Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I HATE the Ravens

 Alpharius wrote:

I think your location gives us a clue though...

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.

Is this our festivus airing of team grievances?

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 ...

 Jihadin wrote:
I HATE the Ravens

That was random. Tourettes?

 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

Now that Brady has ring #4 and 3 of the MVP that matters trophies he no longer sits behind Montana.
Both after 15 years in the league btw.

SB Championships
Brady 4
Montana 4

Conference Championships
Brady 6
Montana 4

Playoff Records
Brady 21-8
Montana 16-7

Playoff One and Dones
Brady 2
Montana 4

Playoff TD/Int
Brady 53/26
Montana 45/21

Playoff Passing Yards Per Game
Brady 253.3
Montana 251.0

Regular Season

Win/loss
Brady 160-47
Montana 117-47
(yes, Brady has 43 more wins to the same number of losses)

Att/Comp/%
Brady 7168/4551/63.5%
Montana 5391/3409/63.2%

Yards
Brady 53,258
Montana 40,551

TDs
Brady 392 5.5%
Montana 273 5.1%

Ints
Brady 143 2.0%
Montana 139 2.6%

Rating
Brady 95.9
Montana 92.3

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.

who gets a prostitute at 7 in the morning?

 Piston Honda wrote:
who gets a prostitute at 7 in the morning?

NFL hall of famers...

Chancetragedy wrote:


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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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?

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.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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!

 Alpharius wrote:

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:


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

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

To your point on Montana: Wilson is undersized as well

Wilson isn't a pocket passer.

 dogma wrote:

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!

 Alpharius wrote:

Wha...?!?

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.

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!

 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.

I hate Brady... but, as a RAMs fan...

Gak... I'd love to have him on my team.

 whembly wrote:
I hate Brady... but, as a RAMs fan...

Gak... I'd love to have him on my team.

When the Rams finally move back to LA you might have the chance to have Brady on your team Whembly ;p kind of like KC got the tail end of Montana.

 Alpharius wrote:

That's a rather hilariously uninformed opinion to have!

I assume you're referring to the pressure component of my argument.

Brady doesn't deal well with pressure...to clarify I mean defensive pressure, this is a well documented knock on him.

 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!

I believe I said that Brady is an awesome quarterback.

I think Edelman should have got the MVP. I know he isn't a QB but still...

 dogma wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

That's a rather hilariously uninformed opinion to have!

I assume you're referring to the pressure component of my argument.

Brady doesn't deal well with pressure...to clarify I mean defensive pressure, this is a well documented knock on him.

 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!

I believe I said that Brady is an awesome quarterback.

OK, fair point, you did!

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.

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.

Brady won the XLIX MVP because of his 4th quarter - down 10 points, he went 13 of 15, 2 touchdowns.

He also had a completion percentage of 74% for the game.

Of course, the New England defense certainly did their job during the 4th quarter too!

Edleman was great though, as noted.

So he could have been the MVP too.

Butler may have gotten some votes - did he?

Hard to argue against Pete Carroll getting some votes too!