Tom Brady 2019 Outlook

[ThreadKiller 762]

19 hours ago, SyNdicateZ said:

Brady has been a dink and dunk passer his Whole career. He is the Master at the short and intermidiate passing game picking apart secondaries. He has never been a gun slinger like Brees or winston to name a couple gun slingers. The ONLY year I can remember him slinging it deep alot was when he had a WR that had some sort of legit talent and understood the offense and same page as Brady. That WR was Moss.

 

The "system player" argument is nonsense because it's impossible to prove. Manning had the benefit of being in the same offensive system his whole career (IND and DEN). Would he have succeeded in a different offensive "system"? Who knows? And who cares because it's a stupid argument and a stupid conversation point. Complete nonsense.

If a 43 year old Brady goes to a different team and doesn't have the success he had in 2010, it has literally NOTHING to do with being a "system QB". Only Pats haters who stay up at night following Patriots social media and trying to criticize them would say otherwise.

I also laugh when people criticize Brady by saying "all he does is dink and dunk and stay in the intermediate area. So? It's clearly effective. If it's so easy and "system driven" and Brady isn't very talented, than why don't all QBs do it? Are they just too stubborn?

 

Just a silly debate all around IMO.

[ThreadKiller 762]

32 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

 

Whatever works.

 

Why doesn't every QB just do that and be the GOAT?

 

Exactly.

[cashvillesent 410]

3 hours ago, dmb3684 said:

 

Whatever works.

 

Why doesn't every QB just do that and be the GOAT?

Only Pats homer fans think his the "GOAT" LMAO. He isnt the goat buddy. There's people like Rodgers, Montana that are much better QBs than Brady

[SharkSwimmer 4,951]

Montana won 4 SBs and lost none in an era where QBs could be hit and hit hard.  Montana is the greatest QB of all time.

Tom Brady was also very good in his prime.  He played a lot longer and won 2 more Superbowls than Montana, but he also lost two and probably should have lost 4. 

Now?  He's lost a lot off his fastball... 

[devaster 4,400]

2 hours ago, cashvillesent said:

Only Pats homer fans think his the "GOAT" LMAO. He isnt the goat buddy. There's people like Rodgers, Montana that are much better QBs than Brady

Hope you don't mean Aaron Rodgers.

[PizzaBeerFF 760]

2 hours ago, cashvillesent said:

Only Pats homer fans think his the "GOAT" LMAO. He isnt the goat buddy. There's people like Rodgers, Montana that are much better QBs than Brady

Kurt Warner claimed he was the best of all time at his position. 
 

I bet you would argue with Warner. 

[PizzaBeerFF 760]

1 hour ago, SharkSwimmer said:

Montana won 4 SBs and lost none in an era where QBs could be hit and hit hard.  Montana is the greatest QB of all time.

Tom Brady was also very good in his prime.  He played a lot longer and won 2 more Superbowls than Montana, but he also lost two and probably should have lost 4. 

Now?  He's lost a lot off his fastball... 

One of those losses was helmet catch. You mentally resemble your monicker. 

[ThreadKiller 762]

For all the dislike of Tom Brady, a lot of time is spent talking about him by some. Can’t remember the last time I spent so much time and energy on something I don’t like. Fascinating.

[BMcP 8,611]

Much was made of the Patriots’ lack of weapons. That argument has merits, but Brady also missed a ton of throws that league-average passers are expected to make. The reality is this: Brady completed fewer passes than we should expect based on, among other things, the separation of his receivers, the pressure he’s facing and the length of his attempts. He ranked 26th in on-target throw percentage, per Sports Info Solutions. His completion percentage over expectation finished at -3.1%, the eight worst mark in the league, according to Next Gen Stats

[PizzaBeerFF 760]

Think about it... if you are Kraft. It is more likely he fires Bellicheck than Brady. Brady is a face of not only pats.. the whole nhl. Let’s see if he f***s Bellicheck. It would take a lot. The guy remembers he kept him as a fourth qb. That takes a lot. Hopefully they both know this much. 

[BMcP 8,611]

18 minutes ago, PizzaBeerFF said:

Think about it... if you are Kraft. It is more likely he fires Bellicheck than Brady. Brady is a face of not only pats.. the whole nhl. Let’s see if he f***s Bellicheck. It would take a lot. The guy remembers he kept him as a fourth qb. That takes a lot. Hopefully they both know this much. 

Can’t comment on the NHL.  I tend to think they will be together for one more rodeo.  Also wouldn’t surprise me if it he went elsewhere for one more year.  Who knows at this point?

