Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl.

[Paulie]

So what's your problem then? You have 2 super bowls since 2000. Only 3 other teams can say that. Torrey smith sucks. Get over it and be happy that youre apparently looking to improve your roster.

 

[SwimExpert]

Also you're comparing apples to oranges. Trent did not take you to that super bowl and win it for you. All he did was manage his games. You had probably the greatest defense in the history of the league. You gave up 10 points a game. 10 points bro! ANY quarterback would be successful in that situation.

No single person takes a team to the Super Bowl and wins it for them. Many people have this foolish tendency to be in love with quarterbacks, generally speaking, and to worship them as the end all and be all of the game. They inflate their importance, and the vast majority of the time people's treatment of quarterbacks ends up being entirely a function of one's personal feelings toward him. It's extremely rare for people to have a single shred of objectivity toward a quarterback. If you like the quarterback, you tend to give them the lion's share of credit and pass the blame to others for failures. If you don't like him, you heap the blame on him and give credit for his work to other people. People don't actually evaluate quarterbacks on what they do. They evaluate quarterbacks on their personal feelings, and shuffle around the credit and blame accordingly. If a receiver puts in a huge effort to make a great catch, if you like the quarterback then the QB made a great throw by putting the ball exactly where only the receiver could make a play. Meanwhile, the QB goes into the huddle and tells the receiver, "Sorry about that throw. I can't hold on to the ball for nothing today."

 

[Paulie]

Also you're comparing apples to oranges. Trent did not take you to that super bowl and win it for you. All he did was manage his games. You had probably the greatest defense in the history of the league. You gave up 10 points a game. 10 points bro! ANY quarterback would be successful in that situation.

No single person takes a team to the Super Bowl and wins it for them. Many people have this foolish tendency to be in love with quarterbacks, generally speaking, and to worship them as the end all and be all of the game. They inflate their importance, and the vast majority of the time people's treatment of quarterbacks ends up being entirely a function of one's personal feelings toward him. It's extremely rare for people to have a single shred of objectivity toward a quarterback. If you like the quarterback, you tend to give them the lion's share of credit and pass the blame to others for failures. If you don't like him, you heap the blame on him and give credit for his work to other people. People don't actually evaluate quarterbacks on what they do. They evaluate quarterbacks on their personal feelings, and shuffle around the credit and blame accordingly. If a receiver puts in a huge effort to make a great catch, if you like the quarterback then the QB made a great throw by putting the ball exactly where only the receiver could make a play. Meanwhile, the QB goes into the huddle and tells the receiver, "Sorry about that throw. I can't hold on to the ball for nothing today."

This isn't entirely accurate. Andrew luck basically singlehandedly took the colts to the playoffs.

And besides that, there's a REASON that teams pay the QB the big money before anyone else. Its not because of their personal feelings. Chip kelly just gave a QB the boot that has a 14-4 record with them and put up a record breaking touchdown/int season in 2013. They could have just fell in love with him and let their personal feelings dictate their business choice but they didn't. They moved on.

 

[rightwinger]

Also you're comparing apples to oranges. Trent did not take you to that super bowl and win it for you. All he did was manage his games. You had probably the greatest defense in the history of the league. You gave up 10 points a game. 10 points bro! ANY quarterback would be successful in that situation.

No single person takes a team to the Super Bowl and wins it for them. Many people have this foolish tendency to be in love with quarterbacks, generally speaking, and to worship them as the end all and be all of the game. They inflate their importance, and the vast majority of the time people's treatment of quarterbacks ends up being entirely a function of one's personal feelings toward him. It's extremely rare for people to have a single shred of objectivity toward a quarterback. If you like the quarterback, you tend to give them the lion's share of credit and pass the blame to others for failures. If you don't like him, you heap the blame on him and give credit for his work to other people. People don't actually evaluate quarterbacks on what they do. They evaluate quarterbacks on their personal feelings, and shuffle around the credit and blame accordingly. If a receiver puts in a huge effort to make a great catch, if you like the quarterback then the QB made a great throw by putting the ball exactly where only the receiver could make a play. Meanwhile, the QB goes into the huddle and tells the receiver, "Sorry about that throw. I can't hold on to the ball for nothing today."

