West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: Don Jacob on February 06, 2007, 12:17:53 PM
-
YOU KNOW THE DRILL
-
tough call but I pick Brady
-
tough call but I pick Brady
me 2. so tough to pick against Steve too.. :'(
-
Brady>>>>>>>>>Young
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you definitely make some good points.
-
young
eazy
-
I picked Brady because his mechanics are better and pocket awareness is bar none. Young was a better scrambler and a stronger arm and had Jerry Rice..
-
I picked Brady because his mechanics are better and pocket awareness is bar none. Young was a better scrambler and a stronger arm and had Jerry Rice..
lol
yea that was a big factor
-
tough call but I pick Brady
-
tough call but I pick Brady
-
wtf
how steve young losin to brady
yall trippen
-
voted Young, for now.. ask me in 2 years maybe that changes
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.
At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.
As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.
I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.
-
Young for me
-
S.Y.
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.
At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.
As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.
I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.
young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...
Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.
At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.
As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.
I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.
young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...
Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..
Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.
Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.
The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.
P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.
At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.
As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.
I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.
young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...
Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..
Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.
Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.
The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.
P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.
I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.
At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.
As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.
I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.
young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...
Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..
Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.
Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.
The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.
P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.
I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?
Have I ever denied that? I will always say that the 80s Niners were better on both sides of the field than the Pats ever were. I just look at Montana before and after that run to say I'd take him over Brady. Montana has also proven to be a great come back guy. I don't think I've ever seen a big game comeback from Brady, and the ones I've seen in the season I haven't seen them done the same way I remember seeing Montana do them.
-
wow a tie on the last day......someone needs to break this tie
-
VOTE FOR YOUNG
[/b][/size]
-
we need 1 more vote people
-
i'll kill a midget if no one breaks this tie
-
some body vote for STEVE YOUNG allready
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.
At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.
As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.
I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.
young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...
Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..
Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.
Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.
The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.
P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.
I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?
Have I ever denied that? I will always say that the 80s Niners were better on both sides of the field than the Pats ever were. I just look at Montana before and after that run to say I'd take him over Brady. Montana has also proven to be a great come back guy. I don't think I've ever seen a big game comeback from Brady, and the ones I've seen in the season I haven't seen them done the same way I remember seeing Montana do them.
Brady starts off well in big games and gets his team a lead so they dont have to comeback all the time. You cant judge somebody on lack of comebacks.LOL! Look at the Steelers Title game 2 years ago. He throws 2 qucik TD's to start the game and he never looks back! What he should he do? be horrible get in a big hole and comeback? Thats a horrible argument imo...
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.
At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.
As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.
I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.
young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...
Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..
Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.
Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.
The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.
P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.
I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?
Have I ever denied that? I will always say that the 80s Niners were better on both sides of the field than the Pats ever were. I just look at Montana before and after that run to say I'd take him over Brady. Montana has also proven to be a great come back guy. I don't think I've ever seen a big game comeback from Brady, and the ones I've seen in the season I haven't seen them done the same way I remember seeing Montana do them.
Brady starts off well in big games and gets his team a lead so they dont have to comeback all the time. You cant judge somebody on lack of comebacks.LOL! Look at the Steelers Title game 2 years ago. He throws 2 qucik TD's to start the game and he never looks back! What he should he do? be horrible get in a big hole and comeback? Thats a horrible argument imo...
It's nice to know someone can come back if needed. It's not so hard to succeed with time in the pocket and open men downfield. Rob Johnson could do well in that situation (I'm not saying Rob Johnson is even as good as Brady's left shoe, I'm just saying). You are over simplifying the Pit game and once again giving a lot of false credit to Brady. Big Ben's first pass was an INT on the 50 and NE still had to get a 48 yard FG. The next points came from a 60 yard TD to a pretty wide open Branch that followed a rare Bettis fumble. Brady had a nice percentage with 70% but he only made 14 completions for 200 yards. 24 of NE's points came on or right after Pit turnovers. Another 7 came off of a 25 yard run by Dillon. Another came after one more wide open Branch downfield. And the other FG was made after a slow running drive that took time off the clock. I don't think NE had one methodical passing drive in that whole game.