[WayneFontes 316]

Montana was better. With that said, Brady was very good. But he should have retired this year. Nothing more to prove.

[PizzaBeerFF 760]

Hmm... dumb linear thoughts. Some day you will graduate. Enuff said. Peace, out. 

[dashoe 6,462]

1 hour ago, PizzaBeerFF said:

Think about it... if you are Kraft. It is more likely he fires Bellicheck than Brady. Brady is a face of not only pats.. the whole nhl. Let’s see if he f***s Bellicheck. It would take a lot. The guy remembers he kept him as a fourth qb. That takes a lot. Hopefully they both know this much. 

 

Actually Brady is not the face of the NFL and barely registered because he had almost zero media presence, he lacks charisma and people outside of Pats fans dont connect to him outside of an appreciation for his accomplishments. 

The face of the NFL is still Peyton Manning (dude is still making commercials and getting ratings with his Peytons place show)and OBJ was having a global impact with the help of Nike marketing until his recent dud year in Cleveland as Baker Mayfield was a hot property before he imploded. Lamar Jackson if he wins the SB and Patrick Mahommes  if he wins will be the faces of the NFL. 

Brady is just a pretty face Human Ken Doll with zero personality and no one aside from his jersey wearing fans wants to have a beer with the dude.

 

I would choose to hang out with Minshew and his zero rings and playoff appearances than Brady 🧔

Edited January 9, 2020 by dashoe

[mortman212 324]

12 hours ago, dashoe said:

I would choose to hang out with Minshew and his zero rings and playoff appearances than Brady 🧔

I love this quote because I agree, hanging out with Brady what a joke, Brady's idea of a good time is having his wife boss him around and eating Avocados for desert.  But he has put together a hell of a career.

[BMcP 8,611]

https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2019/12/19/tom-brady-2019-stats

[nyg350 14]

19 hours ago, SharkSwimmer said:

Montana won 4 SBs and lost none in an era where QBs could be hit and hit hard.  Montana is the greatest QB of all time.

Tom Brady was also very good in his prime.  He played a lot longer and won 2 more Superbowls than Montana, but he also lost two and probably should have lost 4. 

Now?  He's lost a lot off his fastball... 

not going to argue who is better, but this has to be the stupidest argument ever. He was 6-3 in super bowls compared to 4-0, so he has a worse super bowl winning percentage . . . 
 

so, by that logic if Brady did worse those years he lost in the super bowl and lost in the afc championship game or before instead, he would the be 6-0 in the super bowl and have a better resume???

[ThreadKiller 762]

57 minutes ago, BMcP said:

https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2019/12/19/tom-brady-2019-stats

 

Love how people mention the completion percentage Brady had but fail to mention how he lead the league in throw aways, his WRs were near or at the top for total dropped passes, or throws to a spot where the WR was supposed to be but wasn't. The blame is not soley on Brady and it's not soley on the WRs, but it's mostly on the weapons around him.

[MoonBlaster 267]

23 hours ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

The "system player" argument is nonsense because it's impossible to prove. Manning had the benefit of being in the same offensive system his whole career (IND and DEN). Would he have succeeded in a different offensive "system"? Who knows? And who cares because it's a stupid argument and a stupid conversation point. Complete nonsense.

If a 43 year old Brady goes to a different team and doesn't have the success he had in 2010, it has literally NOTHING to do with being a "system QB". Only Pats haters who stay up at night following Patriots social media and trying to criticize them would say otherwise.

I also laugh when people criticize Brady by saying "all he does is dink and dunk and stay in the intermediate area. So? It's clearly effective. If it's so easy and "system driven" and Brady isn't very talented, than why don't all QBs do it? Are they just too stubborn?

 

Just a silly debate all around IMO.

 

Logic always goes out the window when discussing Brady because if you don't like him you've already made up your mind on this years ago and nothing will change your opinion.. he could win two more Super Bowls and people will just respond with "well he's a system guy, Matt Cassel, 18-1, etc."... I mean we really had a guy on here say that Aaron Rodgers should be regarded higher than Brady as if it's 2011 again.

We're discussing a guy that is often revered as one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) to ever play his position by a countless number of his peers, consisting of both current and former NFL players and coaches... Idk I guess I trust their judgement and analysis on the game of football a little more than xXSephirothFor6Xx or whatever on various fantasy football forums

Edited January 9, 2020 by MoonBlaster

[dmb3684 4,644]

20 hours ago, cashvillesent said:

Only Pats homer fans think his the "GOAT" LMAO. He isnt the goat buddy. There's people like Rodgers, Montana that are much better QBs than Brady

 

If you say so. Ignore.

