And aside from Wilson, Seattle has got to be one of the most unlikeable teams in the NFL, and that's saying something.
Of course, that's actually just how Seattle wants it, apparently!
Lol, my location, and the team he plays for have nothing to do with my dislike of Gronk.
The only player, that I will readily say that I dislike because of what he does AND where he plays, is Kapernick Everyone else, I'm either meh about, I like them, or I don't like them for a number of reasons
There's no better way to manufacture a chip on your shoulder than to actually be un-likable. I don't know why they even ejected anyone at that point. They should have just let it finish throw the unsportsmanlike conduct 15 yarder and let the game finish.
Well thank gork, mork, the emperor, and chaos gods that those poor sports lost (Seattle). Sad part is I never hated the team until recent years when there players are acting like animals and the coach is has that "just win" attitude ...
Ensis Ferrae wrote: If you really think that Seattle is the only team out there with players, even multiple players doing that sort of thing, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you.
Yes, they were the unfortunate ones who got caught, but to think that because they got caught means that theyre the only ones is ridiculous.
To say "everyone else is doing it" is ignoring the facts of the case. It's also doesn't excuse a cheater from cheating.
Of the 126 medical exemptions for Adderall the league has handed out, at LEAST 27 players on the Seahawks PRESEASON roster at the time of the controversy had medical exemptions. The only reason we don't have an exact number is because the NFL is not allowed to go public with medical records. Mind you, we only know Richard Sherman didn't have an exemption only because he failed a test.
When you take into account that only about 3-4% of the general public needs adderrall to function, the rest of the NFL isn't abusing that medical exemption. 99 players out of 31 remaining teams (while a little above the national average) falls perfectly into that range when you account for the fact these are preseason numbers they are using.
The most likely scenario here is that the Seahawks hired a coach that is notorious for cheating and brought in players that are willing to tank medical exams in order to get ADHD medicine. Not some anomaly where they just so happened to draft and sign free agents that have ADHD that was previously undiagnosed with another team.
When you start hearing about Seahawk players having seizures left and right, you'll see the NFL take the matter much more seriously than they currently are. Right now, it's almost exclusively a problem on the Seahawks roster
Also add in to this whole ordeal the salary cap that Brady's teams have competed under.
I don't think there is really any doubt that Tom Brady is the GOAT. Although how can you go wrong with either? I have a feeling this debate is going to come down to bias.
I don't think there is really any doubt that Tom Brady is the GOAT. Although how can you go wrong with either? I have a feeling this debate is going to come down to bias.
Bias yes.... BUT you also run into the problem of the era the each one plays in. I would guarantee that Montana could put up those kinds of numbers if he were playing today. When Montana was playing, Offenses, even a "West Coast" offense ran the ball a whole lot more than they do now.
To me, it's the reason why, until this past season Adrian Peterson's numbers were... exciting? Amazing? (I dunno) to see him put up, because he was putting up Barry Sanders and Emmett Smith type of numbers rushing the ball. This was going on in a league where most QBs are throwing 40+ times a game was a rarity.
According to NFL.com, this is Joe Montana's highest passing attempt season.
1990 San Francisco 49ers 15 520 321 61.7 34.7 3,944 7.6 262.9 26 5.0 16 3.1 78T 0 0 29 153 89.0
Compared to this, the highest passing attempt season for Brady:
2012 New England Patriots 16 637 401 63.0 39.8 4,827 7.6 301.7 34 5.3 8 1.3 83T 57 8 27 182 98.7
You can see that Brady threw the ball over 100 times more in one season than did Montana. This isn't even to mention that Montana never lost a Super Bowl
Personally, I strongly dislike "GOAT" type conversations for sports that have such major shifts and changes through their times, especially for football. Now, I don't think I would disagree with you if you said Tom Brady is the greatest QB of his generation, because the success the teams he's been on have had pretty much speak for themselves. None of his SB winning teams were "defensive teams" (by that, I mean, you didn't look at their defense as the end all in the league, like we did last season with Seattle, or the 85 Bears, etc) Brady's teams generally speaking, all win through outscoring the opponents, and having the defense slow the opposing offense enough that it makes it difficult to come back from.
Chancetragedy wrote: You just expressed what just about every pats fans feels about spygate exactly ensis ;p if people think others weren't doing exactly that they're wrong.
