Tom "Iceman" Brady

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Brady is overrated.

Not one part of me thinks that they won that game simply because of Brady. He is good for sure but he isn't 'make a bad team good' good. He is a great leader and a good skill QB nut not the sickest qb ever.

Wow, that's pretty strong. You think Brady is overated, huh?

I'm not a big Brady fan myself, but I would have to think all those wins count for something.

[Hail2theskins]

I cant stand any brady supporter arguments because you only have one... look at the rings man look at the rings... who gives a flying f*ck. that doesnt mean anything, the pats are good because of coaching not because tom brady is some miracle QB. being a quarterback is about leadership, but its also about playing your goddamn posistion which he is NOT THE GREATEST AT, good yes, but no way in hell the greatest. Look at the skins for chrissakes, 3 different qbs with superbowl wins in 10 years. I gurantee you the pats could win with a different QB, then everyone might think a little differently about brady, get off his damn nuts. The pats have a GOOD TEAM with a GOOD QUARTERBACK and EXCELLENT COACHING, not the greatest QB in the nfl, the pats win with a strong team effort and a good coach. you cant just deny statistics on the field and then arbitraly throw in, look at how many rings hes got hes obviously the greatest. WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.

There is one number he has produced that is the only one that matters. 12-1 playoff record. If you think being the best is all about numbers maybe Dan Snyder has a job for you. Being the best is about winning period and if you try and argue that you are some kind of fan of stats numbers or math or something. Maybe it's not the Pats coaching afterall as much as it is Tom Brady is the man. Ask any HOF coach how they won all those big games and I promise you to a man they will say it was because of the players.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

I cant stand any brady supporter arguments because you only have one... look at the rings man look at the rings... who gives a flying f*ck. that doesnt mean anything, the pats are good because of coaching not because tom brady is some miracle QB. being a quarterback is about leadership, but its also about playing your goddamn posistion which he is NOT THE GREATEST AT, good yes, but no way in hell the greatest. Look at the skins for chrissakes, 3 different qbs with superbowl wins in 10 years. I gurantee you the pats could win with a different QB, then everyone might think a little differently about brady, get off his damn nuts. The pats have a GOOD TEAM with a GOOD QUARTERBACK and EXCELLENT COACHING, not the greatest QB in the nfl, the pats win with a strong team effort and a good coach. you cant just deny statistics on the field and then arbitraly throw in, look at how many rings hes got hes obviously the greatest. WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.

I totally respect your position. But to minimize three Super Bowl rings makes about as much sense as the Gibbs apologists try to do when pointing to his three Super Bowls to validate his greatness. You can't validate one and dismiss the other. They go hand in hand. Yes, coaching is critical to success, but the game is played between the lines.

If three rings are good enough to call a head coach great, then they're damn sure good enough to categorize a quarterback great who headed three teams to three Super Bowl wins. Would the Pats be as good without Brady, ummm...that's debatable actually.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

I cant stand any brady supporter arguments because you only have one... look at the rings man look at the rings... who gives a flying f*ck. that doesnt mean anything, the pats are good because of coaching not because tom brady is some miracle QB. being a quarterback is about leadership, but its also about playing your goddamn posistion which he is NOT THE GREATEST AT, good yes, but no way in hell the greatest. Look at the skins for chrissakes, 3 different qbs with superbowl wins in 10 years. I gurantee you the pats could win with a different QB, then everyone might think a little differently about brady, get off his damn nuts. The pats have a GOOD TEAM with a GOOD QUARTERBACK and EXCELLENT COACHING, not the greatest QB in the nfl, the pats win with a strong team effort and a good coach. you cant just deny statistics on the field and then arbitraly throw in, look at how many rings hes got hes obviously the greatest. WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.

All crap, pure and simple. Your arguement ("I guarantee you the Pats could win with a different QB") is all a bunch of hot air with no factual evidence whatsoever. You're basically saying "I hate Brady and don't think he's as good as everybody says he is, so even though I have nothing to back it up you should believe me".

Winning is what its all about and the bottom line is that the Pats are a good team largely because of Brady, certainly not in spite of him. The guy gets it done when it matters: 80-25 as a starter (he'll almost certainly be the fastest QB ever to 100 wins), 12-1 in the postseason (that's an NFL record by the way), including leading 2 game-winning drives in Super Bowls...Brady does what his team asks him to do: if they ask him to hand the ball off 50 times and just throw screens that's what he does, and when they ask him to put the team in his shoulders in the toughest spots and hit the big plays, he does that, too.

