Fans Are Concerned Did Joe Montana Fall and Hit His Head???

[edhunter]

14 hours ago, laughedatbytime said:

 

You wrote "I know how it feels to be compelled to make an argument that, if God were to ask me if I believed it, I would have to say I didn't.". You mean like Brady would have won at least one Super Bowl if he was on Marino's Dolphins?   But He'd be laughing too hard to ask you that.

 

I missed the part of my response where I suggested that Branch or Caldwell or Brown were great receivers, because obviously they weren't.  You asked to name some receivers on those teams, so I did.   And no more.

 

There are more elements to an NFL passing game than the QB and receivers.  There's the offensive line, the scheme, and schedule of defenses that you play.

 

The funny thing about these arguments is that by exalting one element of a team you minimize or denigrate another.  Part of me wonders why you exalt Brady over Belichick and the organization, though I suspect it has to do with the fact that there's a shadowy element to them, even more so than with Brady, but I suspect you'll remain a fan of the organization long after the player is gone so it still seems somewhat strange.

 

The fact is that Belichick kept teams with a COVID riddled Cam Newton and McCorkle Jones around or over .500 speaks volumes about him as a coach, especially after they were finally not able to keep all of the plates in the air with the salary cap, which Belichick admitted was a major reason why they were unable to sustain success.  Yes, Brady was better than those guys, but that would be the weakest GOAT argument in history.

 

Of the six Super Bowls they won, in the first, it's been documented that his performance in the playoffs was subpar, to put it mildly (there's a crude and more accurate term for it, but we'll skip that for now.).   Maybe a compromise description would be "worse than Dilferian". For the second and third, the defense was the strength of the team.  In the sixth, the offense scored 13 points.   In the fourth and fifth the Patriots were the recipient of extreme fortune in the form of major, historic f**k ups by their opponents.

 

You mention that Brady walked off the field with the lead in two of the Super Bowls the team lost.  I guess that's better for your argument than mentioning they scored 14 and 17 points in those games.

 

The above doesn't even get into the fact that Dee Ford, Billy Cundiff, and Lee Evans were the main reason he even got into two of the games.  Or that Belichick devised a formation that was so deceptive it was outlawed the next year to get the past the Ravens in one of the AFC playoff games.  

 

Tom Brady wasn't the greatest to play his position, but it's pretty inarguable he was the luckiest.  In fact, he may be the luckiest person ever, in any field.

 

Belichick is lying through his teeth when he blames the salary cap for anything. For the previous 7 years, the Patriots have ranked 31st in actual cash spending. The cap is a mirage that can be manipulated to serve any purpose you need. The simple truth of the matter is they're cheap bastards, and Bill's ego is too big too admit that you actually have to pay for talent. Since Brady left he's been exposed as a fraud. 90% percent of the callers on the largest Boston radio station hate the guy. The Patriots actually lead the league in former draft picks playing on other teams. Everyone of those teams paid less for the player than the Pats did originally. 

[Rick N. Backer]

21 hours ago, laughedatbytime said:

Of the six Super Bowls they won, in the first, it's been documented that his performance in the playoffs was subpar, to put it mildly (there's a crude and more accurate term for it, but we'll skip that for now.).   Maybe a compromise description would be "worse than Dilferian". For the second and third, the defense was the strength of the team.  In the sixth, the offense scored 13 points.   In the fourth and fifth the Patriots were the recipient of extreme fortune in the form of major, historic f**k ups by their opponents.

 

The above doesn't even get into the fact that Dee Ford, Billy Cundiff, and Lee Evans were the main reason he even got into two of the games.  Or that Belichick devised a formation that was so deceptive it was outlawed the next year to get the past the Ravens in one of the AFC playoff games.  

 

Tom Brady wasn't the greatest to play his position, but it's pretty inarguable he was the luckiest.  In fact, he may be the luckiest person ever, in any field.

 

So your argument is that in 7 Super Bowl victories in 20 seasons, Brady's team always won despite him, and the other 3 appearances, and the 4 additional times his team advanced to the conference finals, were all just luck? 

 

Boy do I wish I had your skill with statistical analysis right now.

 

It's not about "exalting," anyone.  I appreciate what both did for my previously mostly underwhelming team. But how did the Patriots do with Belichick and without Brady?  How did Brady do when he left New England?

[laughedatbytime]

4 hours ago, Rick N. Backer said:

So your argument is that in 7 Super Bowl victories in 20 seasons, Brady's team always won despite him, and the other 3 appearances, and the 4 additional times his team advanced to the conference finals, were all just luck? 

 

Boy do I wish I had your skill with statistical analysis right now.

 

It's not about "exalting," anyone.  I appreciate what both did for my previously mostly underwhelming team. But how did the Patriots do with Belichick and without Brady?  How did Brady do when he left New England?

No, that's not my argument at all.  The argument is that Brady performed well as a game manager in a system designed as well as a system could be, with players with above average skills being utilized to the full extent of their capabilities, and which  benefited from an inordinate amount of luck, a small portion of which is other AFC East teams handing their GM responsibilities to the likes of Mike Tannenbaum for long stretches of time so that most of the time they only had to win two home games to get to the Super Bowl, with all of the advantages that entails.  (Think.of it as a Bill Walton UCLA team's road to the Final Four when regionals were truly regional.)  That team (the Patriots, not the Bruins) were a dynasty for a long period of time, often better, though not by incredibly large margins, than the rest of the league during the years they won (their best team didn't actually win though they DID clothe quite a bit of the Third World.)

