to die because I ate too many cheeseburgers" The Big Kid aka Shawn Andrews

Montana, Marino, Moon, Elway, Kelly, Cunningham, Kosar and 'em.

Right now, The Doc sees three definite quality QBs (Brady, Manning, McNabb) and a few on the cusp (Vick -- he's been robbed of proving it, ITDO, Bulger, Palmer, Leftwich)...

but no era will compare to all those whoopass QBs in the NFL.

Marino did so much in an era when the rules aren't nearly as pussy as they are.

Improbables kept him, Jim Kelly, and the like from winning it. In the parity age, those QBs would have rings.

are on a even level now. In the 80s and 90s you had powerhouses like the 49ers and Cowboys cause there was no salary cap and Jerry Jones could get any player he wanted bascially. Now it's not like that so yeah Marino and Kelly would be good but I think it would be just as hard if not harder to win. Put Kelly in his prime on the Bills and Marino in his prime on the Dolphins of today.

instinct like Montana. Now Marino may be the best qb from 20 to20.

he just didn't have a running game behind him.

The Patriots only had a great running game in 1 of their 3 title runs.

the comparison I was responding to was to Montana, not Brady.

and the Patriots have still had a better running game than Marino's Dolphins anyway.

So FUCK YO COUCH, NIGGA!!!

n/m

I mean, can we please get a marquee receiver in New England? Imagine a Steve Smith or Chad Johnson catching passes from Brady. I still am hoping one day Belichick and them and bring Randy Moss to New England.

While it would be nice, I'm fine with not paying for a big money receiver. I'd rather spend money on defense, RB, and the O-Line.

If we can get a couple of possession receivers in here and have them stick around and get comfortable with Brady, I'm more than happy.

Like we have to watch Manning throwing bombs to Harrison all the time. I'd just like to see how it would play out if Brady had a guy like a Steve Smith that he could throw to like Montana had Rice.

yeah Montana has a longer body of work, but Brady already has the best playoff record out of any QB with 5 or mor starts and is only one SB behind Montana. Add on to that the fact he has numbers not far behind Montana with nowhere near the receiving talent. OTL was saying imagine him with Rice and everyone else Montana had, jesus.

system>>>>product


As long as you have a great system, you can put anyt type of product in that system and it will be a winner...except at QB( you cant replace a queen ..no way no how), everything else are pawns.


I have a felling that that they are going to win another superbowl....they beat a tought as team with ease the other day.

I bet a lot of other quarterbacks would love to play with the defenses and coach he's had

I realize his D and cocaching have been great, but plug another QB, even Peyton, in there and those three championships are gone.

yeah the D and coaching were CRUCIAL parts of the team, i'm pretty sure i just mentioned that. But so was Brady and you still can't seem to acknowledge that.

"WR's like Peyton, blah, blah, blah" like I lot of QB's wouldn't love to have the defense and coach that Brady has had

>"WR's like Peyton, blah, blah, blah" like I lot of QB's
>wouldn't love to have the defense and coach that Brady has
>had

there's no harm or whining meant in it.

And its true that he doesn't have the WRs that other QBs have which he's compared to. That's THA TRUTH. We're not talking about defenses or team success with that statement because he's won without the top WRs. It was just a thought on what he could do with great WRs in addition to what he already has. What's so bad about that? Because when you compare him to past great QBs like Montana, they had a lot of weapons on offense in addition to their great defenses. But what you seem to ignore are the great defenses that EVERY great or good QB who has won a superbowl has had.

.

since he played in a great system for a great coach and had a great defense?

Brady has never had a target of that caliber to throw to. Jerry Rice had 3 QB's (maybe 4) post-Montana in the Pro Bowl and we ALL know Garcia and Gannon needed Rice more than he needed them.

Montana played with more HOF talent on offense than Brady. Same goes for most GOAT QB candidates, especially GOAT SB QB candidates.

nobody is playing with as many weapons or as good defenses as those guys were

It's been like what years now? Get over it but what I wanted to say is if that's the case why the colts aren't winning? Tony Dungy is a good ass coach shit Gruden won a superbowl with his team but yet it's been 5 years and Manning still can't get over the hump. Why didn't Bledsoe win with Parcells was coaching the Pats? I could go on and on.

and he knows thats the only reason he in here crying. nigga can stay mad for the rest of his life, the outcome of that game ain't changing.

should have known you Brady-stans would get your panties in a bunch.

I have one of the best QBs today on my team and we're are making our 5 superbowl run in 6 years. Why would I get mad? But you, you have a right to be mad cause the Rams went from the greatest turf on earth and from being the next dynasty to getting beat in the SB by a future great qb and hall of famer to ? Who would ever thought that #12 would be ranked amongst the greats.

this argument wouldn't even be going on.

DUMB ASS PLAY CALLING ...He should have just given the ball to faulk all game long...wasting time outs? ....he was the worst at that.


I like the pats, but the rams gave them that superbowl.


Martz sure did fuck up a dynasty...Great OC, but he SUCKS As a coach...They should have never run Dick Vermiel out.

>DUMB ASS PLAY CALLING ...He should have just given the ball
>to faulk all game long...wasting time outs? ....he was the
>worst at that.

1. this might be true, however you're not giving Bill enough credit. all week everyone was talking about how the pats were gonna blitz the hell out of warner, which is what they had done the last time they faced them. what happened come sunday? barely blitzed him at all. we kept on the receivers, he had nowhere to throw and then we'd eventually get pressure on him and he'd make mistakes.

2. you're acting like the Rams ever had the game in their hands. It was a poor 4th quarter with penalties and mistakes for the Pats that let the Rams back into the game. It was looking like it was gonna be a blowout in the Pats favor for quite a while.


>
>
>Martz sure did fuck up a dynasty...Great OC, but he SUCKS As a
>coach...They should have never run Dick Vermiel out.

now that's all truth.

You know me and you from up northeast where cats there stick with their home towns. I don't know who roots for what on OKP.

He's florida gators fan, a dallas cowboy fan and a lakers fan. I'm like dude don't you ever get tired of jumping on bandwagons? I said that after he said he was a Bulls fan back in the day.

So, maybe he doesn't stack Marino & Manning type numbers but he's can always compete for a title when the D is top notch.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And that's the reason we livin where they don't visit..
where the dope slangin keep swangin like Sonny Liston.." © Black Thought

Only 2 years has Brady had a good running game around him and he's never had a true elite receiver.

like his post season performances rather than just raw stats.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And that's the reason we livin where they don't visit..
where the dope slangin keep swangin like Sonny Liston.." © Black Thought

and anybody saying he's not top 2 at that point is just hating.

when the chargers put the smackdown on them hoe ass patriots, we'll all be hearing a different tune from fags like peter king.

Peyton has to many weapons, gets nevrous in the pocket( happy feet)when the pressure is on, and he cant win big games. He has not won at all win everything is on the line.