It's fine to hate him for whatever reason you want, but you'd better get used to the idea that he's headed to Canton and nothing's likely to stop that.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

I cant stand any brady supporter arguments because you only have one... look at the rings man look at the rings... who gives a flying f*ck. that doesnt mean anything, the pats are good because of coaching not because tom brady is some miracle QB. being a quarterback is about leadership, but its also about playing your goddamn posistion which he is NOT THE GREATEST AT, good yes, but no way in hell the greatest. Look at the skins for chrissakes, 3 different qbs with superbowl wins in 10 years. I gurantee you the pats could win with a different QB, then everyone might think a little differently about brady, get off his damn nuts. The pats have a GOOD TEAM with a GOOD QUARTERBACK and EXCELLENT COACHING, not the greatest QB in the nfl, the pats win with a strong team effort and a good coach. you cant just deny statistics on the field and then arbitraly throw in, look at how many rings hes got hes obviously the greatest. WHO CARES how many damn rings hes got, if hes not producing the numbers hes not the best qb in the nfl.

Give it up whie you are still behind. Your quote above is so wrong in so many ways it would take me days to prove each point wrong, so I will only address the most glaring ones:

1) The players and coaches are all in it for the rings/championships, not the stats you so cling to. Dan Marino would give up half of his good for nothing records/stats for one SB ring and a SB MVP.
2) Your rant about the The Patriots having a great coach and being a great team despite Brady. Fact: the Pats were not a good team when Brady took over for an injured Probowl QB Drew Bledsoe and coach Bellichek in 2001.
Under Bledsoe & Bellichek they were 5-11 in 2000 and started an ugly 0-2 in 2001. I know this better than most on this site because I lived in Boston from 2000-2004. I watched every Redskins and Pats game 2000-2004.
Brady stepped in on a VERY BAD team and took them to a SB WIN in his first year as a starter. So please check your facts before you run off at the mouth and say the Pats are/were a good team despite Brady. The fact is they were not a good team before Brady took over.
3) In all three SB's Brady drove the Pats in last second drives for game winning field goals with very little time on the clock. What makes Brady better than any other QB playing today: He handles the pressure of the big game better then anybody else. Manning and Marino do not handle the pressure of the big playoff games very well. Until last year Manning was terrible in the playoffs. Not so-so or average, he was TERRIBLE. Three and four interception games.
Manning has never won a single champonship at any level of his entire football career. That says it all about his ability to handle the preasure of the big games.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Give it up whie you are still behind. Your quote above is so wrong in so many ways it would take me days to prove each point wrong, so I will only address the most glaring ones:

1) The players and coaches are all in it for the rings/championships, not the stats you so cling to. Dan Marino would give up half of his good for nothing records/stats for one SB ring and a SB MVP.
2) Your rant about the The Patriots having a great coach and being a great team despite Brady. Fact: the Pats were not a good team when Brady took over for an injured Probowl QB Drew Bledsoe and coach Bellichek in 2001.
Under Bledsoe & Bellichek they were 5-11 in 2000 and started an ugly 0-2 in 2001. I know this better than most on this site because I lived in Boston from 2000-2004. I watched every Redskins and Pats game 2000-2004.
Brady stepped in on a very bad team and took them to a SB WIN in his first year as a starter. So please check your facts before you run off at the mouth and say the Pats are/were a good team despite Brady. The fact is they were not a good team before Brady took over.
3) In all three SB's Brady drove the Pats in last second drives for game winning field goals with very little time on the clock. What makes Brady better than any other QB playing today: He handles the pressure of the big game better then anybody else. Manning and Marino do not handle the pressure of the big playoff games very well. Until last year Manning was terrible in the playoffs. Not so-so or average, he was TERRIBLE. Three and four interception games.
Manning has never one a single champonship at any level of his entire football career. That says it all about his ability to handle the preasure of the big games.

