BornaSkinsFan83 Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 He's been the GOAT for years now. And i don't think it's even really all that close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Just name me another HOF player who played a major role for him on the offense. And dont name Randy Moss. He was a HOF before coming to NE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 3 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said: Irrelevant. Two years removed from that 2007 team, they had begun phasing out several key players, along with player retirements, losing their GM and OC, and Brady adjusting to his repaired knee. It's fair to expect a dip, one year removed from 2008, and two years removed from 2007, even though they still managed to capture a 3rd seed. Either way it is pointless because it does not address my point about Brady's potential effect on the 2008 Patriots, specifically The fact that they returned basically the same team in 2008, minus the greatest player in the game? LOL. They didn't keep the team intact in 08 and break them up in 09. The biggest loss they had was Asante Samuel, who left after 07. The guys you're implying were the big losses are older guys who fell off after the great 07 season. Bruschi went from 64 tackles in 07 to 38 in 08 and retired. Harrison only played in a few games in 08 and retired. Vrabel decline from 12.5 sacks to 4 and was let go. Those are the reasons the D went from 4th in the league in 07 to 10th in 08 and 11th in 09. The offensive personnel was virtually unchanged for those three seasons. The same OL, Moss, Welker, Watson, Faulk, Maroney, Morris. You want to point the finger at Brady being slow to come bad? OK, that makes some sense. Except the team was 6-2 the first half of the year and 4-4 the second half. That doesn't really follow. And the team had a top 10 offense every year since 04, and number 1 in two of the years McDaniels was gone, so I can't see an argument for his departure being the reason the team fell off dramatically. The idea that it was Pioli leaving is just beyond laughable. Look, there have been better teams than the 07 Pats, and they didn't go 16-0. It takes a ton of luck to pull off. And the 08 Pats would never have done it again with Brady. The defense got worse, and their luck ran out. No doubt they would have been better if Brady hadn't gotten injured. But to think they were a 16-0 team with him is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 45 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said: LOL. They didn't keep the team intact in 08 and break them up in 09. The biggest loss they had was Asante Samuel, who left after 07. The guys you're implying were the big losses are older guys who fell off after the great 07 season. Bruschi went from 64 tackles in 07 to 38 in 08 and retired. Harrison only played in a few games in 08 and retired. Vrabel decline from 12.5 sacks to 4 and was let go. Those are the reasons the D went from 4th in the league in 07 to 10th in 08 and 11th in 09. The offensive personnel was virtually unchanged for those three seasons. The same OL, Moss, Welker, Watson, Faulk, Maroney, Morris. You want to point the finger at Brady being slow to come bad? OK, that makes some sense. Except the team was 6-2 the first half of the year and 4-4 the second half. That doesn't really follow. And the team had a top 10 offense every year since 04, and number 1 in two of the years McDaniels was gone, so I can't see an argument for his departure being the reason the team fell off dramatically. The idea that it was Pioli leaving is just beyond laughable. Look, there have been better teams than the 07 Pats, and they didn't go 16-0. It takes a ton of luck to pull off. And the 08 Pats would never have done it again with Brady. The defense got worse, and their luck ran out. No doubt they would have been better if Brady hadn't gotten injured. But to think they were a 16-0 team with him is silly. Several hours and this is what you come up with (Semantics Olympics)? Okay, darrelgreenie 2009 , again, is irrelevant to the discussion, but if you want to pretend that all the factors I mentioned (not one of them precisely the direct cause, but a culmination of factors) couldn't have contributed to their play in 2009 (the release of Seymour you conveniently overlook), then I don't know what to tell you, other than that stance is dumb as hell (losing pro bowl calibre players, coaches, talent evaluators, etc will affect any team the following year, no matter what) but continue if you must. And if you want to go and quote where I said the Patriots would go 16-0, I'll gladly wait, otherwise you're just making yourself look ridiculous, and I don't have the time to debate ridiculousness. I laid it all out there for you. I'll do it again . The Patriots were 16-0 in 2007. In 2008 they were 11-5. A Five. Game. Difference. This does not mean the Patriots go 16-0 in 2008, k? It means that is the direct dropoff, largely attributed to the offenses decline in total yards and scoring, with basically the same team out there. It means that with Tom Brady, they would have absolutely been a better team, likely would have been the top seed again, and would have very likely won the Super Bowl (again, no "16-0!" to be found). Basically, it means that argument is horse **** So I'd suggest you address/debate my point (directly above) that you initially quoted, or find someone else to play your kindergarten games with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Yep. Done. You're being both obtuse and extremely childish. Most people would be able to figure out how going from 16-0 to 11-5 to 10-6 would mean you can't look at the absence of a player from the first to second year and say "they got 5 games worse because he was out". But not you, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Okay. No counterpoint it is... Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 On 1/20/2017 at 7:31 PM, TheGreatBuzz said: Super Bowl are a terrible way to judge one QB in my opinion. Now I will say this probably cements Belicheat as the GOAT. I think the pats record without Brady hurts him. The team can perform without him. There are several other QBs that I believe would have done the same on that team so to me, that hurts him in this regard. I'd still put him top 10, maybe top 5 all time though. Yeah, this. The playoffs are a crapshoot anyway. Three of his four rings came early in his career, before he was elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 4 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said: Yep. Done. You're being both obtuse and extremely childish. Most people would be able to figure out how going from 16-0 to 11-5 to 10-6 would mean you can't look at the absence of a player from the first to second year and say "they got 5 games worse because he was out". But not you, I guess. What about Strength of Schedule? In 2008 they had one of the easiest schedules in league history if I recall correctly, so I think that does add to Sinister's point, unless their SOS was just as easy in '07 (highly doubtful). I don't know what their SOS was like in '07 and '09. Would be interesting to look into. If both of those years had significantly tougher SOS's in comparison to '08, doesn't that suggest that Brady's loss was way more impactful than you think? I think the best way to go about this would be to specifically look at defensive SOS, since the Pats' offense is what's important here. Maybe I'll do that if I have some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 The OP pointed out the number of SBs to cement the GOAT title, shall we ignore how some of them have been won ? The irony being that we've got someone who'll be named GOAT (I believe the NFL will) despite so many indelible stains on his resume, such as SpyGate, IRGate twice, DeflateGate, AudioGate, Tuck Rule Game, and now FireAlarmGate ! Eventhough Brady clearly made a name for himself through his performances and talent, I like Joe cool and Peyton much better. Imo being a GOAT isn't only about the numbers, the adversity (or lack of) its also about your legacy beyond these numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Montana had the Cheats enabled. It was called Jerry Rice. He also had a great defense too. Brady won Super Bowls with Deion Branch and Troy Brown as his top WRs and led a late game winning drive in 5 of the 6 Super Bowls he played in. 2 those, his defense gave up the loss on some fluky Eli passes. His defense was one yard away from giving up a 3rd super bowl loss following another last minute lead taking drive. All of the scandal stuff is tired and way overhyped. After spygate he went 18-0 and appeared in 3 more Super Bowls. Deflategate is so ridiculous it's not even worth getting into. Or we can talk about the Peyton PED stuff, it's the same level of stupid. Brady has a great legacy imo. Only haters look for all the ancillary scandals to bring him down. He's an all time competitor, leader, handles himself professionally and has been a face of the league. No question the greatest. And I don't enjoy saying that, I hate everything to do with Boston but you can't deny the man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I can't deny how good he is, Tom's a monster. But he and Belichek have dominated one of the weakest divisions of the 21st century. Has there even been a franchise qb in the afc east since Brady took over in 2003?! Tannehill maybe the closest thing? Either way, he's GOAT. But so many easy division wins year after year have set the Pats up with homefield throughout almost every season. But....GOAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 On 1/20/2017 at 7:31 PM, TheGreatBuzz said: Super Bowl are a terrible way to judge one QB in my opinion. Now I will say this probably cements Belicheat as the GOAT. I think the pats record without Brady hurts him. The team can perform without him. There are several other QBs that I believe would have done the same on that team so to me, that hurts him in this regard. I'd still put him top 10, maybe top 5 all time though. Maybe top 5? Is this a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Taylor703 said: Maybe top 5? Is this a joke? Nope. Thing is, it's so hard to compare considering the different eras. Put him in the Baugh era and watch him get killed. So is he better or worse? That's why I always argue with these "lists". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Nope. Thing is, it's so hard to compare considering the different eras. Put him in the Baugh era and watch him get killed. So is he better or worse? That's why I always argue with these "lists". It's not comparable because the talent level is the highest it's ever been. It's pretty hard to argue against Tom being the GOAT at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Taylor703 said: It's not comparable because the talent level is the highest it's ever been. It's pretty hard to argue against Tom being the GOAT at this point. "All time" insinuates that he would have been the best in any era. Would he have lived more than 2 plays in the Baugh era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: "All time" insinuates that he would have been the best in any era. Would he have lived more than 2 plays in the Baugh era? And would Baugh even have made a roster in this