Ding!
Everyone jumps on the Pats for "cheating" (Call stealing wasn't the part that was illegal, video recording wasn't illegal, it was just the new rule of where you were allowed to record that was illegal), when it was something pretty much all teams were doing. It's less of a factor now because of the radio helmets.
All teams do what they can to try and get an edge in the game.
Brady's teams generally speaking, all win through outscoring the opponents...
Really?
So you're saying that the team that scores the most points...wins?
Lol, I knew someone would pick up on it...
But really, what I'm talking about is this:
The Ravens were a Defense centric team. If the Ravens offense could (generally) score more than 14 points a game, they would generally win the game. The 85 Bears did much the same thing. The Seahawks of these past two seasons have, by and large been "low scoring" teams. They figuratively (and maybe literally) starve opponents of scoring opportunities and actual points.
In contrast, the Patriots defense has, traditionally been a "bend but don't break" type group. many teams are gonna put up yards, they're going to put together long, sustained drives sometimes, but their main goal is to eat that clock, and eventually get Tom back on the field to put some more points on the board. This is why, if you look at their schedule this past season, you see they had 7 games where the team they beat put 20+ points on the board, AND the Ravens put up 31 in the playoffs. In contrast, the Seahawks only gave up 20+ points in 2 regular season wins.
It is hard to argue with results though - if you look at the Patriots during the Brady/Belichick run, their style has gotten them 4 Super Bowl victories, and they came ridiculously close to 2 more.
So in 13 years as a starter, Brady had gone to the Championship almost half the time!
And aside from Wilson, Seattle has got to be one of the most unlikeable teams in the NFL, and that's saying something.
How dare you detract from Richard Sherman's hilariousness, which also occasionally leads to decent criticism of the NFL.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I would guarantee that Montana could put up those kinds of numbers if he were playing today.
No he couldn't.
The game was much, much slower at the time and Montana would be considered undersized for a pocket passer today as all defenders are much bigger and much faster.
Now, I don't think I would disagree with you if you said Tom Brady is the greatest QB of his generation, because the success the teams he's been on have had pretty much speak for themselves.
Not to detract from Brady being an awesome QB, but that's organizational success. He plays well when he doesn't experience pressure, or is in a situation where his options are necessarily limited. I think Belichick and the Patriots' front office deserve a lot of the credit., probably more than Brady.
The game was much, much slower at the time and Montana would be considered undersized for a pocket passer today as all defenders are much bigger and much faster.
I think Belichick and the Patriots' front office deserve a lot of the credit., probably more than Brady.
To your point on Montana: Wilson is undersized as well
As a pats "hater" I can't agree with you more on who "should" get credit
Not to detract from Brady being an awesome QB, but that's organizational success. He plays well when he doesn't experience pressure, or is in a situation where his options are necessarily limited. I think Belichick and the Patriots' front office deserve a lot of the credit., probably more than Brady.
Wha...?!?
That's a rather hilariously uninformed opinion to have!
That's a rather hilariously uninformed opinion to have!
Not really, if you think about it.... I mean, Brady has to play in an offensive system. For instance, using some names from among the "all time greats" (again, I still hate the term, but it sorta applies)... Dan Marino could in no way, be successful in the Read Option offense like Russell Wilson has. This is where the Coach becomes more important than the player.
Bill Walsh was an excellent coach because he came up with a scheme that best utilized his weapons... Montana could throw the long ball, but he was much, much better in short yardage passes. Don Shula, for many years, had a statue that had a cannon attached to it in Marino, and his general offensive schemes reflect that. Same with Parcells with the Giants and Phil Simms (who isn't really all that great, but fit the system near perfectly)
The same can be said of GMs, ESPECIALLY in the salary cap/free agency era.... It's the GMs job to get the coach the tools to do his job. Afterall, Brady can't throw to himself (but Favre can!) This is why, year after year, we see teams go after a "type" of player, or if they can't get a "type" they take what they can get, and the best coaches will adjust their playbooks to what they have.
Alpharius wrote: It seems as if you and Dogma are looking for reasons to make your Theory (Brady Ain't That Good) work.
Good thing 'reality' disagrees with you both!
No... he's a good QB who has massively benefitted from an excellent GM, and a coach who finally found "it" (remember he coached in cleveland... if Bellichick is so good, why didn't he win a SB while in Cleveland!?).