In todays NFL, QBs are the be all and end all
Last ten SB winning QBs

Brady
Wilson
Flacco
E Manning
A Rogers
D Brees
B Rothlesbergr
E Manning
P Manning
B Rothlesberger

Not a journeyman among them and most are future hall of famers

 

[SwimExpert]

This isn't entirely accurate. Andrew luck basically singlehandedly took the colts to the playoffs.

Really? Then who caught all those catches? Who stopped him from getting buried on each passing attempt?

And besides that, there's a REASON that teams pay the QB the big money before anyone else.

There's a reason for everything. Doesn't mean it's a good reason.

Its not because of their personal feelings. Chip kelly just gave a QB the boot that has a 14-4 record with them and put up a record breaking touchdown/int season in 2013. They could have just fell in love with him and let their personal feelings dictate their business choice but they didn't. They moved on.

None of that has anything to do with what I've said. In case you haven't been paying attention, the Eagles traded Foles for Sam Bradford, which they clearly see as an upgrade. So how you think that in any way negates what I've said is beyond me, when it actually proves my point all the more. Despite Foles success, he was a mid round pick who was supposed to be a life long backup, and as such he was never really embraced. As a resultdid not get the credit, it was passed on to other people, but then got the blame for any failures. So now, the Eagles are making what will probably prove to be a horrible decision, by going after a #1 overall draft pick of a quarterback they're in love with, and not seeing the objective fact that after tearing his ACL twice in the past two seasons and consistently failing to live up to his hype, Sam Bradford has yet to prove himself as anything more than an inflated dream who was lucky enough to get a massive rookie contract.

 

[SwimExpert]

In todays NFL, QBs are the be all and end all
Last ten SB winning QBs

Brady
Wilson
Flacco
E Manning
A Rogers
D Brees
B Rothlesbergr
E Manning
P Manning
B Rothlesberger

Not a journeyman among them and most are future hall of famers

You're right about one thing. In today's NFL, QBs are the be all and end all. But that's not because they ought to be. It's because fools like you inflate them to be. Tom Brady is a perfect example. Brady is often compared to Peyton Manning, when in truth Brady is not really an exceptionally good QB. He's gotten by most of his career thanks to at one point having the best offensive line possibly to ever play the game giving him 2 hours per play to throw the ball, and by being a whiny bitch who gets rules changed to accommodate him and draws flags against the other team for being breathed upon whenever his line did get beat. Brady is the quintessential overhyped quarterback who proves exactly what I'm saying. He's not great. Not by a long shot. He's not bad, but he's not great. He's average, and cheats alot.

And if you think that Wilson is destined for the Hall of Fame, you're only proving my point even more. Wilson has only played three seasons. And you're already pegging him for the Hall of Fame? Man, you're really drunk on the loving the QBs, because there's not a single rational person who would ever make that claim about someone in any other position of the game. And just what have Flacco or Eli Manning done that makes them HoF worthy? Nothing! Not a damn thing. But you're so damn in love with the idea of the QB position that simply being a quarterback is enough for you!

Get out of here! You're a damn joke. Seriously, your political arguments are bad. But your sports talk makes your politics look like genius.

 

[SwimExpert]

The rules and importance of a quality QB have changed in the 15 years since Dilfer won a SB

How many "average" QBs have won since Dilfer?

Flacco, Brady, Big Ben, Eli, Wilson. These guys are average. But they're quarterbacks, so everyone says they're elite.