I know I take away from Brady, but this isn't a chcken and the egg. I'd see the games unfold and usually Brady would just be there while the defense creates turnovers, and the o-line creates holes and room. It's just what I thought of the guy while I was watching him play all these years. Long before he was publicized as a thorn in Manning's side. The annoyance came from the announcers and sports analysts. I remember when it started. It was the Oakland game in '01/'02. I was a big fan of the kid all season. He came out of nowhere and he helped NE win. They were the cinderella team with the cinderella QB. It was right after the tuck, which I cheered for when the refs called it that way because I remember not liking Oakland very much that year, can't remember why. but after the tuck NE gained some more yards and kicked that impossible kick to tie and then win. And all I heard by the announcers was Brady this and Brady that. My friends in the room were "oh man this guy's amazing". And I'm thinking "he fumbled the ball, got a break by the refs and then handed the ball off three times to set up a 45 yarder in the wind and snow. What's so amazing about that?". It didn't phase me at first because I still liked the Pats and I still liked Brady, plus I didn't like St. Louis, and I loved the underdog story. NE wins, Im happy, but then it starts again; "This kid Brady, etc etc etc." and I thought "wait a minute, he's not gonna win MVP with 16 completions and a 150 yards is he? Ty Law gave them a defensive TD. Buckley caused a key fumble. Vrabel and Seymour got a huge 9 yard sack to force a punt. McGinest got that huge 15 yard sack to force another punt. Someone on defense is getting this award. One great drive to cap off a mediocre game doesn't grant you MVP does it?" Well it did and the hype started. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. If he had over 200 yards, and over 20 completions I'd get it and I wouldn't complain. I mean I know QBs usually get it just for being QBs (Manning this year for example) but give some production at least. Of course I know Steeler fans that think Ben should have gotten Superbowl MVP last year and that is just ridiculous.
P.S. I also don't get why they let the clock run. There was still 2 seconds left and anything can happen on a kickoff. But I can live with that.
-
Unlike my Elway/Manning pick this won't be as much of a surprise. I'm picking Young. He was better in every aspect in my opinion. Better runnner, better thrower, better scrambler, etc. He had the a great team when he got the chance to play but the problem was the teams he was playing were so incredible. In his prime the only times he was knocked out of the playoffs were by Green Bay and by Dallas and I don't see the Pats beating any of those teams in those years. The Pats squeezed by a lot of teams. Green Bay and dallas walked right through teams the years they beat SF. I'll say it till I die; If Tom Brady happened to have the bad luck of going to Buffalo or Houston we wouldn't know or care who he is. I think Steve Young would have at least dazzled us a little if he got to fully start a 16 game season with Tampa. And even more so if they let him do what he did best more often. In Tampa he ran over 200 yards in five games his first year and over 400 his second year in 14 games. Great athlete.
you make so many good points. But there is something special about Brady IMO. And when you say if Brady would have ended up in HOU nobody would care who he is. Well you could say that about Montana if he never had Walsh to run that west coast offense. Walsh taught him how to be a master in that offense. Brady>Young but not by much.
At risk of going too off topic, Monatana was more of a warrior in my opinion. He was a better college player and knew how to make big comebacks. He was also a better athlete. Do I think he'd have gotten 4 Superbowls with out Walsh? Absolutely not. But I think that no matter where he went he'd eventually get a team good enough for him to take to the big game. I think Brady could make a run on a team like Baltimore, Chicago, or Philly. I don't think he'd able to take teams like Indy, Cinci, or Oakland and St. Louis a couple years back anywhere. He simply lacks the ability to make certain throws and avoids making them for good reason, and teams like those with break out down the field WRs rely on the long ball over the shoulder catches. From what I've always seen Brady needs at least a pretty level slant to make throws down the field.
As for both Montana and Young I think they'd each have a field day against the 2001 St. Louis team at the Superbowl. I know Brady was still green at the time but even in his game against Carolina which I saw on NFL replay recently, if the guy wan't open in the short field Brady rarely made the pass. Young could air it out if need be. He could buy time if need be. He could run if neeed be. And he could easily throw short balls. I just don't see how a New England team with with a younger Steve Young would lose the Superbowl runs they were in. And that year that Brady "carried NE on his back" he was lucky to play the Bills and Jets twice each and games with Oakland and New Orleans helped a lot (and Miami wasn't as good as their record that year). 8 of their 10 wins came against real losers of teams. If NE had a schedule like San Diego's that year you see a completely different win/loss record. In any other division I don't see NE making the playoffs that year.
I guess the bottom line is that if I had a bad team I'd pick Monatana and Young over Brady because I think they have a better chance at making a bad team play well. Anyone can win with a great team. Particularly a great defensive team with a an amazing west coast system. What guys like Vick did for Atlanta or Flutie did for Buffalo a guy like Brady could never do. Now I can see why Vick could screw things up in Indy with his attitude and poor passing but I'd like to hear someone explain to me why Doug Flutie would lose wih a team like the Pats. And Young and Monatana aren't erratic like Vick and jump to stupid decision or bad throws.
young and montana always had more weapons too, you could argue that for brady...
Bottom line..YOUD CHOOSE..but its all opinion...Montana is the only one i think that cant b argued..
Well I'm not trying to make it appear as if it is more than just my opinion, or that my opinion means more than any other football fan's. Now if the same guy were to have been the QB coach of both Young and Brady then his opinion I would consider over anyone else's.