Brady?


Composure...works with third string players every year....never gets rattled....doesnt get injured....accuracy is just insane....and can win under any circumstance

its not even close

you bought in when he won his one playoff game of the year didn't you?

How's the "Eli is GOAT" going for you? Is that working out?

n/m

job as starting QB for the Giants.

and dont marino....that nigga had duper and clayton...and he choked in the superbowl

I guess so

and I aint talking bout the basketball coach.

though I agree he's had less talent, it is only at the receiver position. His O-LINE has been incredible. He is hardly ever sacked. That said, the same goes for Peyton's O-Line, difference is, Brady poise is what sets him apart and that can't be taught. Peyton is more talented overall but Brady has the intangible that makes him better, personally.

And, lets not forget the Patriots team having the best kicker of a generation in V, and a hell of a defense. If Peyton's 'idiot' kicker had just made the fg against the Steelers, or Vini had missed in the snow against the Raiders (tuck rule) & Panthers in the Super Bowl, we'd all be singing a different song.

Point being, all the QB can do is put you in position to win and sometimes the difference is as simple as a 'kicker.'

Carry on.

Challenger-

It can't be blamed on the kicker. And while the O-line performs solid for the Patriots, another unrecognized thing is that Brady doesn't waste time getting rid of the ball. (BTW, can a Pats O-lineman get a Probowl call please league?) Most QBs you see do have ample time, but they fuck it up. They need 10 seconds it seems to get a good pass off. It's not like Brady isn't hitting the dirt in games because he is. He just gets right back up, takes another snap, then 1-2-3 and fires to a receiver. I think he's more efficient with his time in the pocket than most QBs which is an underrated characteristic.

he will always step into his throws no matter who's coming after him. and he gets wrecked sometimes, but hey, the pass was completed.

they showed eli the other day and how he runs away from every hit which causes him to be unbalanced on his throws and throw INTs

bad play would not be remembered. Much like Roethlisberger is celebrated as a SuperBowl winner even though he had the worse QB game of ANY in history.

If the Patriots kicker missed against Oakland OR the Panthers, Brady would have a different legacy. Period.

That said, I agree that he gets rid of the ball fast and takes a good hit when it comes. As much attention as they get, I still feel both are UNDERappreciated. Brady b/c all he does is win & Peyton b/c his incredible stats are expected.

Challenger-

cuz, he missed on ONE play, while peyton fucked up on SEVERAL plays to get them in the position.

Seriously, his play-calling and general hoe-osity has fucked the colts in the playoffs for several years in a row, now.

>though I agree he's had less talent, it is only at the
>receiver position.

Antowaine Smith

They won 2 superbowls without a potent running game. Smith was hilarious.

...

HE IS IN THE TOP 3 & IS ALREADY IN THE HOF. because only 2 stats matters bitches:

11-1 in the playoffs (best ever win %)
3 super bowls

montana- 16-6 in playoffs
4 super bowls

I don't think these Pats have another potential Hall of Fame player (outside of if you want to include their kicker or their coach).

But it is too early to start talking about Brady as the best, let's just see how the rest of the prime of his career plays out. I can see he's the best of this current era (from 2000 on, without question).

For the moment, Joe Montana is unquestionably the best quarterback of my lifetime. And people talk about his supporting cast forgetting that Joe won his first Super Bowl without just about any of the guys normally cited outside of a rookie Ronnie Lott. That Niner team was a basement-dwelling squad before Montana and Walsh came in and gave them an identity.

argument

don't you tell me what I actually said in my previous post that was not true. Thanks in advance.

on things like longevity and and a number of other factors but lets not act like the Patriots have been little sisters of the poor during this run:

Law, Milloy, Bruschi, McGinest, Seymour, Harrison, Dillion, Vinetieri

I don't about HOF but those guys have a lot of pro bowls between them

and I'm not gonna act like the Pats haven't had a great team around him during the run, obviously they would have to in order to do what they've done.

But the talent level on those Cowboys and Steeler teams was undoubtedly better and that era was more conducive to being able to keep the core together and in the case of the Cowboys improve each year through free agency.

Then again, I think that those Pitt 70s teams or the early 90s Cowboy teams would smash any year of the Pats during this run so it becomes hard to compare.

I'll just say that Brady has been the best QB of this era and we'll try to figure out the rest of it after he's finished.

so it might take a minute), Larry Allen will get in, Deion will get in, and Charles Haley has an outside shot.

getting in. Deion was only there for the last SB they won

>getting in. Deion was only there for the last SB they won
>
Emmitt and Larry are locks. Irvin will get in, they're just hating on him at the moment plus he had that drug incident last year right around the announcement of candidates. That's three players on his side of the ball.

I know Deion was only there for one, does that not count?

Haley probably won't get in, which I don't really get.....dude was one of the dominating lineman of his era and has five rings.

I also forgot to mention Darren Woodson, who has a legitimate shot.

he stats are insane, and his career ended early because of injury..

They are shoe-ins:

Aikman
Moose ( as a fullback ...blocking? ...the best)
Emmitt
Deion
Larry Allen
Irvin


Shoe-ins I tell you ...in on the first ballot


The pats? ...none of the wr's are in, nor are the TE's in, maybe dillion

Pats have been talented on D , not offense. ..Brady has worked with 2nd and third stringers ...and he is still ill...I mean his passes are so mutherfucking accurate...He's the best ...All other qbs had great talent and consistent talent( most of them staid together)

Bradshaw - stallworth, Swan, Harris

Fouts- Chandlier, Winslow, Muncey ( I know I fucked up the spelling)

Marino- Duper, Calyton

Montana- Jerry Rice ...that's all I have to say

Aikman - Irvin, Emmitt, Moose, Novicane( mutherfucker OD on that shit)and Hill

Peyton - This niggas is overrated ....he has had the most talent ever ...harrison,clarke,james, addai,wayne, stokely, utrecht....just insane

>he stats are insane, and his career ended early because of
>injury..
>
>They are shoe-ins:
>
>Aikman
>Moose ( as a fullback ...blocking? ...the best)
>Emmitt
>Deion
>Larry Allen
>Irvin
>
>
>Shoe-ins I tell you ...in on the first ballot
>

... although I wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility of the dead hooker scenario.

regardless, you KNOW Irvin was a HOF caliber WR.

my bad on irvin ...I forgot about that ...but had it no been for the drug shit..he would be in

Stokley has hardly played in two years and Maroney vs. Addai is a wash

Deion Sanders, Charles Haley? Are you kidding me?

but his original point about one maybe two HOF guys was incorrect so I guess that's why he's not going back to it.

had mad good talent around him.

and outside of that he's never had a legit offense the way the guys you mentioned did.

anyways, we're talking about offensive players in the HOF surrounding these QBs. You brought up Bradshaw, well besides possibly the greatest D ever he had Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, and an HOF center with Mike Webster. Aikman had Emmitt, who will be in, and Irvin who's probably going to get in eventually too (and we all know should already be there).