 

[rightwinger]

In todays NFL, QBs are the be all and end all
Last ten SB winning QBs

Brady
Wilson
Flacco
E Manning
A Rogers
D Brees
B Rothlesbergr
E Manning
P Manning
B Rothlesberger

Not a journeyman among them and most are future hall of famers

You're right about one thing. In today's NFL, QBs are the be all and end all. But that's not because they ought to be. It's because fools like you inflate them to be. Tom Brady is a perfect example. Brady is often compared to Peyton Manning, when in truth Brady is not really an exceptionally good QB. He's gotten by most of his career thanks to at one point having the best offensive line possibly to ever play the game giving him 2 hours per play to throw the ball, and by being a whiny bitch who gets rules changed to accommodate him and draws flags against the other team for being breathed upon whenever his line did get beat. Brady is the quintessential overhyped quarterback who proves exactly what I'm saying. He's not great. Not by a long shot. He's not bad, but he's not great. He's average, and cheats alot.

And if you think that Wilson is destined for the Hall of Fame, you're only proving my point even more. Wilson has only played three seasons. And you're already pegging him for the Hall of Fame? Man, you're really drunk on the loving the QBs, because there's not a single rational person who would ever make that claim about someone in any other position of the game. And just what have Flacco or Eli Manning done that makes them HoF worthy? Nothing! Not a damn thing. But you're so damn in love with the idea of the QB position that simply being a quarterback is enough for you!

Get out of here! You're a damn joke. Seriously, your political arguments are bad. But your sports talk makes your politics look like genius.

Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs of all time, arguably THE greatest. Not only has he put up monster numbers but has repeatedly come up big in big games. Unlike other great QBs, Brady has done it without a Hall of Fame receiver or running back

I said most of those QBs are Hall of Famers. The two who aren't are Flacco and Wilson. Both could eventually make it if they continue current performance levels.

 

[SwimExpert]

Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs of all time, arguably THE greatest.

Brady is the greatest crybaby, that's about it.

Not only has he put up monster numbers but has repeatedly come up big in big games. Unlike other great QBs, Brady has done it without a Hall of Fame receiver or running back

Because Wes Welker, Julian Adelman, Rob Gronkowski, Randy Moss, and Troy Brown are all such bad receivers. Because Kevin Faulk was such a horrible RB.

I said most of those QBs are Hall of Famers. The two who aren't are Flacco and Wilson. Both could eventually make it if they continue current performance levels.

So Tony Choke-o is going to the HoF? That remains to be seen, as with all of the rest of them. And in any event, it still does not change the fact that QB is an overhyped position. QBs are always evaluated based on observers' personal feelings. The truly great QBs in the league right now are Brees, Rogers, Peyton, and Rivers.

 

[rightwinger]

Brady has four SuperBowl wins and walked off the field with late fourth quarter leads in his two losses. Brady is also top five all time in key QB statistics and has two MVPs. He has a 21-8 playoff record and holds all QB records for the post season

He has done that without a hall of fame quality receiver or running back

I don't believe anyone mentioned Romo besides you.

The point is that your OP is nonsense and no team today can win with an average QB

 

[HUGGY]

Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs of all time, arguably THE greatest.

Brady is the greatest crybaby, that's about it.

Not only has he put up monster numbers but has repeatedly come up big in big games. Unlike other great QBs, Brady has done it without a Hall of Fame receiver or running back

Because Wes Welker, Julian Adelman, Rob Gronkowski, Randy Moss, and Troy Brown are all such bad receivers. Because Kevin Faulk was such a horrible RB.

I said most of those QBs are Hall of Famers. The two who aren't are Flacco and Wilson. Both could eventually make it if they continue current performance levels.

So Tony Choke-o is going to the HoF? That remains to be seen, as with all of the rest of them. And in any event, it still does not change the fact that QB is an overhyped position. QBs are always evaluated based on observers' personal feelings. The truly great QBs in the league right now are Brees, Rogers, Peyton, and Rivers.