Anyway, I'd compare Montana's pre-Rice weapons to Brady's. Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon were very good, particularly Clark. But Troy Brown and David Patten were a nice combo the first year and later on there was Givens and Branch added to the mix and all 4 played for a little while. On running the Smith/Faulk combo got the job done as well as the Craig etc group in San Fran. And Dillon was better the last couple years than any Montana runner. Allen was better than Dillon early on but I'll take Dillon '04, '05, '06 over Allen in his KC days. Of course neither can compare to the Rice, Owens, Stokes team that Young had, but I think he did pretty well given his play time during his second year in Tampa. I guess we'll never how he would have done with an average group of WRs long term. I think Monatana showed his grot when he went to KC and took them all the way to the AFC championship and maybe could have won it if he hadn't been taken out early with an injury. Of course if he did win and then somehow beat Dallas that year in the Superbowl then this whole Geatest QB poll would be pointless because Monatana would be the clear winner from the beginning.
The time will come when Brady ends up on a bad team with a tough schedule and we'll see what he does.
P.S. if Brady goes down next year with an injury and Cassel and NE goes to the AFC championship or win the Superbowl with Cassel, hypothetically speaking, will you then agree that the system was more imporant than the QB at NE, or will you argue that Cassel is better than Manning too? Just wondering.
I will say the system is damn good. Im sorry Montans system was just as good he played under as Brady's. Can you deny that?
Have I ever denied that? I will always say that the 80s Niners were better on both sides of the field than the Pats ever were. I just look at Montana before and after that run to say I'd take him over Brady. Montana has also proven to be a great come back guy. I don't think I've ever seen a big game comeback from Brady, and the ones I've seen in the season I haven't seen them done the same way I remember seeing Montana do them.
Brady starts off well in big games and gets his team a lead so they dont have to comeback all the time. You cant judge somebody on lack of comebacks.LOL! Look at the Steelers Title game 2 years ago. He throws 2 qucik TD's to start the game and he never looks back! What he should he do? be horrible get in a big hole and comeback? Thats a horrible argument imo...
It's nice to know someone can come back if needed. It's not so hard to succeed with time in the pocket and open men downfield. Rob Johnson could do well in that situation (I'm not saying Rob Johnson is even as good as Brady's left shoe, I'm just saying). You are over simplifying the Pit game and once again giving a lot of false credit to Brady. Big Ben's first pass was an INT on the 50 and NE still had to get a 48 yard FG. The next points came from a 60 yard TD to a pretty wide open Branch that followed a rare Bettis fumble. Brady had a nice percentage with 70% but he only made 14 completions for 200 yards. 24 of NE's points came on or right after Pit turnovers. Another 7 came off of a 25 yard run by Dillon. Another came after one more wide open Branch downfield. And the other FG was made after a slow running drive that took time off the clock. I don't think NE had one methodical passing drive in that whole game.
I know I take away from Brady, but this isn't a chcken and the egg. I'd see the games unfold and usually Brady would just be there while the defense creates turnovers, and the o-line creates holes and room. It's just what I thought of the guy while I was watching him play all these years. Long before he was publicized as a thorn in Manning's side. The annoyance came from the announcers and sports analysts. I remember when it started. It was the Oakland game in '01/'02. I was a big fan of the kid all season. He came out of nowhere and he helped NE win. They were the cinderella team with the cinderella QB. It was right after the tuck, which I cheered for when the refs called it that way because I remember not liking Oakland very much that year, can't remember why. but after the tuck NE gained some more yards and kicked that impossible kick to tie and then win. And all I heard by the announcers was Brady this and Brady that. My friends in the room were "oh man this guy's amazing". And I'm thinking "he fumbled the ball, got a break by the refs and then handed the ball off three times to set up a 45 yarder in the wind and snow. What's so amazing about that?". It didn't phase me at first because I still liked the Pats and I still liked Brady, plus I didn't like St. Louis, and I loved the underdog story. NE wins, Im happy, but then it starts again; "This kid Brady, etc etc etc." and I thought "wait a minute, he's not gonna win MVP with 16 completions and a 150 yards is he? Ty Law gave them a defensive TD. Buckley caused a key fumble. Vrabel and Seymour got a huge 9 yard sack to force a punt. McGinest got that huge 15 yard sack to force another punt. Someone on defense is getting this award. One great drive to cap off a mediocre game doesn't grant you MVP does it?" Well it did and the hype started. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. If he had over 200 yards, and over 20 completions I'd get it and I wouldn't complain. I mean I know QBs usually get it just for being QBs (Manning this year for example) but give some production at least. Of course I know Steeler fans that think Ben should have gotten Superbowl MVP last year and that is just ridiculous.
P.S. I also don't get why they let the clock run. There was still 2 seconds left and anything can happen on a kickoff. But I can live with that.
dude of course he only had 200 yds and 14 completions, they ran the ball because they had a big lead. Whats he supposed to do? Disobey the coach?
and Peyton manning won the MVP in the SB when easily it could have been Rhodes IMO..