>and outside of that he's never had a legit offense the way
>the guys you mentioned did.
>
>anyways, we're talking about offensive players in the HOF
>surrounding these QBs. You brought up Bradshaw, well besides
>possibly the greatest D ever he had Franco Harris, Lynn Swann,
>and an HOF center with Mike Webster. Aikman had Emmitt, who
>will be in, and Irvin who's probably going to get in
>eventually too (and we all know should already be there).
>

Why does this only work one way? The NFC teams of the late '80s, early '90s would EMBARRASS any of those Patriot SB squads, who NEVER won games in convincing fashion.

Tom Brady is a talented QB, but y'all have to be high as shit to SERIOUSLY think his name is worth mentioning ANYWHERE near the #2 spot.

it meant certain teams could hog all the talent

it meant you could have like 2-4 mini all-pro teams facing off against a bunch of baron wastelands and only have to play tough games in the NFC championship games lol

The top of the league was much much stronger back then The 49ers Bills Cowboys Steelers Oilers Broncos Dolphins Packers made the playoffs year after year because they had depth. Teams today don't have depth thats why teams will win 12 games 1 year and 7 the next.

because they could shell out a lot more dough than other teams like we see in baseball right now. Nowadays, teams couldn't make it work to have so many good guys on one squad because of the cap.

back then. You would have 6-8 really really good teams in the playoffs now you have 6-8 slightly above average teams in the playoffs

very streaky

miami and steelers usually had half-way decent teams, but barely ever made any kind of real splash. steelers made the superbowl once, but that was by far their best season of the 90's.

Cowboys and 49ers easily hogged most of the talent.

the Bills dominated the AFC for a few years.

the fins were usually somewhere in the wildcard mix, mostly because of marino.

the lions were usually making a playoff run, only to get creamed in the first round.

then you had teams like the giants, eagles, packers, chiefs, and some others who would usually be someone's division-round whipping boy.

but all these teams were mostly filled with a few guys you knew and the rest: no-names.

the cowboys and 49ers truly hogged all the stardom.

nostalgia aside, i can easily say this is a much more competetive and exciting era in the NFL.

Just because every team has a chance to win it means nothing to me. I want to see good football and on most Sundays its hard to find 2 good football teams playing each other.

Competitive and good are very different. I didn't get hyped watching the Cowboys and The Seahawks play bad football or seeing the sorry ass Jets and Giants in the playoffs


I never said they were allstar teams all I said is that the teams had more depth. This cannot be disputed the number of teams and the salary cap has spread the talent thin for the most part

If you think the quality of football being played now is as good or better than the football that was played 10 years ago you are insane.

b/c each are from different eras

playing in before the cap/FA is not a distinct advantage - sure the Patriots are less talented than those teams, but so are all the other teams they play

The cats on these boards will say its all about the Pats D and nothing else and then act like past dynasties like the Niners didn't rank in the top 10 or 5 in defense every year they won the title. They being hypocrits man.

back then you could keep all your studs on offense while still having a great defense

but...you played some really strong teams in the playoffs who were also stacked on both sides of the ball

nowadays nobody has that kind of true balance on offense and defense, with free agency leading to a huge change of personnel every year

but...you play some really mediocre teams in the playoffs because everybody has a weakness due to the cap

so it's about even

But cats are acting like the Patriots are playing on a different field from other teams. It's like bullshit. It's part greatness of the core players we have, part greatness of the coaching staff and draft selections, and smart free agent pick ups. Like anyone in the league wanted Junior Seau's retiring ass. Nah mean? We made it work. No one wants old Troy Brown now. We made it work. Just like your boys are making things work too. Yall lose 2 top 10 running backs in Manning's days there (Faulk and James) and yall consistently win 12 to 14 games a year. But they ignore all those things on these boards. It's a trip. They'll say LT is the GOAT (even tho he plays in the same "watered-down league" as everyone else). But then will use the "watered-down league" example to shoot down guys like Brady and Manning's achievements. Its like ok... Only on OKP man.

honestly? cuz i can see the case for montana, but aikman had talent all over the place on offense and if you were knocking brady for having a great D then how aren't you doing the same bradshaw?


and again, the salary cap.

Truth you cool and I like reading ya post but come on man?

Brady won against the Ram and then fucked Truth's girl or something to get him this mad.

Law, Willie McGinest and Adam Vinetieri than Tom Brady. Brady only had like 140 yards passing in the game. He hit on a couple of checkdowns to set up the winning FG and that's why he got the MVP but othe than that he did nothing special in that game.

First you say it's a team thing. Then you say it's this select group of Patriots that brought about the Superbowl wins.

Just say it was a sum of all the parts of the team and be done with it. Because that's what it was. Stop pinpointing some group. The Patriots beat the Rams because of the defense AND because of the offense. Everyone contributed. And yes, Brady won MVP because when things got rough, he delivered like "Montana". He just didn't throw a game-winning TD. And Belichick ran circles around Martz in terms of coaching as he beat the #1 offense seen in like your lifetime with the 20 something rank defense.

>Just say it was a sum of all the parts of the team and be done
>with it. Because that's what it was. Stop pinpointing some
>group. The Patriots beat the Rams because of the defense AND
>because of the offense.

But the only thing is you won't admit that philosophy with any other great teams/players.

You do know how ridiculous it is to argue a man's greatness while poormouthing the team around him when the x-factor in his greatness is a team honor. His superbowl rings are tied to the greatness of the teams he led. The patriots are superbowl champions...not just tom brady.

You can't have it both ways.

King is on some fan-boy hyperbole shit and has always been when it comes to that organization. He's the real we roll our eyes when the topic comes up. Brady throws a 13yd completion and he does 3 paragraphs on it. Let his career be what it is. Why does he have to be anointed anything now? If he goes out there and has fun 5 times against the chargers it won't matter.

----------------------------
"I don't want to die because I ate too many cheeseburgers" The Big Kid aka Shawn Andrews

>You do know how ridiculous it is to argue a man's greatness
>while poormouthing the team around him when the x-factor in
>his greatness is a team honor. His superbowl rings are tied
>to the greatness of the teams he led. The patriots are
>superbowl champions...not just tom brady.
>
>You can't have it both ways.

we're not bashing the greatness of the team, we're saying he never had the great receiving corps or offenses the other great QBs had. Is that not true?

had some things going in his favor that a lot of other great QB's never had

>we're not bashing the greatness of the team, we're saying he
>never had the great receiving corps or offenses the other
>great QBs had. Is that not true?