Any decent QB should have been able to score TDs against the Seahawks in the last SB. The Hawks secondary was in tatters by halftime. ALL of the starters were playing with serious injuries. By the time Carroll had to play Simon the writing was on the wall. If even half the starting DBs Seattle had to field were in top physical shape the Pats would have been beaten easily. All season long the Seahawks OWNED the third and fourth qtrs. Brady's dramatic "comeback" at the end was about 10% his skill and about 90% the personnel the Hawks were forced to play in the fourth qtr. Simon was an embarrassment to the LOB. He never played in the regular season except in ST's He was out of his depth. If Maxwell, Thomas, Chancellor. Lane and Sherman had been playing anywhere near healthy the outcome wouldn't have even been close. No excuses but seriously, you can't have 5 of the starters of any group of DBs in ANY defensive backfield, in the league injured with injuries that should have had them in the hospital recovering from surgery, playing and expect the team to dominate in the Super Bowl.

What is amazing is that the Seahawks kept the score so close. With that shattered D backfield the GREAT Brady should have shredded it all game long.

 

[rightwinger]

Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs of all time, arguably THE greatest.

Brady is the greatest crybaby, that's about it.

Not only has he put up monster numbers but has repeatedly come up big in big games. Unlike other great QBs, Brady has done it without a Hall of Fame receiver or running back

Because Wes Welker, Julian Adelman, Rob Gronkowski, Randy Moss, and Troy Brown are all such bad receivers. Because Kevin Faulk was such a horrible RB.

I said most of those QBs are Hall of Famers. The two who aren't are Flacco and Wilson. Both could eventually make it if they continue current performance levels.

So Tony Choke-o is going to the HoF? That remains to be seen, as with all of the rest of them. And in any event, it still does not change the fact that QB is an overhyped position. QBs are always evaluated based on observers' personal feelings. The truly great QBs in the league right now are Brees, Rogers, Peyton, and Rivers.

Any decent QB should have been able to score TDs against the Seahawks in the last SB. The Hawks secondary was in tatters by halftime. ALL of the starters were playing with serious injuries. By the time Carroll had to play Simon the writing was on the wall. If even half the starting DBs Seattle had to field were in top physical shape the Pats would have been beaten easily. All season long the Seahawks OWNED the third and fourth qtrs. Brady's dramatic "comeback" at the end was about 10% his skill and about 90% the personnel the Hawks were forced to play in the fourth qtr. Simon was an embarrassment to the LOB. He never played in the regular season except in ST's He was out of his depth. If Maxwell, Thomas, Chancellor. Lane and Sherman had been playing anywhere near healthy the outcome wouldn't have even been close. No excuses but seriously, you can't have 5 of the starters of any group of DBs in ANY defensive backfield, in the league injured with injuries that should have had them in the hospital recovering from surgery, playing and expect the team to dominate in the Super Bowl.

What is amazing is that the Seahawks kept the score so close. With that shattered D backfield the GREAT Brady should have shredded it all game long.

Sour Grapes make the best whine

 

[Paulie]

This isn't entirely accurate. Andrew luck basically singlehandedly took the colts to the playoffs.

Really? Then who caught all those catches? Who stopped him from getting buried on each passing attempt?

And besides that, there's a REASON that teams pay the QB the big money before anyone else.

There's a reason for everything. Doesn't mean it's a good reason.

Its not because of their personal feelings. Chip kelly just gave a QB the boot that has a 14-4 record with them and put up a record breaking touchdown/int season in 2013. They could have just fell in love with him and let their personal feelings dictate their business choice but they didn't. They moved on.

None of that has anything to do with what I've said. In case you haven't been paying attention, the Eagles traded Foles for Sam Bradford, which they clearly see as an upgrade. So how you think that in any way negates what I've said is beyond me, when it actually proves my point all the more. Despite Foles success, he was a mid round pick who was supposed to be a life long backup, and as such he was never really embraced. As a resultdid not get the credit, it was passed on to other people, but then got the blame for any failures. So now, the Eagles are making what will probably prove to be a horrible decision, by going after a #1 overall draft pick of a quarterback they're in love with, and not seeing the objective fact that after tearing his ACL twice in the past two seasons and consistently failing to live up to his hype, Sam Bradford has yet to prove himself as anything more than an inflated dream who was lucky enough to get a massive rookie contract.