-
They never had that much of a lead for long. But that's beside the point. They didn't use Brady much; understandable, but that doesn't make him more of a candidate for MVP. My guess is rhey didn't know which defensive guy to give it to because so many made so many key plays that they just gave it to the QB because he's the QB. At least Manning put of strong numbers in his performance, and could have put a lot more up if he wanted to but he chose to let the ball run. Rhodes only really played half a game. And it's hard to give it to a guy that isn't full time. Plus the long ball threat was the main reason the run and short pass did so well. Chicago didn't want another wide open man downfield like what happened with Wayne. But it could have happened. Like when Cedric Maxwell was named MVP in the NBA Finals after a great performance. Everyone was so worried about Bird they left Maxwell alone, but rest assured you take Larry Bird off that court and there's no Championship or MVP award for anyone on the Celtics. In this case I think the threat of Manning was as important as Manning himself that day. Factor in what I said earlier about the QB getting the break, and the fact that this was a story book moment for Manning and they had to pick Manning. If this wasn't the first Superbowl for Peyton then it could have easily went to Sanders and maybe an Addai/Rhodes combo. But we all know that Rex Grossman was the real MVP.
-
They never had that much of a lead for long. But that's beside the point. They didn't use Brady much; understandable, but that doesn't make him more of a candidate for MVP. My guess is rhey didn't know which defensive guy to give it to because so many made so many key plays that they just gave it to the QB because he's the QB. At least Manning put of strong numbers in his performance, and could have put a lot more up if he wanted to but he chose to let the ball run. Rhodes only really played half a game. And it's hard to give it to a guy that isn't full time. Plus the long ball threat was the main reason the run and short pass did so well. Chicago didn't want another wide open man downfield like what happened with Wayne. But it could have happened. Like when Cedric Maxwell was named MVP in the NBA Finals after a great performance. Everyone was so worried about Bird they left Maxwell alone, but rest assured you take Larry Bird off that court and there's no Championship or MVP award for anyone on the Celtics. In this case I think the threat of Manning was as important as Manning himself that day. Factor in what I said earlier about the QB getting the break, and the fact that this was a story book moment for Manning and they had to pick Manning. If this wasn't the first Superbowl for Peyton then it could have easily went to Sanders and maybe an Addai/Rhodes combo. But we all know that Rex Grossman was the real MVP.
IMO the same thing can be said about Manning in the SB this year. ^^True
And i understand what youre saying about being a huge factor tacticaly. Just like Deion back in the day wasnt always huge numbers wise, but you knew he was taking away ONE HALF of the field. Im not that stupid guy that thinks numbers tell the whole story.
-
They never had that much of a lead for long. But that's beside the point. They didn't use Brady much; understandable, but that doesn't make him more of a candidate for MVP. My guess is rhey didn't know which defensive guy to give it to because so many made so many key plays that they just gave it to the QB because he's the QB. At least Manning put of strong numbers in his performance, and could have put a lot more up if he wanted to but he chose to let the ball run. Rhodes only really played half a game. And it's hard to give it to a guy that isn't full time. Plus the long ball threat was the main reason the run and short pass did so well. Chicago didn't want another wide open man downfield like what happened with Wayne. But it could have happened. Like when Cedric Maxwell was named MVP in the NBA Finals after a great performance. Everyone was so worried about Bird they left Maxwell alone, but rest assured you take Larry Bird off that court and there's no Championship or MVP award for anyone on the Celtics. In this case I think the threat of Manning was as important as Manning himself that day. Factor in what I said earlier about the QB getting the break, and the fact that this was a story book moment for Manning and they had to pick Manning. If this wasn't the first Superbowl for Peyton then it could have easily went to Sanders and maybe an Addai/Rhodes combo. But we all know that Rex Grossman was the real MVP.
IMO the same thing can be said about Manning in the SB this year. ^^True
And i understand what youre saying about being a huge factor tacticaly. Just like Deion back in the day wasnt always huge numbers wise, but you knew he was taking away ONE HALF of the field. Im not that stupid guy that thinks numbers tell the whole story.
and the Colts got down early again so Manning was forced to throw, so of course he threw for 250 plus yds.He also could have thrown 4 or 5 int's and was lucky it was only 1. Im just saying if Grossman didnt play like a Peewee, IMO Mannings performance wasnt good enough to get the win if Grossman dont fuck up..but its all opinion..
-
They never had that much of a lead for long. But that's beside the point. They didn't use Brady much; understandable, but that doesn't make him more of a candidate for MVP. My guess is rhey didn't know which defensive guy to give it to because so many made so many key plays that they just gave it to the QB because he's the QB. At least Manning put of strong numbers in his performance, and could have put a lot more up if he wanted to but he chose to let the ball run. Rhodes only really played half a game. And it's hard to give it to a guy that isn't full time. Plus the long ball threat was the main reason the run and short pass did so well. Chicago didn't want another wide open man downfield like what happened with Wayne. But it could have happened. Like when Cedric Maxwell was named MVP in the NBA Finals after a great performance. Everyone was so worried about Bird they left Maxwell alone, but rest assured you take Larry Bird off that court and there's no Championship or MVP award for anyone on the Celtics. In this case I think the threat of Manning was as important as Manning himself that day. Factor in what I said earlier about the QB getting the break, and the fact that this was a story book moment for Manning and they had to pick Manning. If this wasn't the first Superbowl for Peyton then it could have easily went to Sanders and maybe an Addai/Rhodes combo. But we all know that Rex Grossman was the real MVP.