Tell me. Cuz Montana had the coaching, the playmakers, the defenses, etc. So you're trying to tell me Brady has things on his teams that other greats - Elway, Montana, and Young (for example) NEVER had???

who's arguably one of the top 3 greatest coaches ever seen.

or Marino had.

Did they have defenses like the defense Brady has had in his SB years?

And I know you guys don't like to talk about it but since you like to deal in hypotheticals if it wasn't for the tuck rule the Brady legend might have never existed.

is that his defenses haven't performed poorly in the playoffs. It's been him consistently. Unless you've been watching a different Manning. I dunno. But the reason we were talking about weapons that the QBs have in the first place is because we were discussing individual greatness I thought and not just team success. Of course the Colts have never played D like the Pats. But at the same time, the Pats use a lot of cats of defense that no one wants and then anchors them around a dab of very good players like your Seymours, McGinests, Laws, Milloys, etc. That's where Belichick does his best work. I mean, everyone in the NFL has talent or they wouldn't be there. So of course all our players have talent. Are there teams with more individual talent than the Pats? Of course. Or am I lying about that? But that's what makes the Patriots special in today's league. Now this weekend they go up against a team that on paper is far superior to them. Now if the Pats win, you mean to tell me we have more talent overall than the Chargers? I mean, what are you and everyone trying to say about Brady? He isn't that good? He shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Montana just because? LOL. Yall make these boards a blast to be a part of though. I actually do laugh out loud when reading a lot of stuff here.

>
>And I know you guys don't like to talk about it but since you
>like to deal in hypotheticals if it wasn't for the tuck rule
>the Brady legend might have never existed.

I'll talk about the tuck rule. It happened and we won. We came back 2 more times to show our organization wasn't a fluke. Yall picking.

If you really want to get technical and down dirty with everything, we can compare the amount of pro bowlers the Pats have, concrete stuff, etc. But there's no need for that but that's the kind of conversation you all are making this Brady thing into.

>Of course the Colts have never played D
>like the Pats. But at the same time, the Pats use a lot of
>cats of defense that no one wants and then anchors them around
>a dab of very good players like your Seymours, McGinests,
>Laws, Milloys, etc. That's where Belichick does his best work.
>I mean, everyone in the NFL has talent or they wouldn't be
>there. So of course all our players have talent. Are there
>teams with more individual talent than the Pats? Of course. Or
>am I lying about that? But that's what makes the Patriots
>special in today's league.

how many tackles has Brady made? how many sacks does he have? The Pats are the only multiple SB winner to not have a top 5 ranked offense.

>Now this weekend they go up against
>a team that on paper is far superior to them. Now if the Pats
>win, you mean to tell me we have more talent overall than the
>Chargers?

The gap in talent is not as big as you make it out to be. Sure the Chargers have LDT but Rivers is essential a rookie at QB and his WR's are worse than Brady's. The Pats defense is ranked higher than the Chargers as well.

the Patriots are a very talented team that can plug in any QB and win in regards to Brady because the defense is what really has gotten them the titles? It's not a combination of an all-time great QB with a very talented team? That's why he's not in Montana's league or as good as Montanna. Is that it? Help me. I'm just trying to get to the nitty gritty.

is NE goes as the defense goes. Look at NE since 01.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nweindex.htm

Look at Brady's #s since 01.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BradTo00.htm

When NE has a top D ( 01, 03, 04 ) & this season, they're legitimate SB contenders. In 2 of Brady's top 3 seasons ( 02, 05 ) NE missed the playoffs & lost in the divisional round.

Obviously Brady, as the QB, gets credit for everything he's done to help NE win titles but we gotta look at the entire picture.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And that's the reason we livin where they don't visit..
where the dope slangin keep swangin like Sonny Liston.." © Black Thought

.

But it seems like you're trying to imply that other great teams won in spite of their defenses and not because they had great defenses as well as great offensive stars? What are you saying? Those Niners teams didn't have great defenses? The Cowboys??? Yall are killing me pulling up stuff. We all know defense wins championships. The Niners were ranked at least 4th in team defense in every year they won the Superbowl with Montana, except for one year where they were 9th. So to imply that the Patriots defense negates anything Brady does is silly.

And BTW just for argument sakes, the Patriots have never been ranked in the top 5 of team defense in ANY year they won the title. The Patriots have always been built on a good D that bends and doesn't break. Which is why they allow more yards than some other teams, but allow fewer touchdowns/points. And in 2001, they were ranked like 5th from the bottom or some shit. But yall know all the facts.

Let's look at the past 10 years.

Did the Steelers have a good defense.....yes

Did the Pats have a good defense.......yes

How bout Tampa Bay? Didn't they have a good defense or how bout them Ravens? Yeah Trent Dilfer was ballin. Negro please.

Let's not even talk about the Broncos or Cowboys or 49ers or Packers.

sorry you can't read, but don't take it out on me son. and like lach said, did the other great QBs not have great D's? You mention Bradshaw like the Steel Curtain never existed.

Name me one solid team that Brady knocked off, not some flash in the pan team riding a hot hand to the SB*. THEN name me ONE of those teams that they beat in convincing fashion. They DIDN'T. They did exactly what was needed to win, no more no less. Brady is good, but let's not get insane. I seriously didn't know y'all Pats fans were this fucking insane. Just a little success getting to your head THAT bad?




*TUCK RULE

Brady shouldn't be compared to Montana because the Patriots have never beaten a great team by a large margin? Every team Brady has faced in the big game has been a so-so team? Does that sum it up?

Also, to try to diminish Montana's achievements because he had a better team, while ignoring the fact that he was playing AGAINST better teams, is selective reasoning.

Stop trying to shove him up against the true greats of the position, when he's only proven himself in unconvincing fashion* against unconvincing opponents.



*TUCK RULE

>Also, to try to diminish Montana's achievements because he
>had a better team, while ignoring the fact that he was playing
>AGAINST better teams, is selective reasoning.

Never did that. It actually seems the other way around. Like you and some others are trying to diminish Brady's achievements by any means necessary.

>Stop trying to shove him up against the true greats of the
>position, when he's only proven himself in unconvincing
>fashion* against unconvincing opponents.

Wow. Ok, Brady isn't in the league of Montana or any of the greats according to you based on competition. I guess Manning isn't in anyone's league either. Everyone today is pure garbage. Oh well.

We all know this. I'd easily rate Manning as one of the most talented men to play the position, but I would NEVER rate him as one of the greats, because he chokes worse than a two-year-old who just swallowed some ipikak.

Let's take Jim Kelly as a comparison point. Let's say Norwood makes that FG in that one SB. Now Jim Kelly has one SB under his belt, proceeds to lose the next three in stunning fashion, but still he's there four times in a row.

Let's take Tom Brady. Let's say common sense and human decency prevailed, and the Tuck Rule never happened. Now that's two SB victories. Let's say Viniateri misses a kick or Andy Ried manages clock better, now that's one SB. How is Jim Kelly not in Tom Brady's league then?