He's good, but he's not the ONLY one who contributed to his success. To quote Obama "You didn't build that"
What "legendary" QB didn't benefit from either an A+ supporting cast or a great coach? Bradshaw had a legendary coach and multiple hall of famers. Montana had countless hall of famers + jerry rice(the best football player to ever play the game)+Bill Walsh. Staubach had Landry and on and on. Brady has accomplished more than any of them using even percentage statistics to account for differences in volume. He is quite frankly the most accomplished winner ever. You need to focus on the percentages not the volumes ensis.
No, IIRC, his QB rating AFTER CONTACT is poor compared to his peers (someone should look that up and confirm that). At the other end of the spectrum, you have Roethlisberger, whose rating goes UP after being contacted by defensive players. I wouldn't be surprised if Rodgers does well after contact also.
Doesn't really mean anything about Brady other than he's a QB who likes things just so and isn't very improvisational. I'd say that Manning is pretty much the same way, and he's done okay. Guys like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Brees, etc. have more improvisation and playground in their games and have done okay too. Different ways to skin the cat.
I do think that the very best QBs in NFL history have also tended to land in perfect situations with coaches who have built around said QB's strengths. Brady is an excellent example of that. Brady is one of the all-time great QBs, but would he have been as great in situations that some other QBs have dealt with?
Because I'm a Steelers fan, I immediately think of the bad Steelers o-lines that Roethlisberger had to deal with in some years. Brady might have been a sitting duck. Of course, this year Roethlisberger had a huge year behind an improved line and improved weapons around him, and Brady probably would have had a *monster* year in the same situation. Imagine Brady throwing to Antonio Brown with Le'Veon Bell in the backfield.
TL;DR -- We saw Belichick in Cleveland without Brady, and what happened there. Brady in other situations probably wouldn't have been as great. It's the two of them together that created something special.
Ahtman wrote: I think Edelman should have got the MVP. I know he isn't a QB but still...
Agreed.
I also begrudgingly agree that there's a really legitimate argument to be made for Brady as GOAT.
While the rules allow for more passing today, Montana played with Roger Craig and Jerry Rice for nearly his entire career. Brady hasn't had a single offensive weapon with him that's as good as either of those two at WR or RB outside of the three seasons he had Randy Moss.
gorgon wrote: Guys like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Brees, etc. have more improvisation and playground in their games and have done okay too. Different ways to skin the cat.
I wonder, and this really is just absent minded musing here, can anyone recall how Aaron Rodgers was, pre-Green Bay? I mean, was he "good" with improv QBing in college? Or did he sort of "learn" the improv game from Favre for the couple years he sat behind the Gunslinger?
I'm in no way an expert but I seem to remember Rodgers being a "mobile" qb coming out of college. So he probably had at least mostly good improvisational instincts. Sitting behind faves probably just set those off. It really is quite remarkable what sitting for 3 season did for Rodgers.
Chancetragedy wrote: It really is quite remarkable what sitting for 3 season did for Rodgers.
Agreed. I remember when the GB front office basically released Favre into the wild, much of the fans were going bat gak crazy. Little did they know, right?
I wish more teams, like Cleveland or others would see what happened there in GB, or further back, in NE (remember Brady sat behind Bledsoe) and the kind of good it does for the future QB and for the club as a whole... The more I think on it, the more I think that guys like Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson are the exception, not the norm.
I completely agree but I think the problem is you have guys like Peyton, Big Ben, luck, dalton, cam and guys like that, that had success right out the shoot. The entire NFL has this accelerated Time frame for "success" and I really think it's screwing the entirety of fanbases out of a chance to see something great develop.
gorgon wrote: Guys like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Brees, etc. have more improvisation and playground in their games and have done okay too. Different ways to skin the cat.
I wonder, and this really is just absent minded musing here, can anyone recall how Aaron Rodgers was, pre-Green Bay? I mean, was he "good" with improv QBing in college? Or did he sort of "learn" the improv game from Favre for the couple years he sat behind the Gunslinger?
I don't remember Rodgers at Cal, but personally I think it's about how one's brain is wired. Some people like structure and control, others thrive in more chaotic conditions. That's for football or anything else. Hell, you see it in an office work environment.
But to say he doesn't deal well with "defensive pressure"?