IMO the same thing can be said about Manning in the SB this year. ^^True
And i understand what youre saying about being a huge factor tacticaly. Just like Deion back in the day wasnt always huge numbers wise, but you knew he was taking away ONE HALF of the field. Im not that stupid guy that thinks numbers tell the whole story.
and the Colts got down early again so Manning was forced to throw, so of course he threw for 250 plus yds.He also could have thrown 4 or 5 int's and was lucky it was only 1. Im just saying if Grossman didnt play like a Peewee, IMO Mannings performance wasnt good enough to get the win if Grossman dont fuck up..but its all opinion..
I don't know about that. Part of hte reason Manning's numbers weren't over 35 completions and 350 yards is because of a) how well the running game was, and b) the quick lead they took in the second have. If hte o-line didn't create the right holes at the right times then you would have seen a lot of short passes, and if Indy wasn't up beyond reach late in the game then you also wouldn't have seen stuff like 4 straight runs just to run the clock with a run on 4th down to turn the ball over. Manning was somehting like 18 for 25 and 200 yards in the first have (I don't remember the exact numbers). That's better than some winning Superbowl QB's entire games. Now if the O-line didn't allow the run, or if Chicago put up a few more points to keep it with in reach during the 4th quarter and Manning was let's say 35 for 55 with 360 yards then that's certainly MVP numbers. And the last drives of a close game could lead to a lot more completions. If NE had let the clck run out instead of driving while it was tied then Brady would have been 11 for 21 with 110 yards and not even close to MVP considerations. That final drive was the only factor in giving him the award. The next time he won it was was simply up to the victor. If Vini missed the kick and Carolina won then Delhomme would have taken it but I won't deny that Brady was the NE MVP of that game. Now I'm not trying to downplay Rhodes and Addai but I have to give a lot of credit to the O-Line because they came to play.
-
lol. Brady is a good QB. The year when Brady came in over an injured Bledsoe, they were doing horrible until Brady came in. Bledsoe would have never would have won them titles.
-
lol. Brady is a good QB. The year when Brady came in over an injured Bledsoe, they were doing horrible until Brady came in. Bledsoe would have never would have won them titles.
Maybe not, but when Brady was injured in the AFC Championship and Bledsoe came in the team didn't lose a step.
-
lol. Brady is a good QB. The year when Brady came in over an injured Bledsoe, they were doing horrible until Brady came in. Bledsoe would have never would have won them titles.
Maybe not, but when Brady was injured in the AFC Championship and Bledsoe came in the team didn't lose a step.
cuz they had the lead. He Threw 1 td then managed the game..
-
And imo the Pats dont even make it to the AFC title game with Bledsoe leading the charge, There have been MANY qb's that have came in and were good if not great for a few weeks, Bledsoe proved after that he cant lead a team anywhere...
-
Bledsoe had lead a team to a Superbowl before. It was a few years earlier but he did it. i think Bledsoe buckles with a mediocre O-line but NE had a great O-line and a very easy schedule that first year. He had made it to the playoffs a few times before that. But the team feel apart. His numbers still stayed alright but I don't think Brady coud have done much in the bad years. The team began a slow turn around in '01. Got lucky with an easy schedule and some breaks in the playoffs. The next year the schedule was tougher and they didn't make the playoffs, but the team was in full swing by the year after that and they never looked back. I don't know if they'd be as good all these years with Drew or if they would have won 3 superbowls but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have.
-
Bledsoe had lead a team to a Superbowl before. It was a few years earlier but he did it. i think Bledsoe buckles with a mediocre O-line but NE had a great O-line and a very easy schedule that first year. He had made it to the playoffs a few times before that. But the team feel apart. His numbers still stayed alright but I don't think Brady coud have done much in the bad years. The team began a slow turn around in '01. Got lucky with an easy schedule and some breaks in the playoffs. The next year the schedule was tougher and they didn't make the playoffs, but the team was in full swing by the year after that and they never looked back. I don't know if they'd be as good all these years with Drew or if they would have won 3 superbowls but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have.
The only reason NE got in that year in 96 was because the Broncos got knocked out suprisngly by the Jags. The Pats would NOT have went into Denver and beat the Broncos.
-
Bledsoe had lead a team to a Superbowl before. It was a few years earlier but he did it. i think Bledsoe buckles with a mediocre O-line but NE had a great O-line and a very easy schedule that first year. He had made it to the playoffs a few times before that. But the team feel apart. His numbers still stayed alright but I don't think Brady coud have done much in the bad years. The team began a slow turn around in '01. Got lucky with an easy schedule and some breaks in the playoffs. The next year the schedule was tougher and they didn't make the playoffs, but the team was in full swing by the year after that and they never looked back. I don't know if they'd be as good all these years with Drew or if they would have won 3 superbowls but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have.