[Apollo_87 467]

18 hours ago, SharkSwimmer said:

Montana won 4 SBs and lost none in an era where QBs could be hit and hit hard.  Montana is the greatest QB of all time.

Tom Brady was also very good in his prime.  He played a lot longer and won 2 more Superbowls than Montana, but he also lost two and probably should have lost 4. 

Now?  He's lost a lot off his fastball... 

Oy, so much to unpack here. 

 

Ok, so firstly, the whole idea of 'Won 4 and lost none is better than Won 6 and lost 3' is without a doubt, one of the dumbest arguments in sports. It's like saying that an Olympic swimmer who won 4 gold medals in 16 races is better than one who won 6 gold medals and 3 silvers in 20 races because the latter won 3 silvers too. How dare he get further and have more instances of being closer to winning? Is your argument actually that Brady would be considered to be better if he'd lost in the AFC championship, Wilcard Round or not even made the playoffs in the 3 seasons where they made the Super Bowl and didn't win? Cause that's just straight up stupid. 

 

Probably should have lost 4? Where is that coming from? What does that even mean? Don't tell me the argument is that 'Oh, he should have lost the one against Seattle, but the Seahawks effed up by throwing on that play'. Cause guess what, you could just as well make the argument that he 'PROBABLY' should have won the ridiculous helmet catch game. But guess what? Probablies don't mean squat in sports. What matters is what ACTUALLY happened. He won 6.

 

Having a discussion about whether Brady is or isn't the GOAT based on stats or how he's played compared to the other greats is completely fine. But when it starts going into dumb arguments such as it's better to not make it to the SB than to lose it, or 'probably' bs, then it's just silly.

[dmb3684 4,644]

19 hours ago, SharkSwimmer said:

Montana won 4 SBs and lost none in an era where QBs could be hit and hit hard.  Montana is the greatest QB of all time.

Tom Brady was also very good in his prime.  He played a lot longer and won 2 more Superbowls than Montana, but he also lost two and probably should have lost 4. 

Now?  He's lost a lot off his fastball... 

 

There was no salary cap when Montana played.

 

Saying Montana's 4-0 SB record is better than 6-3 is the most nonsensical thing brought up here. 

 

6>4

[BMcP 8,611]

7 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

 

There was no salary cap when Montana played.

 

Saying Montana's 4-0 SB record is better than 6-3 is the most nonsensical thing brought up here. 

 

6>4

It seems really odd to bring up the salary cap when discussing Brady and his very team-friendly deals with the Patriots.

[bhawks489 3,678]

51 minutes ago, Apollo_87 said:

Oy, so much to unpack here. 

 

Ok, so firstly, the whole idea of 'Won 4 and lost none is better than Won 6 and lost 3' is without a doubt, one of the dumbest arguments in sports. It's like saying that an Olympic swimmer who won 4 gold medals in 16 races is better than one who won 6 gold medals and 3 silvers in 20 races because the latter won 3 silvers too. How dare he get further and have more instances of being closer to winning? Is your argument actually that Brady would be considered to be better if he'd lost in the AFC championship, Wilcard Round or not even made the playoffs in the 3 seasons where they made the Super Bowl and didn't win? Cause that's just straight up stupid. 

 

Probably should have lost 4? Where is that coming from? What does that even mean? Don't tell me the argument is that 'Oh, he should have lost the one against Seattle, but the Seahawks effed up by throwing on that play'. Cause guess what, you could just as well make the argument that he 'PROBABLY' should have won the ridiculous helmet catch game. But guess what? Probablies don't mean squat in sports. What matters is what ACTUALLY happened. He won 6.

 

Having a discussion about whether Brady is or isn't the GOAT based on stats or how he's played compared to the other greats is completely fine. But when it starts going into dumb arguments such as it's better to not make it to the SB than to lose it, or 'probably' bs, then it's just silly.

I don’t even like picking the GOAT by how many rings they have. This is a team sport. 

[Apollo_87 467]

16 minutes ago, bhawks489 said:

I don’t even like picking the GOAT by how many rings they have. This is a team sport. 

Honestly, I completely agree. Yes, it's a team sport. Moreover, it's a team sport with significantly high number of player in the team. In basketball, an individual player, who is one of 5 starters and plays in 36 minutes out of 48 can have a much greater % impact than any individual football player who is part of one of 3 starting units across offense, defense and special teams.

 

Look at Peyton, Roethlisberger and Eli. All 3 have two rings each. They belong to completely different tiers in terms of all-time greatness. Peyton's a clear all-time great. Ben's in the really really good category. And Eli's just Peyton's brother who happened to win a couple of rings.