Brady's a good QB -- I'm not denying that, but I mean someone DID post "clear #2" which is flat-out one of the stupidest things I've ever read in OK sports. You guys got two SB victories*, congrats. Try not to let it get to your head so much though, huh?



*TUCK RULE

were "flash in the pan" teams?
the colts are/were a flash in the pan team?
FOH

I guess they were gar-bage.

I also remember the Eagles having one of their most critical players going against doctor's orders and playing with a steel rod in his leg, then I also remember the game being criminally close and many observers noting that Andy Ried's coaching decisions had an awful lot to do with the loss.

I also NEVER remember Joe Montana winning a famous game by a FG. I remember TWO different emblematic last second TDs in the greatest stages available, and a good number of fairly dominant performances from start to finish, but I don't ever recall a kicker sealing the big game.

they were one of the best in the league, people forget this. They gave up less points that season than all but 5 teams, and were only one point behing the Pats.

>I also remember the Eagles having one of their most critical
>players going against doctor's orders and playing with a steel
>rod in his leg, then I also remember the game being criminally
>close and many observers noting that Andy Ried's coaching
>decisions had an awful lot to do with the loss.

I also remember our team just being better and everyone realizing it after the game.


>
>I also NEVER remember Joe Montana winning a famous game by a
>FG. I remember TWO different emblematic last second TDs in
>the greatest stages available, and a good number of fairly
>dominant performances from start to finish, but I don't ever
>recall a kicker sealing the big game.

So you're saying that when the Pats were tied with opponents they should have gone for a TD rather than a field goal when they have the most clutch field goal kicker in history? sorry we didn't have deficits to overcome like Montana did, guess we'll try harder to lose for 3 and a half quarters so that Brady can prove himself. He clearly hasn't done enough convincing yet.

and went up against a Pats team ranked 20 something.

its seems like every big game the Pats won always came to to a Vintieri FG. Sure Brady sustains drives and puts his team in position to win on those FG's, but he really doesn't have a lot of signature post-season moments where you can say, "This is why this guy is great"

Montana has a ton of them, "The Catch" to Dwight Clark in the '81 NFC championship, the game-winner to John Taylor vs. the Bengals in the '89 SB with 34 seconds left, the 5 TD's vs. Denver in the '90 SB.

Montana holds postseason records for most TD passes and passing yards.

Belichick is notorious for not taking big chances in big situations when he's up.

like their defense playing well enough were they usually aren't more than a FG down late, last year in Denver was an exception and we saw the result.

You also should be able to understand, fair or unfair, a lot of people are going to be reluctant to put Brady among the all-time greats until he has that one defining moment when his team is down by more than a FG and he throws a game-winning TD pass.

He was just in a situation where he TRULY needed his QB to perform, and his QB did. When Brady is finally tested in a position like that, and not in this bullshit modern NFL "just get it to the 25" fashion, then we'll have more to talk about.

he played his best on the biggest stage.

Even though you still dominate in the playoffs and win Superbowl MVPs? And you still have 3 Superbowl rings with more coming? I'm not saying Montana isn't the GOAT. But it seems like you guys are saying that Brady can't ever surpass him if he keeps up what he's doing which doesn't make sense. That's like if Kobe was to win 5 titles in a row and currently working on a 6th and someone saying well Jordan or Magic is still the GOAT and he can never be considered greater. Do you get what I'm saying?

damn.

and plus, he's never been in a situation in the playoffs where he's needed to go for a touchdown. sorry we don't play from more than three points behind in the 4th quarter.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20060114_NE@DEN

And you have to predictably throw the ball on 2 and 1, 3rd and inches, etc. Last year there was no run game whatsoever. But shit happens. Like I guess that '82 Niners team never happened either.

he won 2 other championships without a running game, right? should be a piece of cake! NOPE! When it counted and his team need a TOUCHDOWN instead of a FG he CHOKED!! Running game or no running game that was an AWFUL throw.

You're completely ignoring all the playoff losses Montana had. Ignoring them and saying because Brady didn't deliver last year then bla bla bla. Man, that's talking in circles. Brady's never had a below .500 or an even .500 season in his career. Joe did. I mean if you wanna sling dirt. Because you seem bent on saying one thing about Brady but ignoring it for another. Or maybe I'm wrong about all the posts you've made.

Not some fucking rag-tag thrown together group of mercenaries riding a hot hand into a couple lucky playoff victories.

same as Brady has. I mean, its difficult to compare past and present times with the NFL, but you guys are the ones who started with these comparisons. But like Will said above, you can't write off someone for achieving greatness in today's league just because of the cap era. Because it essentially helps to make everyone on the same playing field. So if you consider today's league a shitty league, then everyone's playing on a shitty foundation. You get me?

in '82 Montana never had a below .500 year either!

And my friend, you're the one reaching bringing up any and everything. That's why I brought that up.

Telling half truths/half stories to your OK family.

But I remember someone not being very Montana-ish on a few playoff occasions as well. So bringing up one bad playoff game means what in the grand scheme of things? He didn't complete a 3-peat title run? lol

I asked you what did his failure last year mean in the grand scheme of things? And what I was trying to say to you is that all it meant is that he failed on a 3 peat attempt.

in a big game he can't get it done, bottom line.

What else do you want? You want me to say that wipes out everything else about him? That would be retarded. Because no one comes through EVERY time out.

these Patriots fans are the same ones who wanted to speculate on Corey Dillon's chances at the Hall of Fame two years ago, think Laurence Maroney is the best rookie of 2006 and make statements like these:

"BTW, can a Pats O-lineman get a Probowl call please league?"

oh, but when they lose a game then the linemen suck and there is no run game

Antowain Smith and the Patriots ran for 133 yards in the SB win over St. Louis, or one yard less than Brady threw for

My comments have always been about the guys actually running the ball. If I've ever dissed our O-line, you will have to show me. And I neve said Maroney was the best rookie out there. You know, in all this, I just see double talk with the guys currently dissin. They'll good as say Manning aint shit and not one of the great QBs because he plays in a cap era. I mean, I just don't get all these arguments.

lol

he will crown them king. I thought my Uncle Charlie was the biggest hypocrit I knew till I started posting on OK Sports. lol

i meant in a position to score a game-winning TD, didn't know i had to explain these things to you.

>Name me one solid team that Brady knocked off, not some flash
>in the pan team riding a hot hand to the SB*. THEN name me
>ONE of those teams that they beat in convincing fashion. They
>DIDN'T. They did exactly what was needed to win, no more no
>less. Brady is good, but let's not get insane. I seriously
>didn't know y'all Pats fans were this fucking insane. Just a
>little success getting to your head THAT bad?
>
>
>
>
>*TUCK RULE

CAROLINA PANTHERS DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD DEFENSE THE YEAR THEY WENT TO THE SUPERBOWL? The Eagles with JIM JOHNSON????? Yo Brady WON!! It's all that matters at the end of the day HE WON! Ask Marino or Kelly if they would mind winning a SB by 3 or less points. And then why you wanna know a team the Pats beat in comvincing fashion if the Pats did exactly what they needed to do? Just log off.