 

I attribute more of their success to Belichick, the master of the system they used in their dynastic years than to Brady, not only due to the reasons listed above, but to his extreme ruthlessness in cutting players sometimes even before they slid too much in terms of their skills.  Ask Lawyer Milloy about that.   Belichick admitted that post-Brady they finally could no longer perform the cap miracles they needed to to keep the roster strong.  (One thing I will give Brady credit for is taking less than market value so that more could be done to create a better roster around him.   I guess having a wife who makes more than you can do that.). But it's disingenuous to attribute the belief to me that they won in spite of Brady just because I think Marino was better.

 

Two other things before I close, at which time I will have said all I have to say about this.  First, the fact that Belichick kept the Patriots as competitive as he did, post Brady, with well below average QBs and an aging roster, doesn't in my opinion hurt his legacy but shows he can be competitive with a well below average, even replacement level roster.

 

Secondly, Brady's team that won the Super Bowl after he left NE (sometimes known as the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, which might not have been obvious from game broadcasts), possessed a Hall of Fame receiver in Mike Evans, someone who would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer if he didn't have off the field issues in Antonio Brown, and probably the best pass catching tight end ever in Gronk.   Not to mention an impenetrable offensive line, and a defense that chased Mahomes around the field like he was Archie Manning circa 1971.   Unless he leaves the field in the first quarter due to an injury it seems like a safe bet that no one will ever hold a Mahomes team to single digits again, yet that team did.  In the next two years, as the rest of that team crumbled around him, he crumbled, too.

 

In the end, Brady had a great career, just not one which, in my opinion, makes him the greatest of all time.  Top ten at QB, sure, maybe even top five.   But the greatest?   I'll side with Joe Montana on that one.  Sure it's easier to credit the QB that won the most championships with being the best ever, most people won't ever question it.  But that doesn't make it true.

[laughedatbytime]

5 hours ago, Rick N. Backer said:

So your argument is that in 7 Super Bowl victories in 20 seasons, Brady's team always won despite him, and the other 3 appearances, and the 4 additional times his team advanced to the conference finals, were all just luck? 

 

Boy do I wish I had your skill with statistical analysis right now.

 

It's not about "exalting," anyone.  I appreciate what both did for my previously mostly underwhelming team. But how did the Patriots do with Belichick and without Brady?  How did Brady do when he left New England?

One more thing, but not about Brady but about about statistical analysis, which you appear here to refer to pejoratively.

 

I believe that the performance of any individual is extremely difficult if not impossible to suss out from individual statistics (and this is echoed by those who have tried to do so), although it can be done reasonably well, if enough context is analyzed, at the team  level.  

[laughedatbytime]

11 hours ago, edhunter said:

Belichick is lying through his teeth when he blames the salary cap for anything. For the previous 7 years, the Patriots have ranked 31st in actual cash spending. The cap is a mirage that can be manipulated to serve any purpose you need. The simple truth of the matter is they're cheap bastards, and Bill's ego is too big too admit that you actually have to pay for talent. Since Brady left he's been exposed as a fraud. 90% percent of the callers on the largest Boston radio station hate the guy. The Patriots actually lead the league in former draft picks playing on other teams. Everyone of those teams paid less for the player than the Pats did originally. 

Talk radio callers?   And not just talk radio callers, but talk radio callers from Boston?   And not just talk radio callers from Boston, but talk radio callers from Boston talking about football?

 

 

The fact is that they've finished close to .500 with quarterbacks appreciably worse than Daniel Jones, or even post-2011 Eli Manning is a positive.  Winning 10 games with McCorkle Jones as your QB should give you an automatic pass for Hall of Fame induction, even if the rest of your record is identical to Joe Judge's or Ben McAdoo's.

[laughedatbytime]

On 9/2/2023 at 7:34 AM, edhunter said:

Just like the '72 Dolphins would be 8-9 today, Dan Marino would be about as good as Ryan Tannehill now. 

in light of you being a Yankee fan, and Adam Ottavino's comments about Babe Ruth, which are probably fairly accurate, this is a most ironic post.   It might be fun to see a game between the 27 Yankees and the 2023 Oakland A's, at least before they stopped it (I'd give it about 3 innings.)

[BastillePark]

Ran cross this timely picture. Not sure if the picture is just at the right time or if he's actually baked. Based on the company he's with I'd lean to the latter.

 

[Rick N. Backer]

On 9/3/2023 at 10:46 PM, laughedatbytime said:

One more thing, but not about Brady but about about statistical analysis, which you appear here to refer to pejoratively.

 

I believe that the performance of any individual is extremely difficult if not impossible to suss out from individual statistics (and this is echoed by those who have tried to do so), although it can be done reasonably well, if enough context is analyzed, at the team  level.  

It wasn't meant to be pejorative at all.  I've been quite open about the fact that I can't perform complex math like you can.  My question was what are the odds that Brady-led teams appeared in 10 Super Bowls and 14 conference championships in 20 seasons without his being the principal reason?