As in "getting hit in the face" ala Super Bowl XLII? The one the Pats almost won if not for a rather improbable catch?
But just thinking of the first Super Bowl he won and this last one?
I think he handles defensive pressure about as well as anyone.
Brady got hurried a handful of times in the most recent Superbowl which is, admittedly, a credit to Belichick's game plan as you can see that Brady's first two checks are almost always receiver's running short routes*. But he really didn't have to deal with much in the way of defensive pressure and, when he did, he effectively threw the ball away or threw picks.
As for 2001: Brady went 16/27 for 145 and 1 TD, while being sacked twice, against a Rams defense that wasn't very good. Defense and special teams won NE that game.
*Basically, Brady usually checks up, not down. Which is wise for a number of reasons.
Chancetragedy wrote: I completely agree but I think the problem is you have guys like Peyton, Big Ben, luck, dalton, cam and guys like that, that had success right out the shoot. The entire NFL has this accelerated Time frame for "success" and I really think it's screwing the entirety of fanbases out of a chance to see something great develop.
I know what you're saying. I think you can ruin a young QB if you're not careful.
HOWEVER, I also think that QB is a position at which you have it or you don't, and that's almost immediately apparent. So I think you can get that sorted out relatively quickly in most cases.
Something amazing to consider is that there are maybe 10 genuinely top-level QBs in the NFL. There are tiers within that group, but you know what I mean. So that's 10 guys out of all the guys who have played college ball in the last 15 years who truly play that position well at the NFL level. The odds are that no one in the current draft class is going to reach that group. In the last few years, I think we'd only consider Luck as being in that group out of all the QBs drafted.
Chancetragedy wrote: I completely agree but I think the problem is you have guys like Peyton, Big Ben, luck, dalton, cam and guys like that, that had success right out the shoot. The entire NFL has this accelerated Time frame for "success" and I really think it's screwing the entirety of fanbases out of a chance to see something great develop.
No one needs to be great in a sport like football, they just need to be good enough. This is something old man Belichick has realized, and it's why the Patriots are perennial competitors.
gorgon wrote: How fething hard is it to play QB in the NFL?
About .08% in the USA are capable, so not that easy.
But what's .08% of 316,000,000?
OK, it is 252,800.
Enough so that you'd think there would be at least 32 really, really good quarterbacks. If not 64.
So yeah, statistics!
Of which there are now more than enough to put Brady, and the Patriot, in the conversation for "greatest of All Time" (up to this present time) - if not enough to put them at the top.
I divided the number of teams (times two for for the reserve QB's) by 400mill just to be safe since the number is growing everyday. The number is still far less than 252k that can QB pro football.
I don't know what it is about Brady as he has the numbers but he is missing that X factor it seems that keeps him from the #1 spot. It may just be his personality, who knows.
Yah that's crazy to me Ahtman. Brady has numbers that no one outside of Montana even come close to in regards to winning percentage, post season wins/winning %, post season stats, and superbowls. I understand a lot of people think Brady "lucked" into all these championships which seems rediculous to me. I bet if Brady had won 2 of the superbowls by 20 instead of winning all 4 by a combined like 8-10 points it would probably be different. The "system qb" thing has really stuck with brady which again seems rediculous. Oh well still time for #5!!!
I don't know what it is about Brady as he has the numbers but he is missing that X factor it seems that keeps him from the #1 spot. It may just be his personality, who knows.
Seriously?
THAT'S your problem?
OK...
All kidding aside, people trying really hard to deny how good he is are starting (!) to really look...silly/strange/odd/dumb/etc.
Haha alpharius did you see Trent Dilfer absolutely destroy carter about "deflategate" after the SB on ESPN? If you didn't watch it its hilarious. Carter was SOOO MAD afterwards just shaking his head as they went to commercial and they weren't at the desk after the break lol.
I must say this all thanks in the world to Trent Dilfer for his tirade after the KC game because it clearly stuck with the players. And he has since come back and agreed he was wrong and embarrassed and has stuck up for the patriots in the media ever since. Amazing!
I'm staying out of the conversation about who deserves the #1 spot. But I will say this -- I think people gravitate more toward gunslinger QBs than paragons of control and efficiency.