The only reason NE got in that year in 96 was because the Broncos got knocked out suprisngly by the Jags. The Pats would NOT have went into Denver and beat the Broncos.
Probably not but I could say that NE would have missed their first Superbowl if a call was made the other against Oakland and they would have missed their second if the refs called illegal contact in the Colts game all game. This doesn't mean I'm right to say it. I think Oakland had NE beat, and I think the Colts would have come out on top that game but we'll never know for sure. All we know is that Bledsoe could lead teams to the post season and win in the post season and that he could win AFC an championship game in 2001 with NE. I also think NE would have won that Superbowl if Drew was picked to play instead of Brady. But we'll never know that either. I guess we'll only come close to knowing if an odd situation like I mentioned before; Cassel coming in for Brady and taking them deep in the playoffs. If that happens then there will be little doubt in my mind that the system was way more important than the man in the spotlight.
-
Bledsoe had lead a team to a Superbowl before. It was a few years earlier but he did it. i think Bledsoe buckles with a mediocre O-line but NE had a great O-line and a very easy schedule that first year. He had made it to the playoffs a few times before that. But the team feel apart. His numbers still stayed alright but I don't think Brady coud have done much in the bad years. The team began a slow turn around in '01. Got lucky with an easy schedule and some breaks in the playoffs. The next year the schedule was tougher and they didn't make the playoffs, but the team was in full swing by the year after that and they never looked back. I don't know if they'd be as good all these years with Drew or if they would have won 3 superbowls but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have.
The only reason NE got in that year in 96 was because the Broncos got knocked out suprisngly by the Jags. The Pats would NOT have went into Denver and beat the Broncos.
Probably not but I could say that NE would have missed their first Superbowl if a call was made the other against Oakland and they would have missed their second if the refs called illegal contact in the Colts game all game. This doesn't mean I'm right to say it. I think Oakland had NE beat, and I think the Colts would have come out on top that game but we'll never know for sure. All we know is that Bledsoe could lead teams to the post season and win in the post season and that he could win AFC an championship game in 2001 with NE. I also think NE would have won that Superbowl if Drew was picked to play instead of Brady. But we'll never know that either. I guess we'll only come close to knowing if an odd situation like I mentioned before; Cassel coming in for Brady and taking them deep in the playoffs. If that happens then there will be little doubt in my mind that the system was way more important than the man in the spotlight.
Then you could say Phil Simms was important to the Giants because they won a Superbowl with Hostetler :-*
-
Cmon, Shallow just admit youre rooting for Brady too fail, and you look for any and every little reason to knock him, due to youre love for Peyton we can all see this ;D
-
Of course I'm rooting for him to fail. I'm not trying to hide that. I think he's the most overrated player in sports given the praise he gets. I don't think he sucks. I just don't think he deserves to be mentioned with the likes of Peyton. Let alone Starr, Unitas, and Monatana. In my ideal world Peyton would go on to 3peat with the Colts all the while losing Wayne, and Harrison for his 3rd Superbowl and then win one more at the end of his career while Brady gets stuck with a not so amazing defense and a losing record for the next 7 years. So that everyone can see what I see. Make no mistake. I have no intention of hiding it. But I'm not close minded if BRady keeps winning and does it with new coaches and new receivers I'll give his due.
As for Simms. I think he was a key factor in that Superbowl game and I think Scott Brunner sucked. I like Simms but I think there were plenty of QBs in that league that could have taken the Giants to a couple Superbowls, but his performance in thsat game was incerdible. That being said you could take away his 3 TD passes in that game and the Giants still would have been with in 2 points of that game and with in one if the extra point at the end of a TD run wasn't missed. Their defense played like animals until the late in the 4th. Scott Brunner would have lost that game but I can htink of a bunch of QBs from that time that would have made the Giants still win despite Simms' great game. He had a terrible playoffs up until that game. I know he had 4 TD in the game against SF but he only through 9 total completions in that game, leaving only 5 passes during the drives.
-
Of course I'm rooting for him to fail. I'm not trying to hide that. I think he's the most overrated player in sports given the praise he gets. I don't think he sucks. I just don't think he deserves to be mentioned with the likes of Peyton. Let alone Starr, Unitas, and Monatana. In my ideal world Peyton would go on to 3peat with the Colts all the while losing Wayne, and Harrison for his 3rd Superbowl and then win one more at the end of his career while Brady gets stuck with a not so amazing defense and a losing record for the next 7 years. So that everyone can see what I see. Make no mistake. I have no intention of hiding it. But I'm not close minded if BRady keeps winning and does it with new coaches and new receivers I'll give his due.