You're off your rocker. My point was that teams do NOT fall in love with qb's just because they're QB's. You're talking about fans, which I really don't care about because they have zero effect on what QB plays where, and when. Who cares that fans fall in love? As long as a team knows when it's time to move on. Which in just about most cases, they do. The saints haven't figured it out yet, but they will. Sam Bradford has nothing to do with anyones emotions. How can there be emotions over a player who hasn't proven himself yet? It's a business decision, and one that I think is being set up for another trade to move up in the draft for Mariota. I don't see bradford ever putting on an Eagles uniform. But I'll be happy to come back here and admit I was wrong.

As far as luck and who made the catches.. Luck is a very good QB that can throw a receiver open with accuracy. So yes, obviously someone is going to make catches but he's the type of QB that makes his receivers better. There's a vice versa of that scenario on a team like Denver, where Peyton is clearly on the downslope of his playing days but his star receivers make him look better than his skill set is these days.

You don't seem to understand football. You may be the only person in the world that doesn't think the QB is the most important position.

 

[Paulie]

And Julian Edelman is not a star receiver. He's just another of the litany of players that are made better in belichick a system. Welker is very good, don't get me wrong, but he's a slot receiver and by virtue of that he's limited in the amount of impact he can have offensively as opposed to a guy like randy moss, who is CLEARLY the only star receiver Brady has ever had to throw to. Yes gronk is the best TE In the game, but much like welker he's only limited to the amount of impact he can have.

But the biggest thing about this is that he doesn't, and never did, have all these guys at once on one team to utilize as a whole. These are just different names he's had over the years on different rosters.

Tom Brady probably wouldn't be as good on a different team, that's one knock on him I'll concede. But that doesn't change anything really, anyway. Because it doesn't matter. He's on THIS team, and no matter what roster he's given to work with, he wins championships.

You're completely football retarded if you seriously think Brady isn't a great QB.

What it sounds like to me is you just don't like him period. So these emotions you're talking about? You need to check those, my man.

 

[SwimExpert]

You're off your rocker. My point was that teams do NOT fall in love with qb's just because they're QB's.

Are you purposely stupid, or are you just too dumb to understand? I did not say that teams fall in love with their QBs. How many times do I have to say it? My point is that people are in love with the QB position! If they happen to like a particular QB, then all things good in the world come from him, no matter how poorly he might play. Any failures will be blamed on other people. If they don't like the QB, every single thing he accomplishes will credited to someone else, while he is blamed for every shortcoming the team experiences.

This is not a difficult concept.

You're talking about fans, which I really don't care about because they have zero effect on what QB plays where, and when. Who cares that fans fall in love? As long as a team knows when it's time to move on. Which in just about most cases, they do. The saints haven't figured it out yet, but they will.

Sure, fans end up doing the same thing. But no, I'm not talking about fans being in love with their quarterback. I'm talking about damn near everyone. The owners who make offers, the coaches who chase after players, and the fans too. Most people over emphasize the QB position, as if it is the only position that matters, with everyone else being stage fillers.

Sam Bradford has nothing to do with anyones emotions. How can there be emotions over a player who hasn't proven himself yet?

Same way that people can absolutely love Tim Tebow.

It's a business decision

Oh shit, are you for realz!?! This is a business? Here, all this time, I thought the NFL was a social club.

Of course it's a business decision. That doesn't mean anything, though. People make bad business decisions every single day. People make business decisions based on all the wrong priorities every single day. Just because it's a business decision does not make it an inherently correct or perfect decision.

and one that I think is being set up for another trade to move up in the draft for Mariota. I don't see bradford ever putting on an Eagles uniform. But I'll be happy to come back here and admit I was wrong.