There's something fun about the guy who takes a hit or scrambles away, keeps his eyes downfield and delivers a strike. And there's nothing romantic about the guy who consistently throws the ball away or takes the checkdown when pressured, never taking a chance or a hit. I think people view Brady as being in the latter category.
Now, Brady might have shown more gunslinger skills had he been allowed. Just look at what he did when he was playing with Moss. But the guy played for a control freak QB, and it's almost hard to know where Brady ends and Belichick begins. Certainly it's brought them both a lot of rings.
I also think that a lot of people just don't like Brady personally. Sometimes he comes across as too smug. Other times he tries to pull the "aw shucks, I'm just a regular guy" act, but that comes across as phony because it just doesn't line up. You have the clothes, the hair, the magazine covers, the supermodel wife, etc. It's over the top, even among NFL QBs who marry gorgeous women and have fabulous lives. He's just too pretty, too fancy, and a little too phony for a lot of fans, and I think that intersects with people's perspectives on how he plays.
Contrast him with Favre...prototype gunslinger, tough-guy QB with the Louisiana drawl who likes to go huntin' and fishin' in his spare time. Who would you rather have a beer with? Does Brady even drink beer? It may be dumb, but I don't think Brady scores well in the "beer" test.
I also think that a lot of people just don't like Brady personally. Sometimes he comes across as too smug. Other times he tries to pull the "aw shucks, I'm just a regular guy" act, but that comes across as phony because it just doesn't line up.
Are you sure you're not taking about Peyton Manning?
And you're seriously going to introduce 'personality' to the topic of where an NFL (or any professional athlete) athlete ranks in terms of skill/performance on the field/overall place in history?
I also think that a lot of people just don't like Brady personally. Sometimes he comes across as too smug. Other times he tries to pull the "aw shucks, I'm just a regular guy" act, but that comes across as phony because it just doesn't line up.
Are you sure you're not taking about Peyton Manning?
You mean Peyton Manning of the huge Q rating, who's cultivated one of the most likeable personas of any athlete in the U.S.? I realize you're a partisan and are probably blind to this, but more people like Manning than Brady.
This article is from 2013, but gets into some of this stuff.
And you're seriously going to introduce 'personality' to the topic of where an NFL (or any professional athlete) athlete ranks in terms of skill/performance on the field/overall place in history?
You don't think personality influences people's opinions? Okay.
If the media dictates opinion, then personality can definately affect public opinion.
As to tainted legacies. I just don't see how that stuff really affects much. All these controversies really affected very little in the organizations histories.
Chancetragedy wrote: The "system qb" thing has really stuck with brady which again seems rediculous. Oh well still time for #5!!!
Being a "system QB" is not a bad thing. Quarterbacks, regardless of how they play, are more dependent on the system under which they play than any other player; that's just the nature of the position.
Contrast him with Favre...prototype gunslinger, tough-guy QB with the Louisiana drawl who likes to go huntin' and fishin' in his spare time. Who would you rather have a beer with? Does Brady even drink beer? It may be dumb, but I don't think Brady scores well in the "beer" test.
Brady drinks Appletinis... 'nuff said
@chance... yeah, I don't really see much "tainted" legacy with Brady... for all the glitz and glamour that he has, he still gives off the vibe, in his press conferences and whatnot of being a VERY hard worker... I mean, if he came across like a Mark Sanchez or Jay Cutler, and his team was hit with a major cheating scandal, then yeah.. his legacy would suffer a bit.
I mean, I think if we look around at the League's QBs today, you can see a clear contrast between the "well liked" guys and the not well liked guys... I mean, outside of NE/Boston area, most people hate Brady (for reasons discussed ad nauseum). But if you look further, Philip Rivers, Kapernick, Cutler, the Bucs QB with all the problems, Dalton (it's because he's ginger, I know it), are all among a group that are not well liked, especially outside of the city where they play. I do think that each of the QBs that are not well received kind of are all not well received for different reasons (apathy, douchey-ness, being ginger, etc) Of course, we could also talk about QBs who are well liked, but are despised by division rivals (Big Ben, Romo, RG3, etc)
But really, there aren't too many QBs right now where you can almost universally say, "damn, I really like that guy... even though he plays for the wrong team"
Chancetragedy wrote: The "system qb" thing has really stuck with brady which again seems rediculous. Oh well still time for #5!!!