era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, Taylor703 said: And would Baugh even have made a roster in this era? No clue. But I'm not trying to call him the GOAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said: No clue. But I'm not trying to call him the GOAT So going by your criteria there can be no GOAT. Nor could there be actual QB rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 24 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: "All time" insinuates that he would have been the best in any era. Would he have lived more than 2 plays in the Baugh era? That's not what all time means lol. I've never heard that definition before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, Taylor703 said: So going by your criteria there can be no GOAT. Nor could there be actual QB rankings. I dunno. I will say it is an incredibly hard thing to measure. It's like trying to measure the GOAT president. They all had to deal with so many different things and different circumstances, you can never settle the argument. It's still a fun discussion though. But I do not think Brady is the GOAT. 1 minute ago, Momma There Goes That Man said: That's not what all time means lol. I've never heard that definition before I'm sorry. That's how I define it. What is your metric? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Just now, TheGreatBuzz said: I'm sorry. That's how I define it. What is your metric? Its simply a combination of stats, actual football ability/talent, accomplishments, championships, impact on the game, intelligence, intangibles etc. people can weigh different parts higher or lower which is where the debates come but it seems any potential way that they are measured, Brady comes out ahead. Also, I'm not sure why Brady would have failed in Baughs era. He would easily be the best passer of that era and yeah he would take a beating but he's a pretty decently sized guy by today's standards. I don't know that the smaller defensive players of that era would have been much of a problem for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said: That's not what all time means lol. I've never heard that definition before Me neither Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 20 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said: Its simply a combination of stats, actual football ability/talent, accomplishments, championships, impact on the game, intelligence, intangibles etc. people can weigh different parts higher or lower which is where the debates come but it seems any potential way that they are measured, Brady comes out ahead. Also, I'm not sure why Brady would have failed in Baughs era. He would easily be the best passer of that era and yeah he would take a beating but he's a pretty decently sized guy by today's standards. I don't know that the smaller defensive players of that era would have been much of a problem for him Stats; not fair due to different components and styles. Ability; very hard to judge without the former catagory. Accomplishments; usually weighed by stats (see the former comment) or trophies (see my upcoming comment). Championships;. Why did Baugh never win a Super Bowl ?? Before that era, that two leagues weren't even close. Impact; how are you defining ning that? What has Brady really done that changed the way the game is played? To me he is prototypical QB. Many QBs have impacted the game more than him. And Brady, or really any other player today, I don't believe is tough enough to have survived in that era. Big Ben I could maybe see an argument for because I believe he is currently the toughest but even him I wonder. 19 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said: Me neither I guess I have a weird definition. It's like when people talk about MVP this year. To me, Carr has it hands down. By his team being so good with him then failing so hard without him shows that HE was the most valuable individual. The fact the the Pats were so successful without Brady shows that he wasn't as necessary to their success as Carr was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornaSkinsFan83 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 So after reading this thread I've come to conclusion that the people most forcefully denying his GOAT status (not to mention the "maybe top 5" bit) are simply trying to be different. It's their way of rebeling and feeling special. Pointless to even have a debate. Give them their cookie and just move on with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I guess I have a weird definition. It's like when people talk about MVP this year. To me, Carr has it hands down. By his team being so good with him then failing so hard without him shows that HE was the most valuable individual. The fact the the Pats were so successful without Brady shows that he wasn't as necessary to their success as Carr was. We will disagree here too. MVP is just the name they've chosen for the award. People focus way too much on it being called "valuable" when for all intents and purposes, it is simply a best player or player of the year award. The point is to award the player that had the best overall season. It's a historical measure as well. 30 years from now we should be able to look back on the MVP awards of the past and easily see who's year it was or who dominated etc. we shouldn't be looking back at the awards and thinking "well player x really was more valuable to his team than player b was in 1995" It's just like the Heisman trophy, nobody claims the valuable argument in college football because that would silly. It's just that the pro leagues decided to name their award the MVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.