"Bill Belichick tree"

http://www.neworleanssaints.com/coachbio.cfm?coachid=312

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Payton

Is Belichick so great that he tutors coaches on other teams?

but he meant to put him under the Parcells tree, and thus his collective "Parcells/Belichick" tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Montana

and say they're bums. We're not saying that. We're saying that on paper, there are TONS of players teams would take over the guys the Patriots have or had outside of a few like Brady, Seymoour, Adam V, Tedd Bruschi, Ty Law.

I'll take montana over brady anyday.

in these posts. Everyone else is just telling it like it is. Go figure.

One is a defensible position, the other is pure fucking madness. I'd like to think you could sort out which one's which, but apparently the shitty weather has gotten to you.

Plus, if I'm not mistaken, Lach isn't livin in Boston right now.

San Fran fans feel violated when people compare Brady to Montana, so they try and shit on his accomplishments. I've pretty much come to expect that.

------------
I feel old. I been out there since I was 13. I ain't never fucked up a count, never stole off a package, never did some shit that I wasn't told to do. I been straight up. But what come back?" - Preston "Bodie" Broadus

comparing Brady to Montana is just dumb.

I don't want my boy Joe's name -- or shit, even Steve's -- cheapened like that, so yeah, I'll say something.

I mean, I still get kinda upset when people say Barry Bonds was a greater hitter than Ted Williams, so wanting to protect your guys is understandable.

Of course, Ted Williams was what Barry Bonds may have become if he didn't become the Incredible Expanding Man, so that part's pretty much undeniable.

The difference here is that Brady's accomplished a ton at a pretty young age. While you may disagree with putting him up there, there's the absolute possibility that he wins more Super Bowls and has better numbers by the end of his career. If he does that, there will always be discussions on whether he's as good or better than Montana.

------------
I feel old. I been out there since I was 13. I ain't never fucked up a count, never stole off a package, never did some shit that I wasn't told to do. I been straight up. But what come back?" - Preston "Bodie" Broadus

whatsoever in your mind? I mean, I grew watching Joe. I know how good he was. But I remember the so-so seasons too. He was best in the clutch. Best when the Niners truly needed him. But to say he's untouchable is unreasonable.

>whatsoever in your mind? I mean, I grew watching Joe. I know
>how good he was. But I remember the so-so seasons too. He was
>best in the clutch. Best when the Niners truly needed him. But
>to say he's untouchable is unreasonable.

How fucking dumb does Peter King have to be to ignore THOSE names as well, never mind Montana? I mean shoot, you play a good game in the SB, you're like the next coming now?

He's a good QB. He has a *chance* to legitimately belong in the discussion of the elites at the position. But right now he's on Jim fucking Kelly's level to me, and will be until he can actually win some games in convincing fashion.



*TUCK RULE

thanks for informing me.

for now.

Could change if he wins another SB though.

Yall buggin.

coming from a guy who still has "Eagle Has Landed" and "Scramble, Randall" Nike posters framed in his living room along with every jersey Randall has worn (well, only two of the Pro Bowl ones), let be the first to say ...




WHA???????

I dunno, man, you'd have to make one hell of a case for me to buy that Randall, in sum, is a better QB than Brady.

Warren Moon, OK, I buy that, Cunningham is awfully tough sell though.

eventually he will be as great if not greater. I mean dude is young and even Montana confessed in an interview I think about the 3rd SB win of this current Pats dynasty had that it was amazing how young Brady was winning this many back to back...

All this talk of what team he's on, what D is playing or what kinda O-line is playing is just talk. It ain't part of the debate at least in my mind when considering the goats. I'm not buying into the 70's teams being better than the present and all that either..diff time..even the players of today are bigger and stronger and faster..but that's a whole 'nother story..

right now..and we're talking about present-day..Brady's already up there with the best of 'em. Whether you wanna agree or not. The numbers and performances don't lie. A win is a win is a win..it don't matter how dirty or clean it is. If he wins one or two more SB's, best believe folks will crown him...Pats fans and non-Pats fans.

As much as I hate Tom Brady (I'm a Jets fan), I realize that he's a beast

But the best QB we've ever seen?
Most of us are between 21-40 and have seen
Joe Montana just crush teams
John Elway take people's hearts
Dan Marino just carry an entire city on his back
Even Brett Favre was just as scary of a QB

I'd put Brady right now in an Aikman class (although I think he's better than Aikman), but best we've ever seen, come on

Or are the playoff victories some kinda spoof?

I think we gotta separate nostalgia from reality here. Personally Montana will always be the goat in my eyes but as of right now Brady is inching closer and closer..even if he doesn't win as many SB's again he's already as good if not better than Aikman..I'm not going to get into this who he has around him argument..just looking at win for win situations..

he was the guy who couldn't win the big game. he lost 3 SBs before that and was 7-7 in the playoffs. and as much as marino never had a team really built around him, he doesn't have a ring. favre won 1 and has largely just put up those gaudy regular season stats while having more fun than anyone. I'm still putting montana above brady, but it could change and i think people who don't acknowledge that are fooling themselves.

will likely win at least 1 before his career is over..if he does that best believe the montana vs. brady argument is up for grabs..

the Patriots defense has given up an average of 16 points per game and forced 29 turnovers, or 2.6 per game.

average points given up by their team during their postseason victories:

Montana: 13.2
Elway: 18
Aikman: 15.8
Favre: 17.3
Marino: 15.8

Favre and Elway didn't get as much help, but look at Montana, Aikman (some were arguing Brady was only on Aikman's level), and Marino. I guess it was all their D right?

Dan Marino - 26.2
John Elway - 23.9
Steve McNair - 22.1
Peyton Manning - 22.1
Brett Favre - 21.8
Troy Aikman - 20.4
Joe Montana - 18.5

Tom Brady - 16.7

to prove that brady got more help from his defenses during his wins. but it's not true.

Dan Marino - 26.2
John Elway - 23.9
Steve McNair - 22.1
Peyton Manning - 22.1
Brett Favre - 21.8
Troy Aikman - 20.4
Joe Montana - 18.5

Tom Brady - 16.7

to show that Brady gets more help from his defense, period.

but your original point is moot, is it not?

obviously they didn't have the greatest TO margin in the Denver game (I have to remain a little biased).

but the other numbers stand up...I mean, with a straight face you can't tell me Marino got more help from his defense during the playoffs.

>obviously they didn't have the greatest TO margin in the
>Denver game (I have to remain a little biased).
>
>but the other numbers stand up...I mean, with a straight face
>you can't tell me Marino got more help from his defense during
>the playoffs.