As for Simms. I think he was a key factor in that Superbowl game and I think Scott Brunner sucked. I like Simms but I think there were plenty of QBs in that league that could have taken the Giants to a couple Superbowls, but his performance in thsat game was incerdible. That being said you could take away his 3 TD passes in that game and the Giants still would have been with in 2 points of that game and with in one if the extra point at the end of a TD run wasn't missed. Their defense played like animals until the late in the 4th. Scott Brunner would have lost that game but I can htink of a bunch of QBs from that time that would have made the Giants still win despite Simms' great game. He had a terrible playoffs up until that game. I know he had 4 TD in the game against SF but he only through 9 total completions in that game, leaving only 5 passes during the drives.
I was talking about Simms in 90 he got hurt right before the playoffs yet the Giants won it all..
Brady 3 Rings
Peyton 1 ring
:rock:
-
LOL@ winning with different coach!!
I dont remember anyone calling Bellicheck a genius when he was coaching in Cleveland! IT GOES BOTH WAYS!!
And The Pats d was never amazing!! Good, even VERY GOOD but never amazing.
In 2004 which was probably there best team of the 3 that won it all, TROY BROWN A WR HAD TO PLAY CB!! They didnt even have enuff db's! How can you call that amazing?
-
Speaking of one call away Shallow. How about the Niners in 92 if Harper doesnt catch that slant for like 70 yds late in hte 4th the Niners probably win that game and Dallas and the Niners both get 2 SB's in the 90's..Shoulda Coulda Woulda
-
Simms wasn't all that special that year. The Giants were a number 1 ranked defense with a midde of the road offense. And if one kick was made no one would be talking about either QB that year. Ofcourse thanks to Bellichick's hall of fame defensive strategy they held the Bills to a very low score compared to what they were doing to teams in the playoffs.
The defense on the pats outrnaked the offense on every of their superbowl wins so if the defense is very good at best then the offense is just okay, by your standards anway. By mine I'd say being 6th, 1st, 2nd and 2nd in points allowed over the course of 5 years is pretty amazing. I don't care who plays where. If you keep points of the board you're amazing. It wasn't BRady in '94 that kept 49TDs Manning to driving for 3 points total.
Cleveland was pretty good one year and if Bill had Weis, Crennel, and Mangini with him they probably would have done some real damage, but I don't think the 2001-2004 Pats would have had any Superbowls in the Dallas, Dallas, SF, Dallas, Green Bay era, which was about the time Bellichick had the Browns so even if they went to the Superbowl they would have gotten smacked around each year anyway. I think the Pats of trhe past few years at that time would have lost to Buffalo the first two years then made it and lost to SF, and may or may not have beaten Pit the next year but then made it and lost to Green Bay like they did that year anyway.
Dallas was already up by more than a Field goal at the time of that catch so who knows. Besides I already said that SF was hte better team in the close one in between the Cowboy Superbowls I was just showing how close Aikman was to 4 peat compared to Brady who wasn't close at all when I made that statement about Aikman. My point unltimately is that Aikman had those 3 Superbowls and almost 4 in a row and now no one hardly mentions him. Lets hope we will say the same for Brady in ten years. At least I'l hope, peferrably after 3 more Manning Superbowls.
-
Simms wasn't all that special that year. The Giants were a number 1 ranked defense with a midde of the road offense. And if one kick was made no one would be talking about either QB that year. Ofcourse thanks to Bellichick's hall of fame defensive strategy they held the Bills to a very low score compared to what they were doing to teams in the playoffs.
The defense on the pats outrnaked the offense on every of their superbowl wins so if the defense is very good at best then the offense is just okay, by your standards anway. By mine I'd say being 6th, 1st, 2nd and 2nd in points allowed over the course of 5 years is pretty amazing. I don't care who plays where. If you keep points of the board you're amazing. It wasn't BRady in '94 that kept 49TDs Manning to driving for 3 points total.
Cleveland was pretty good one year and if Bill had Weis, Crennel, and Mangini with him they probably would have done some real damage, but I don't think the 2001-2004 Pats would have had any Superbowls in the Dallas, Dallas, SF, Dallas, Green Bay era, which was about the time Bellichick had the Browns so even if they went to the Superbowl they would have gotten smacked around each year anyway. I think the Pats of trhe past few years at that time would have lost to Buffalo the first two years then made it and lost to SF, and may or may not have beaten Pit the next year but then made it and lost to Green Bay like they did that year anyway.
Dallas was already up by more than a Field goal at the time of that catch so who knows. Besides I already said that SF was hte better team in the close one in between the Cowboy Superbowls I was just showing how close Aikman was to 4 peat compared to Brady who wasn't close at all when I made that statement about Aikman. My point unltimately is that Aikman had those 3 Superbowls and almost 4 in a row and now no one hardly mentions him. Lets hope we will say the same for Brady in ten years. At least I'l hope, peferrably after 3 more Manning Superbowls.
I always give Aikman the proper credit.
And The Browns Didnt have a good enough QB to do much damage at that time. THey were good in 95 one year thats it
-
Simms wasn't all that special that year. The Giants were a number 1 ranked defense with a midde of the road offense. And if one kick was made no one would be talking about either QB that year. Ofcourse thanks to Bellichick's hall of fame defensive strategy they held the Bills to a very low score compared to what they were doing to teams in the playoffs.