Being a "system QB" is not a bad thing. Quarterbacks, regardless of how they play, are more dependent on the system under which they play than any other player; that's just the nature of the position.
Agreed with Dogma... Can you really, honestly see Brady doing as well as he does in a Read Option offense? He's not a "mobile" QB... Im not saying he isn't mobile, what I'm saying is that he's at his best when he's in the pocket reading the field and making throws. He's not a guy like Wilson, or Cam, or RG3 where defenses know in the back/front of their minds that if the passing lanes don't develop, he's a threat to break for a 30+ yard run.
It's neither good, nor bad... It's not a knock on his playing ability, it's that he plays best in a certain system, and he's currently with a coach who knows this, and has THAT system in place.
I also think that a lot of people just don't like Brady personally. Sometimes he comes across as too smug. Other times he tries to pull the "aw shucks, I'm just a regular guy" act, but that comes across as phony because it just doesn't line up.
Are you sure you're not taking about Peyton Manning?
You mean Peyton Manning of the huge Q rating, who's cultivated one of the most likeable personas of any athlete in the U.S.? I realize you're a partisan and are probably blind to this, but more people like Manning than Brady.
This article is from 2013, but gets into some of this stuff.
And you're seriously going to introduce 'personality' to the topic of where an NFL (or any professional athlete) athlete ranks in terms of skill/performance on the field/overall place in history?
You don't think personality influences people's opinions? Okay.
Because that's what I was driving at?
No, not at all.
But thanks for the total unnecessary and totally not insulting and incendiary Orkmoticon facepalm.
Apparently you're OK with someone's 'personality' getting in the way of 'facts' (or even entering into the conversation at all!) when determining where they may end up (eventually) on an admittedly somewhat nebulous "Greatest of All Time" list.
The one thing I have against Brady is that he is the only QB to run off the field after a SB loss and not congratulate the other team. Losing sucks, but C'mon man...
As for the greatest of all time he will be in the conversation but will be a more interesting conversation 20 years from now. With deflategate and spygate still hot, hard to have a conversation about this. Wonder if those 2 controversies will still loom over brady/patriots or will it be forgotten?
More than likely It will be a blurred memory as the next big name QB will be present and everyone will talk about that QB as the new greatest QB of all time.
Is John Doe greater than Montana, Brady, Favre, Elway and whatever other people like to list for contention.
I think Manning will basically get the Dan Marino treatment with a ring.
It is sad to See Bart Starr never get mentioned in this conversation.
Which is why all of the 'Greatest of All Time' conversations are difficult to have at best...
It is hard to compare across 'eras' but the mental gymnastics and 'logical' gyrations that seem to accompany many Brady/Belichick/Patriots detractors are...interesting.
But I suppose I should be grateful that they're also amusing!
Piston Honda wrote: The one thing I have against Brady is that he is the only QB to run off the field after a SB loss and not congratulate the other team. Losing sucks, but C'mon man...
The "handshake" is forced at best. No one on the losing side wants to do it, SB or not.
Chancetragedy wrote: Piston can you link to the not shaking hands thing? I feel like I heard that before but I can't find anything on Google.
Just watched the 2 super bowls, at the end camera guy caught Brady running right into the tunnel while the rest of the team shook hands. You can find them on youtube.
After the second SB loss there was a small blurb Brady congratulate Eli well after the game in the stadium but nothing was confirmed. Not that it matters. It comes down to public image.
What you fail to understand is that Deflategate really isn't about deflated balls or stickum so much as the specter of Spygate and the Pats' history of pushing the boundaries of legality.
Pats fans should just enjoy their SB wins, quit mouthing off, and be happy that a weaksauce, corrupt commissioner covered for them -- and will likely cover for them this time too -- and destroyed the undoubtedly damning evidence for his best bud owner before anyone else could get a look at it.
You got your trophies in exchange for your franchise name being mud. That's the trade your organization made willingly when it decided to cheat a little more than anyone else. Pats fans should probably just accept it like the organization obviously has.
So you're as much a hypocrite when it comes to 'cheating' as Rice?
OK!
But seriously now:
1) Jerry Rice admitting to 'cheating' for most, if not all, of his career
2) The Steeler having an elected member of law enforcement on their 'security' staff, covering for players 'indiscretions'
3) The Falcons admitting to pumping in artificial crowd noise
4) The Browns using illegal methods of communication 'in game'
gorgon wrote: What you fail to understand is that Deflategate really isn't about deflated balls or stickum so much as the specter of Spygate and the Pats' history of pushing the boundaries of legality.
