The National Football League

Amongst the Ani

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Pats are 12-5 when Brady was unable to play.

Coaching is just...better in NE

Usually when a team loses their starting qb they'd be lucky to be .500. But when you don't lose a step. Does that devalue Brady some?

It does but in all fairness Steve Bono went 5-1 the year both Montana and Young went down. Young was a HOF'er and his success shouldn't have any bearing on Montana but Bono was a journeyman that had 1 decent season beyond those 5 games.

Wobbie

eeriepadave said:

RG III's career with the Browns didn't last too long.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17531162/cleveland-browns-qb-robert-griffin-iii-injured-reserve-shoulder-injury

why does that rate a ?

Halifax2TheMax

I'd say Brady is better as evidenced by what he accomplished with not being surrounded by marquee players, except the moss years, but more markedly when starters on both sides of the ball were devastated by injuries. And that success is not just a reflection on Brady but the organization in general, coaching staff, chosen 2nd and 3rd stringers, scouting, etc.

Ledbetterman10

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Pats are 12-5 when Brady was unable to play.

Coaching is just...better in NE

Usually when a team loses their starting qb they'd be lucky to be .500. But when you don't lose a step. Does that devalue Brady some?

I don't really think so. It's definitely impressive for Belichick and the franchise to win without him. But winning games in September this year, or the 11 games they won in 2008 with Cassel (against an all-time weak-ass schedule...and trust me I know....my crappy Dolphins won the division that year) is one thing. But to win playoff games is another. They'd need Brady for that.

A good comparison for that argument could be the 1993 vs. 1994 Chicago Bulls. In 1993, with Jordan, they won 57 games and won the title. In 1994, without Jordan, they won 55 games (seemingly devaluing Jordan as the regular season was happening), but they lost in the second round of the playoffs when the going got tough.

Wobbie

real matchup of a couple marquee QBs.

I need :face_palm: guy. and

Wobbie

over/under on aggregate QBR? 40?

igotid88

Ledbetterman10 said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Pats are 12-5 when Brady was unable to play.

Coaching is just...better in NE

Usually when a team loses their starting qb they'd be lucky to be .500. But when you don't lose a step. Does that devalue Brady some?

I don't really think so. It's definitely impressive for Belichick and the franchise to win without him. But winning games in September this year, or the 11 games they won in 2008 with Cassel (against an all-time weak-ass schedule...and trust me I know....my crappy Dolphins won the division that year) is one thing. But to win playoff games is another. They'd need Brady for that.

A good comparison for that argument could be the 1993 vs. 1994 Chicago Bulls. In 1993, with Jordan, they won 57 games and won the title. In 1994, without Jordan, they won 55 games (seemingly devaluing Jordan as the regular season was happening), but they lost in the second round of the playoffs when the going got tough.

I was about to make the Jordan comparison. Maybe he's the final piece. But you look at Peyton when he was healthy. And the Colts were horrible without him. But great coaching definitely helps.

The Juggler

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Pats are 12-5 when Brady was unable to play.

Coaching is just...better in NE

Usually when a team loses their starting qb they'd be lucky to be .500. But when you don't lose a step. Does that devalue Brady some?

Was Montana devalued when the Niners had success under his successor?

Therein lies your answer, my friend.

Jason P

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Pats are 12-5 when Brady was unable to play.

Coaching is just...better in NE

I'd say organizational management. Not many weak links. Your starting QB can go down and you can still get a record that should get you in the playoffs. Unlike the Colts, where when Manning goes down the rest of the organization is exposed as incompetent. Brady doesn't have to pull all the team's weight, just a small fraction of it.

If Luck goes down, the Colts will be battling the Rams for the #1 pick

(oh wait, the Rams traded all their picks to the Colt's rivals for a practice team QB)

JK_Livin

Halifax2TheMax said:

I'd say Brady is better as evidenced by what he accomplished with not being surrounded by marquee players, except the moss years, but more markedly when starters on both sides of the ball were devastated by injuries. And that success is not just a reflection on Brady but the organization in general, coaching staff, chosen 2nd and 3rd stringers, scouting, etc.

Overall it's pretty tough to compare QB's from different eras.

eeriepadave

Wobbie said:

eeriepadave said:

RG III's career with the Browns didn't last too long.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17531162/cleveland-browns-qb-robert-griffin-iii-injured-reserve-shoulder-injury

why does that rate a ?

most people thought this was gonna rejuvenate his career. new team, new city. i have nothing against him, i was hoping he would do better (not against the eagles obviously).

pjhawks

Ledbetterman10 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.

I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.

I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

agree with this. same goes with coaches. as an Eagles fan i still don't get the hate Andy Reid gets.

The Juggler

Jason P said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Pats are 12-5 when Brady was unable to play.

Coaching is just...better in NE

I'd say organizational management. Not many weak links. Your starting QB can go down and you can still get a record that should get you in the playoffs. Unlike the Colts, where when Manning goes down the rest of the organization is exposed as incompetent. Brady doesn't have to pull all the team's weight, just a small fraction of it.

If Luck goes down, the Colts will be battling the Rams for the #1 pick

(oh wait, the Rams traded all their picks to the Colt's rivals for a practice team QB)

Agreed. It's that model of consistency that every team should strive for.

Amongst the Ani

I assume the people in Tennessee are celebrating the shit show that is the Rams based on the fact they will probably begetting a top 5 pick in the first and second rounds. No way the Rams win more than 2 or 3 games. If it were not for the Browns the #1 pick could be in play.

The Juggler

The greatest call in the history of broadcasting. RIGHT HERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JssKqYoy5p4

Amongst the Ani

Jeff Fisher looks like he needs to eat some prunes at all times. How is this man still a head coach in the NFL?

F Me In The Brain

Hahaha. He has 'Call Me' and his phone number on his body.
He could play for the Rams.

HesCalledDyer

Ledbetterman10 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.

I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.

I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm not talking about who had the better career or who is the better overall QB or even who is the better playoff QB. All I'm saying is if you have a guy who is 4-0 in Super Bowls and a guy who is 4-2 in Super Bowls (or 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6 etc)... the undefeated record, in the Super Bowl game itself, is more impressive than the one with losses. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

HesCalledDyer

pjhawks said:

agree with this. same goes with coaches. as an Eagles fan i still don't get the hate Andy Reid gets.

Nor Donovan McNabb. That dude was a baller and actually had me rooting for a damn Philadelphia team for a while! It's a shame he & Andy never won a SB together.

pjhawks

The Juggler said:

The greatest call in the history of broadcasting. RIGHT HERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JssKqYoy5p4

actually might be the dumbest call. he just made this idiot go viral - which you proved by posting the video.

maybe Kaepernick can protest that too