What I'm saying is the stats were presented in a biased manner to prove a point when really they didn't prove that point at all if you looked at other QBs in those same situations. As you probably know, statistics usually only say something when you make them say something, and it's just a pet peeve of mine when only one side of a story is told by stats. If you had started off with the second set of stats I would have absolutely agreed with you and it would have been much more fairly presented.

I never said Montana's defense allowed fewer points per game during his victories.

you made your own assumptions of what I was saying, right?

ha

the point I *did* prove is that Brady has had the best playoff defenses among all those quarterbacks mentioned.

(everyone is biased in their own way in this thread regardless...you've got Patriots fans exaggerating the Colts' offensive personnel, Lach saying no teams would want the players on the Patriots outside of a FEW - Vinatieri, Bruschi, Law, Seymour, Wilfork, Milloy, Harrison, Dillon, Maroney, Branch, Brady...you know, just one or two)

We agree that the top tier are Elway, Montana, Marino, Favre, Unitas, etc.

Tom's playoff prowess is beyond anything Favre has ever done for sure... Marino too for that matter (yes, I know his teams sucked, blah blah blah). Those two have the gaudy stats because they played at such a high level for so long.

If you watch Brady, especially in the playoffs, you cannot deny that he is one of the best ever at playing the position of Quarterback. Break down tape of his execution of the game plan and the adjustments he makes (on your own, not with Jaws), its unbelievable. He makes everything look so fucking easy that I think some people overlook how insane he really is. Instead of making some kind of Favre-esque absurd underhand throw after scrambling for 10 seconds; Brady will adjust one or two things pre-snap, and fit the ball into a 2 foot window while making it look like child's play. This is just me ranting, but it really is amazing. What's even more amazing is that he still is somewhat underrated in general, with the consensus being that everybody would still want Peyton Manning as THEIR ONE quarterback. As a matter of fact, alot of people say they would take Palmer as well, Brady doesn't get chosen until people say "If you had one game to win..." or "What quarterback would you want in the playoffs down by 7 with 1:00 to go?". Now I do not, nor will I ever understand why you would want another quarterback in general, but when it comes down to winning when it matters, Brady is the choice. That must be the Colt philosophy of racking up stats and some wins when it doesn't matter. Whatever.

Even on the ESPN poll I just read:
"What player would you rather have in the playoffs?"

LaDainian Tomlinson: 72%
Tom Brady: 28%

Whatever.. I guess these people missed the last 5 years of the playoffs, where Brady went 11-1 and Tomlinson got shut down by the Jets.

However, this same poll had the following result as well, so I hope this was just a completely ignorant sample size:

Which coach will do a better job of preparing his team for the opponent?

65.4% Marty Schottenheimer
34.6% Bill Belichick

(I suspect many people would take LT over Brady in the playoffs still either way, which is ridiculous)
But I digress.


The other day Darren Woodson echoed something that I've heard from a few other players. He said that there comes a point where for players like himself and Brady, who have experienced alot of success in playoffs and super bowls, the regular season becomes almost boring for them. They still want to win and love playing the game, but you can see something in their eyes and play in the post-season, it is clear they are on a whole other level -- Brady epitomizes this.


Tommy B is like Montana (as we've heard so many times), his numbers will be solid, not as gaudy as Marino, Favre, etc.; but they will be somewhere near their ballpark; and his playoff numbers will absolutely put him over the top and he just may be considered the best ever. His numbers are already close to Montana's and hes not even 30. As of now... just let Tom Brady do his thing.

then you'd want someone else.

nm

nm

On his home field no less!


Oh wait -- that's right. They seemingly invented and willfully misinterpreted a whole rule so that never happened. My bad.


Look, he's a good QB, but let's not get crazy here.

for letting a team that wasn't supposed to be in the SB because of the "TUCK RULE" beat they sorry asses. Hell you couldn't beat the Pats, what the fuck you think your weak ass rams would of done agaisnt the Raiders or the Steelers?

>
>
>Oh wait -- that's right. They seemingly invented and
>willfully misinterpreted a whole rule so that never happened.
>My bad.
>

it's a terrible rule, it really is, but it wasn't misinterpreted. i think they were told to call everything by the book before this game and so they did, for fear of the job more or less. so basically its a good call on a bad rule, and i'm surprised this rule hasn't been changed yet. i knew they wouldnt change it right away after the season cuz that would be admitting that they were wrong. and its actually gotten even worse since, now they have to call it on things like that rookie throwing the ball down after he was down, but not by contact. ruled an incomplete forward pass, lol.

do i think they got lucky? absolutely. do i think it completely negates the fact that they won the super bowl that year, as you suggested earlier in the post? no, thats fucking ridiculous.

>it's a terrible rule, it really is, but it wasn't
>misinterpreted. i think they were told to call everything by
>the book before this game and so they did, for fear of the job
>more or less. so basically its a good call on a bad rule, and
>i'm surprised this rule hasn't been changed yet. i knew they
>wouldnt change it right away after the season cuz that would
>be admitting that they were wrong. and its actually gotten
>even worse since, now they have to call it on things like that
>rookie throwing the ball down after he was down, but not by
>contact. ruled an incomplete forward pass, lol.
>
>do i think they got lucky? absolutely. do i think it
>completely negates the fact that they won the super bowl that
>year, as you suggested earlier in the post? no, thats fucking
>ridiculous.

Even according to the rule it was a bullshit call. His arm is in forward motion, then OBVIOUSLY changes motion as he pulls it into his body. Any sane, rational, clear-minded observer can see his throwing motion had been terminated. His arm was coming IN to his body, NOT moving forward. It's idiotic to suggest otherwise. IDIOTIC. The rule was MISINTERPRETED, so miss me with that "bad rule, right call" bullshit the NFL and Pats fans feed us to pretend like that whole post-season was in any way legit.

IT'S A FUCKING LIE, AND THE MOST BULLSHIT SPORTS CALL I'VE SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE*.



*(minus the Hand of God goal and the 5th Down)

the tuck rule is the tuck rule, sorry celery, get over it...

yea, what a bonehead move by Brady, who could possibly fumble the ball away as a result of a solid hit in that weather... how could he do such a thing.. what a bum

EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE SINCE THEN SHOULD BE NULLIFIED!!!

I just said that you're making his accomplishments bigger than they are.

Make the CORRECT call on the Tuck Rule, even by ITS OWN DEFINITION, and suddenly he's 8-2, only has 2 SBs, and is suddenly more comparable to a guy like Jim Kelly than Joe Montana, or any number of OTHER truly great QBs.