The defense on the pats outrnaked the offense on every of their superbowl wins so if the defense is very good at best then the offense is just okay, by your standards anway. By mine I'd say being 6th, 1st, 2nd and 2nd in points allowed over the course of 5 years is pretty amazing. I don't care who plays where. If you keep points of the board you're amazing. It wasn't BRady in '94 that kept 49TDs Manning to driving for 3 points total.
Cleveland was pretty good one year and if Bill had Weis, Crennel, and Mangini with him they probably would have done some real damage, but I don't think the 2001-2004 Pats would have had any Superbowls in the Dallas, Dallas, SF, Dallas, Green Bay era, which was about the time Bellichick had the Browns so even if they went to the Superbowl they would have gotten smacked around each year anyway. I think the Pats of trhe past few years at that time would have lost to Buffalo the first two years then made it and lost to SF, and may or may not have beaten Pit the next year but then made it and lost to Green Bay like they did that year anyway.
Dallas was already up by more than a Field goal at the time of that catch so who knows. Besides I already said that SF was hte better team in the close one in between the Cowboy Superbowls I was just showing how close Aikman was to 4 peat compared to Brady who wasn't close at all when I made that statement about Aikman. My point unltimately is that Aikman had those 3 Superbowls and almost 4 in a row and now no one hardly mentions him. Lets hope we will say the same for Brady in ten years. At least I'l hope, peferrably after 3 more Manning Superbowls.
I always give Aikman the proper credit.
And The Browns Didnt have a good enough QB to do much damage at that time. THey were good in 95 one year thats it
And I'll always give Jim Kelly the proper credit but that doesn't mean he'll ever get much praise in the NFL media ever again.
The Browns didn't have a good enough a lot of things. With Brady on that team they'd still suck.
-
Simms wasn't all that special that year. The Giants were a number 1 ranked defense with a midde of the road offense. And if one kick was made no one would be talking about either QB that year. Ofcourse thanks to Bellichick's hall of fame defensive strategy they held the Bills to a very low score compared to what they were doing to teams in the playoffs.
The defense on the pats outrnaked the offense on every of their superbowl wins so if the defense is very good at best then the offense is just okay, by your standards anway. By mine I'd say being 6th, 1st, 2nd and 2nd in points allowed over the course of 5 years is pretty amazing. I don't care who plays where. If you keep points of the board you're amazing. It wasn't BRady in '94 that kept 49TDs Manning to driving for 3 points total.
Cleveland was pretty good one year and if Bill had Weis, Crennel, and Mangini with him they probably would have done some real damage, but I don't think the 2001-2004 Pats would have had any Superbowls in the Dallas, Dallas, SF, Dallas, Green Bay era, which was about the time Bellichick had the Browns so even if they went to the Superbowl they would have gotten smacked around each year anyway. I think the Pats of trhe past few years at that time would have lost to Buffalo the first two years then made it and lost to SF, and may or may not have beaten Pit the next year but then made it and lost to Green Bay like they did that year anyway.
Dallas was already up by more than a Field goal at the time of that catch so who knows. Besides I already said that SF was hte better team in the close one in between the Cowboy Superbowls I was just showing how close Aikman was to 4 peat compared to Brady who wasn't close at all when I made that statement about Aikman. My point unltimately is that Aikman had those 3 Superbowls and almost 4 in a row and now no one hardly mentions him. Lets hope we will say the same for Brady in ten years. At least I'l hope, peferrably after 3 more Manning Superbowls.
I always give Aikman the proper credit.
And The Browns Didnt have a good enough QB to do much damage at that time. THey were good in 95 one year thats it
And I'll always give Jim Kelly the proper credit but that doesn't mean he'll ever get much praise in the NFL media ever again.
The Browns didn't have a good enough a lot of things. With Brady on that team they'd still suck.
In 95 with Brady they could have done some damage
-
I think you mean '94 (unless you're talking about January '95) when they were best team in the league at keep points from being scored. Vinnie took them past the first round and they lost to Pit, but I don't know if Brady could have orchestrated over 29 points on that D on that Cleveland offense. Particularly with out Weis and with out that NE O-line to move the line. And even if they did get though Pit which I think would be unlikely since Pit owned Cleveland all season and probably get through SD they'd get slaughtered by San Fran in the Superbowl just like any AFC team would have gotten that season.
-
I think you mean '94 (unless you're talking about January '95) when they were best team in the league at keep points from being scored. Vinnie took them past the first round and they lost to Pit, but I don't know if Brady could have orchestrated over 29 points on that D on that Cleveland offense. Particularly with out Weis and with out that NE O-line to move the line. And even if they did get though Pit which I think would be unlikely since Pit owned Cleveland all season and probably get through SD they'd get slaughtered by San Fran in the Superbowl just like any AFC team would have gotten that season.
yeah i was thinking bout them in the 95 playoffs losing to Pitt.