That may be true, but it's just as irrelevant as everything else you've been saying. Nick Foles was a very good quarterback. He had alot of success. If he was Peyton Manning, his stats would be worshiped on high. But he's only Nick Foles. The Eagles don't credit him with his own success. They credit the surrounding cast. Foles got alot of the blame for any little thing that didn't go well.

As far as luck and who made the catches.. Luck is a very good QB that can throw a receiver open with accuracy. So yes, obviously someone is going to make catches but he's the type of QB that makes his receivers better.

I don't question the fact that Luck is a very good quarterback, and before the end of his career he'll probably be among the truly few great QBs of his generation. But ultimately using him as your example is question begging. You assume that the QB position is the most important, and use Luck as the example to prove it. But you justify crediting Luck as being the one carrying the team, based on the assumption that the QB position is the most important position.

There's a vice versa of that scenario on a team like Denver, where Peyton is clearly on the downslope of his playing days but his star receivers make him look better than his skill set is these days.

Yet Peyton remains one of the best QBs in the league. Peyton's real struggles boil down to the same weaknesses that have plagued him his entire career finally catching up to him and being too easily understood by opponents. Peyton has always been too arrogant, too aggressive in tough situations, too predictable when the chips are down, and too dependent on trickery and deception. Peyton is a great QB, but he has his worst moments against the toughest defenses, which is why for all his Ws, he's never been able to be a truly championship level player. The guy can land the football on a dime from 50 yards out. To this day he can still do that. And he's pretty damn clever. Mind you, I'm no Peyton fan. His obsession with trickery has always annoyed me.

In truth, a QB and receiver make each other better. It's complementary talent. Luck's receivers make him better, and he makes them better. Even if the receivers are getting the better side of the deal in this particular case, it's completely unjustified to give Luck all the credit.

You don't seem to understand football. You may be the only person in the world that doesn't think the QB is the most important position.

I bet if you go ask receivers like Anquan Boldin, Michael Irvin, Randy Moss, and Jerry Rice would certainly disagree with the QB being the most important position. Just get the ball within a 10 yard radius, and they'd take care of the rest. Hell, I'd bet if you gave him a few cocktails and asked Michael Irvin, he'd tell you that Troy Aikman wasn't really as great as everyone thinks he was.

 

[SwimExpert]

Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs of all time, arguably THE greatest.

Brady is the greatest crybaby, that's about it.

Not only has he put up monster numbers but has repeatedly come up big in big games. Unlike other great QBs, Brady has done it without a Hall of Fame receiver or running back

Because Wes Welker, Julian Adelman, Rob Gronkowski, Randy Moss, and Troy Brown are all such bad receivers. Because Kevin Faulk was such a horrible RB.

I said most of those QBs are Hall of Famers. The two who aren't are Flacco and Wilson. Both could eventually make it if they continue current performance levels.

So Tony Choke-o is going to the HoF? That remains to be seen, as with all of the rest of them. And in any event, it still does not change the fact that QB is an overhyped position. QBs are always evaluated based on observers' personal feelings. The truly great QBs in the league right now are Brees, Rogers, Peyton, and Rivers.

Any decent QB should have been able to score TDs against the Seahawks in the last SB. The Hawks secondary was in tatters by halftime. ALL of the starters were playing with serious injuries. By the time Carroll had to play Simon the writing was on the wall. If even half the starting DBs Seattle had to field were in top physical shape the Pats would have been beaten easily. All season long the Seahawks OWNED the third and fourth qtrs. Brady's dramatic "comeback" at the end was about 10% his skill and about 90% the personnel the Hawks were forced to play in the fourth qtr. Simon was an embarrassment to the LOB. He never played in the regular season except in ST's He was out of his depth. If Maxwell, Thomas, Chancellor. Lane and Sherman had been playing anywhere near healthy the outcome wouldn't have even been close. No excuses but seriously, you can't have 5 of the starters of any group of DBs in ANY defensive backfield, in the league injured with injuries that should have had them in the hospital recovering from surgery, playing and expect the team to dominate in the Super Bowl.