I CAN admit that he's got a shot, if his career continues in the same fashion, of jumping up the list, but right now he's a good QB on a good team, and that's all I can say for him.

it is truly a shame that you feel that way and that you continue to deny yourself the pleasure of allowing the true greatness of Thomas Edward Brady, Junior to wash over you like the calm waters of the Mediterranian Sea and make you feel like all is right with the world


celery!... immerse yourself in all that is... Tom Brady

>it is truly a shame that you feel that way and that you
>continue to deny yourself the pleasure of allowing the true
>greatness of Thomas Edward Brady, Junior to wash over you like
>the calm waters of the Mediterranian Sea and make you feel
>like all is right with the world
>
>
>celery!... immerse yourself in all that is... Tom Brady

>I just said that you're making his accomplishments bigger
>than they are.

and you're making them smaller than they are.

>Make the CORRECT call on the Tuck Rule, even by ITS OWN
>DEFINITION,

they did.

>and suddenly he's 8-2, only has 2 SBs, and is
>suddenly more comparable to a guy like Jim Kelly than Joe
>Montana, or any number of OTHER truly great QBs.

even if he had only 2 SB's how is that more like Kelly's 0 than Montana's 4? especially since Montana only had 2 SB's at the age Brady is now.


>I CAN admit that he's got a shot, if his career continues in
>the same fashion, of jumping up the list, but right now he's a
>good QB on a good team, and that's all I can say for him.

Matt Hasselbeck is a good QB on a good team - Brady is obviously something more than that.

>Even according to the rule it was a bullshit call. His arm is
>in forward motion, then OBVIOUSLY changes motion as he pulls
>it into his body. Any sane, rational, clear-minded observer
>can see his throwing motion had been terminated. His arm was
>coming IN to his body, NOT moving forward. It's idiotic to
>suggest otherwise. IDIOTIC. The rule was MISINTERPRETED, so
>miss me with that "bad rule, right call" bullshit the NFL and
>Pats fans feed us to pretend like that whole post-season was
>in any way legit.
>
>IT'S A FUCKING LIE, AND THE MOST BULLSHIT SPORTS CALL I'VE
>SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE*.

NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2: "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble."

- therefore thoughtprocess is absolutely correct: it's a horrible rule, but the refs called it by the book.


so stop acting all incredulous over it when you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

I'm bout to go out and play the lottery. lol

LOL

thanks 40.

it's been 5 years already, that's more than enough time to distance changing the rule from seeming like they're doing it simply because of that one play. what the hell are they waiting for?

>it's been 5 years already, that's more than enough time to
>distance changing the rule from seeming like they're doing it
>simply because of that one play. what the hell are they
>waiting for?

it's so clearly wrong. i heard that every year before the season they go over all the rules with each team in a meeting and that the year after the tuck rule the raiders were in their meeting and when they heard that the tuck rule was still exactly the same they all walked out of the meeting. lol

they called it sporadically throughout the year, I guess just to show it wasn't one single isolated incident in the history of the NFL

and then they stopped doing it, b/c it is one of the dumbest things you'll ever hear or see in football

I think they tried to throw in the spirit of the rule in 2006 during the Oakland-Chargers game

>Pats fans feed us to pretend like that whole post-season was
>in any way legit.
>

40thStreetBlack does all the proving in post 199, and btw, even AFTER the Raiders they still had to get by the Steelers (in pittsburgh, 9 point underdogs) and Rams (the greatest show on turf, 14 point underdogs). Nobody gave the Pats a chance against those teams, and rightfully so, but the Pats proved they were legit.

and btw, most championship teams do get lucky somewhere along the way in their postseason run. did we get more lucky than most others? yeah. but still, there's some controversy and debate in alot of those championship teams. let's not act like this is new.

>On his home field no less!
>
>
>Oh wait -- that's right. They seemingly invented and
>willfully misinterpreted a whole rule so that never happened.
>My bad.
>
>
>Look, he's a good QB, but let's not get crazy here.


Cry me a fucking river. Why the Rams aint beat the Pats then? Why the Panthers aint beat em? Why the Eagles aint beat them since "THEY" seemingly invented and willfully misinterpreted a whole rule? WHY IS BRADY STILL WINNING????

is going to be taking an L this Sunday afternoon.

Sorry, it's not a Super Bowl contest, we're talking individual players. Montana has him beat on both fronts, anyway.

ones stock isnt affected that easily

.

so don't go too far with it.

...was on the line, a la Brady.

really? he succeeded on every game-on-the-line drive he ever started?

really?

Super Bowl XXIII, game on the line. Behind 16-13. There's 3:10 left in the game on they've got the ball on their own eight. You know the rest.

Zero interceptions in four Superbowls. Three MVPs, and a damn good performances in the fourth.

Was he always perfect in the play-offs? No. But when he needed to lead the team to a win, he always did.

it was never Joe's fault?

okay, i'll take your word for it.

FOH.

RIDICULOUSLY EASY balls all over the fucking place in the most clutch of situations???... If i remember correctly, Dwight Clark CAUGHT that ball (and that throw was a bit high)

let us not forget the players that Joe Montana played with please... god almighty



Tom Brady made that gang of shitty ass receivers look good for a long time this year... the man can only do so much..

truthfully, this game was on the defense, not on Tom Brady


tell me you would have thought, at the beginning of this season, that jabar gaffney, reche caldwell, and their lack of SPEEEEEDDDDDDD (and multiple other ingredients that make one a good WR) would have been intricate parts of the Pats' O (and if one did think so, would they have thought Brady would have had this successful of a year?)...

please don't hate

all those drives only required him to get in FG postion. For the second year in a row when his team needed a TD he blew it.

how are you changing the standard for game winning drives for brady? elway, montana, etc. all had game winning drives leading to fgs, you gonna take that away from them too?

>all those drives only required him to get in FG postion. For
>the second year in a row when his team needed a TD he blew
>it.

They only remember the ESPN sports hall of fame ads about Joe.

I was surprised it took so long actually.

They can't get open and have a hard time outrunning anyone so the deep ball is extremely hard nowadays. Hopefully, the Pats can correct that problem this offseason. Oh well, I guess Brady is Trent Dilfer now.

I feel the team maximized what it had. And my boy Dillon needs to retire.

n/m

*waits for it to get locked*

the near interception he threw in the 4th that bounced off Bob Sanders hands?

considering what Brown did for him against the Chargers...

they gave up more than 16 points.

keep the throttle down!

Pats to a TD half the column would have been about Brady being better than Montana, instead all he says is "After Brady got picked on a desperation drive to end the game"...


"http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070122

yeah, i'd say he's a choker.

instead of a FG, he CHOKED.

>instead of a FG, he CHOKED.

W - Jax
W - Jets
W - Chargers

L - Denver
L - Indy

>W - Jax
>W - Jets

>
>L - Denver
>L - Indy

>Gift - Chargers

Y'all still hating after this loss? I mean damn.....thankyou.

http://www.raiderfans.net/forum/customavatars/avatar4753_71.gif