I'd agree with your assesment that Brady is the biggest reason for the Patriots improvement, but a lot of the reasoning for such a sudden improvement was as much about Drew Bledsoe NOT being the Quarterback as it was about Tom Brady becoming the Quarterback.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'd agree with your assesment that Brady is the biggest reason for the Patriots improvement, but a lot of the reasoning for such a sudden improvement was as much about Drew Bledsoe NOT being the Quarterback as it was about Tom Brady becoming the Quarterback.

Then how did Bledsoe get them to a Superbowl under Parcells and Bledsoe get nominated to so many Probowls? I'll admit Bledsoe was PART of the problem in 2000 and 2001. However look at the WR and RB's Brady had to work with in 2001, when he stepped in as a 6th round draft pick, never started an NFL game before. There are no hall of fame players there. Brady has done it with less big name talent than anybody else.
I'm sorry but you cannot fairly say Brady is overrated.
Yes the media has their knee pads on and blowing Brady and the Pats every night on TV.
But you can say that and even more for Manning and Urlacher. These two guys are the poster childs of the media and NFL and they have won nothing, THAT BY DEFINITION IS OVERRATED. Not Brady who has won three SB's.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Then how did Bledsoe get them to a Superbowl under Parcells and Bledsoe get nominated to so many Probowls? I'll admit Bledsoe was part of the problem in 2000 and 2001. However look at the WR and Rb's in 2001. There are no hall of fame players there. Brady has done it with less big name talent thatn anybody else.

I'm going to admit up front that I wasn't much of an NFL afficinado in 1996. I was 8. The only game I remember is the Superbowl.

I'm guessing that since we are taking about a time before the college QB revolution that began with Plummer in 97 and Manning/Leaf in 98. Bledsoe was a QB who went first overall, a rarity for the age, was probably an above average QB for the day. I mean you had guys like Neil O'Donnell leading his team to the superbowl, so how hard could it have been. You had Favre, Marino, Elway, Aikman....and like Jeff Hostetler or something as the leagues top QBs.

Also the probowl is a poor way to evaluate talent, IMO.

[Hail2theskins]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

There is one number he has produced that is the only one that matters. 12-1 playoff record. If you think being the best is all about numbers maybe Dan Snyder has a job for you. Being the best is about winning period and if you try and argue that you are some kind of fan of stats numbers or math or something. Maybe it's not the Pats coaching afterall as much as it is Tom Brady is the man. Ask any HOF coach how they won all those big games and I promise you to a man they will say it was because of the players.

right, cuz most good coaches are modest, and that quote you took out was completley out of context, im not saying hes the worst qb in the history of the nfl, but i give more credit to his team and coaching in general then i give tom brady the person, hes a good qb and all which was what i said, but you cant give the pats success strictly to tom brady, you have to give it equally throughout that team, as belichick says himself every game is a team effort noone on the field is more important than the other, if you want to go by what coaches say.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

right, cuz most good coaches are modest, and by the way, dont take my posts out of context again, im not saying hes the worst qb in the history of the nfl, but i give more credit to his team and coaching in general then i give tom brady the person, hes a good qb and all which was what i said, but you cant give the pats success strictly to tom brady, you have to give it equally throughout that team, as belichick says himself every game is a team effort noone on the field is more important than the other, if you want to go by what coaches say.

No, I understood your post. Of course Brady has a good team around him and a good coach. Good quarterbacking alone doesn't get you anywhere.

But there is something about Brady that gets into his opponents head and his team's head as well. They believe when this guy is under center anything can happen. Not many, if any, quarterbacks have that intangible working for them right now.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

right, cuz most good coaches are modest, and that quote you took out was completley out of context, im not saying hes the worst qb in the history of the nfl, but i give more credit to his team and coaching in general then i give tom brady the person, hes a good qb and all which was what i said, but you cant give the pats success strictly to tom brady, you have to give it equally throughout that team, as belichick says himself every game is a team effort noone on the field is more important than the other, if you want to go by what coaches say.