Pats fans should just enjoy their SB wins, quit mouthing off, and be happy that a weaksauce, corrupt commissioner covered for them -- and will likely cover for them this time too -- and destroyed the undoubtedly damning evidence for his best bud owner before anyone else could get a look at it.
You got your trophies in exchange for your franchise name being mud. That's the trade your organization made willingly when it decided to cheat a little more than anyone else. Pats fans should probably just accept it like the organization obviously has.
Those are my thoughts on the matter.
Seriously? Like how you can be that ignorant when your throwing haymakers like that? How did the commissioner that levied the largest penalty at the time ever given out in the NFL protect his buddy?
And the damning evidence he destroyed was actually played on live tv and shown to be completely innocuous. But everyone will continue to ignore that. Also there is that fact the patriots werent actually cheating and were following the NFL rule book to the letter of the law. But no please continue to claim the patriots are "cheaters" it just shows how little you actually know.
Alpharius wrote: So you're as much a hypocrite when it comes to 'cheating' as Rice?
OK!
But seriously now:
1) Jerry Rice admitting to 'cheating' for most, if not all, of his career
2) The Steeler having an elected member of law enforcement on their 'security' staff, covering for players 'indiscretions'
3) The Falcons admitting to pumping in artificial crowd noise
4) The Browns using illegal methods of communication 'in game'
Where's the outrage?
On number 4 .... I love the Browns and they cheated and STILL couldn't friggin win ... Shoot me now.
Sad part is ... Cleveland has been my team since I was just a little swimmer. The Cardiac Kids, Kosar, (my favourite quarterback was always Brian Sipe), I guess it makes sense as to why I play Blood Angels. I am used to losing.
if you have seen Rice play I don't understand how you possibly could think this was a big deal. It was pretty clear he was just flat out better than everyone else.
Although I gotta say if you think the rubber "grip" they have on modern gloves is as tacky as stickum clearly you've never used or gotten to experience stickum ;0
Although I gotta say if you think the rubber "grip" they have on modern gloves is as tacky as stickum clearly you've never used or gotten to experience stickum ;0
There are far too many catches made these days that I absolutely chalk up to the fact the the player is wearing gloves. Obviously, if he relaxes his fingers, the ball will drop (unlike stickum, lol) but for the purpose of catching the ball, I think they are about equivalent.
Come on now. OBJ practices those catches before every...single...game... ;p but yah not really disagreeing. They definately add something. Just not as crazy as stickum.
Im too young to have seen him play "live" but I remember seeing Jack Tatum's hands during games.... He probably had more grass on them than the field did
Alpharius wrote: So you're as much a hypocrite when it comes to 'cheating' as Rice?
OK!
But seriously now:
1) Jerry Rice admitting to 'cheating' for most, if not all, of his career
2) The Steeler having an elected member of law enforcement on their 'security' staff, covering for players 'indiscretions'
3) The Falcons admitting to pumping in artificial crowd noise
4) The Browns using illegal methods of communication 'in game'
Where's the outrage?
1. HoF and 'all around nice guy' persona. Nobody is gonna touch him.
2. This is the team Roethlisberger plays on. I'll leave that there.
3. Perpetual suck means no one cares.
4. Please see above.
This 'controversy' comes down to two things. How the media covers you, and how successful you are. We know the Patriots are high up on the latter, making them an easy target. To see the former in action, search for the 'mini-controversy' of Tom Brady ignoring Sherman's handshake on twitter. ie:
There was a full uproar when several blogs posted the photo, with multiple commenters stating what a class jerk Brady was. Never mind that upon noticing him he immediately stood up, shook his hand, and called him a great player (as heard in the FX special). Belichick also isn't a media darling by any means, though he made that bed all on his own.
Anyone with a pulse knows that photo is all about timing and any misrepresentation is media sensationalism and straight hateraid. No way Brady would disrespect a follow player like that. No way.
Of which there are now more than enough to put Brady, and the Patriot, in the conversation for "greatest of All Time" (up to this present time) - if not enough to put them at the top.
Everyone else, I'm either meh about, I like them, or I don't like them for a number of reasons 