I'm not sure if anyone who says Tom Brady is a "good" QB has any idea what he actually does on the field. There isn't anyone in the NFL that has his football awareness and poise and most importantly the ability to make the correct read with his accurate delivery. I will say you are right that Brady doesn't deserve all the credit, but he is the smartest player on the field whenever he plays and that's including next week. One thing is for certain. If NE goes to INDY and wins next week anyone who still says Manning is better than Brady is a fool. Quite honestly I hope the Colts win because I am sick of Belichik and the Patriots in general, but I know better. The Iceman Cometh!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I'm not sure if anyone who says Tom Brady is a "good" QB has any idea what he actually does on the field. There isn't anyone in the NFL that has his football awareness and poise and most importantly the ability to make the correct read with his accurate delivery. I will say you are right that Brady doesn't deserve all the credit, but he is the smartest player on the field whenever he plays and that's including next week. One thing is for certain. If NE goes to INDY and wins next week anyone who still says Manning is better than Brady is a fool. Quite honestly I hope the Colts win because I am sick of Belichik and the Patriots in general, but I know better. The Iceman Cometh!

You're definately coming off like a Brady fanboy.

The only sentence I take large issue with in this post is this one: "If NE goes to INDY and wins next week anyone who still says Manning is better than Brady is a fool."

That's too general. What if they go into Indy and win in the same fashion they beat San Diego. What have they proved? That they can get lucky at key times and win despite getting outplayed? Brady 4 Prezident!!!!

The only arguement that could possibly hold any water is one that says the playoffs and regular season are two seperate seasons, and that the complexity of the playoffs is so different from the regular season that its practically not even football. In which case, Brady's performance over 13 games is better than Peytons over 10. But why? Why would it be any different? The pressure is always really, really high during an NFL game. Any game. Peyton Manning obviously isn't bothered by pressure. Cold weather maybe, but not pressure.

The last two times these teams have played, Manning killed them. Torched them. Both times on the road. Where were you for those games?

There obviously is one QB who is more poised with better leadership than Brady, and thats Manning. His production is unbe-freakin-leavable. He wins 75% of his games with little to no help. He is better that Brady in every facet of the game.

I think we will see that this week.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You're definately coming off like a Brady fanboy.

The only sentence I take large issue with in this post is this one: "If NE goes to INDY and wins next week anyone who still says Manning is better than Brady is a fool."

That's too general. What if they go into Indy and win in the same fashion they beat San Diego. What have they proved? That they can get lucky at key times and win despite getting outplayed? Brady 4 Prezident!!!!

The only arguement that could possibly hold any water is one that says the playoffs and regular season are two seperate seasons, and that the complexity of the playoffs is so different from the regular season that its practically not even football. In which case, Brady's performance over 13 games is better than Peytons over 10. But why? Why would it be any different? The pressure is always really, really high during an NFL game. Any game. Peyton Manning obviously isn't bothered by pressure. Cold weather maybe, but not pressure.

The last two times these teams have played, Manning killed them. Torched them. Both times on the road. Where were you for those games?

There obviously is one QB who is more poised with better leadership than Brady, and thats Manning. His production is unbe-freakin-leavable. He wins 75% of his games with little to no help. He is better that Brady in every facet of the game.

I think we will see that this week.

Are you kidding me?! He has THE BEST receiving corps in the NFL. He also has a far better o line than Tom Brady. His backs are only marginally worse. His D has played lights out in the postseason and his kicker has carried him through the playoffs. I'm glad you're such a fan of fantasy football and all, but yards and touchdowns during the regular season don't mean a whole lot when you're playing for rings. Peyton hasn't produced any damn thing this postseason. That's the most "un-freakin-believable" thing he's done in his career, collapse in the postseason. It's ridiculous. Every year they are the team to beat and every year they lose because Peyton has a terrible game. This year Peyton has played very poorly and been bailed out by the people you accuse of giving him "no help." How, for such a "stat guy," do you not pay attention to wins and losses?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Are you kidding me?! He has THE BEST receiving corps in the NFL. He also has a far better o line than Tom Brady. His backs are only marginally worse. His D has played lights out in the postseason and his kicker has carried him through the playoffs. I'm glad you're such a fan of fantasy football and all, but yards and touchdowns during the regular season don't mean a whole lot when you're playing for rings. Peyton hasn't produced any damn thing this postseason. That's the most "un-freakin-believable" thing he's done in his career, collapse in the postseason. It's ridiculous. Every year they are the team to beat and every year they lose because Peyton has a terrible game. This year Peyton has played very poorly and been bailed out by the people you accuse of giving him "no help." How, for such a "stat guy," do you not pay attention to wins and losses?

Because trying to get through the playoffs on a one man team is a horrible strategy. If wins and losses were the only tool we had to measure individual performance, why is Jake Plummer not a lock for the hall of fame?