What is amazing is that the Seahawks kept the score so close. With that shattered D backfield the GREAT Brady should have shredded it all game long.

Agree completely. Really, it's very much the same as the divisional Pats. v Ravens game. The Ravens had 5 CBs on the IR list by the time the playoffs came around. I was pretty sure that if one more DB went out for the season they were either going to have to scrounge Canadian high schoolers to fill in, or give Terrell Owens a call and just hope he managed an interception or two. Don't get me wrong, that these teams were able to dive so deep on the depth chart and perform decently speaks volumes for the players themselves and the coaches. But the fact that Brady couldn't eat them alive is all the proof necessary that Brady is nowhere near the greatness his fanboi fluffers make him out to be.

 

[HUGGY]

Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs of all time, arguably THE greatest.

Brady is the greatest crybaby, that's about it.

Not only has he put up monster numbers but has repeatedly come up big in big games. Unlike other great QBs, Brady has done it without a Hall of Fame receiver or running back

Because Wes Welker, Julian Adelman, Rob Gronkowski, Randy Moss, and Troy Brown are all such bad receivers. Because Kevin Faulk was such a horrible RB.

I said most of those QBs are Hall of Famers. The two who aren't are Flacco and Wilson. Both could eventually make it if they continue current performance levels.

So Tony Choke-o is going to the HoF? That remains to be seen, as with all of the rest of them. And in any event, it still does not change the fact that QB is an overhyped position. QBs are always evaluated based on observers' personal feelings. The truly great QBs in the league right now are Brees, Rogers, Peyton, and Rivers.

Any decent QB should have been able to score TDs against the Seahawks in the last SB. The Hawks secondary was in tatters by halftime. ALL of the starters were playing with serious injuries. By the time Carroll had to play Simon the writing was on the wall. If even half the starting DBs Seattle had to field were in top physical shape the Pats would have been beaten easily. All season long the Seahawks OWNED the third and fourth qtrs. Brady's dramatic "comeback" at the end was about 10% his skill and about 90% the personnel the Hawks were forced to play in the fourth qtr. Simon was an embarrassment to the LOB. He never played in the regular season except in ST's He was out of his depth. If Maxwell, Thomas, Chancellor. Lane and Sherman had been playing anywhere near healthy the outcome wouldn't have even been close. No excuses but seriously, you can't have 5 of the starters of any group of DBs in ANY defensive backfield, in the league injured with injuries that should have had them in the hospital recovering from surgery, playing and expect the team to dominate in the Super Bowl.

What is amazing is that the Seahawks kept the score so close. With that shattered D backfield the GREAT Brady should have shredded it all game long.

Sour Grapes make the best whine

At least Julian Edelman played in the regular season and had SOME experience. He tore poor Theron Simon a new A-hole and Brady just cashed in on the hapless Simon's mistakes.

I'm pretty sure that if #5 receiver Lockette had managed to catch the ball the headlines wouldn't have read how great the Seahawks were in a repeat but "what the hell was wrong with Brady that he couldn't win against the battered Seahawk D Backfield?". Brady dodged a bullit. In the history of the Super Bowl era there had never been an interception on the one yard line. AKA Pats win on a "FREAK PLAY".

Sour grapes? Hey I'm proud the way the Hawks played in that game. I would call it an heroic effort. Sure it's always more fun to win but sometimes HOW the game is played is what makes it a great game.

 

[Toro]

The Ravens are one of the best run NFL franchises. Ozzie Newsome knows what he is doing.

 

[rightwinger]

And Julian Edelman is not a star receiver. He's just another of the litany of players that are made better in belichick a system. Welker is very good, don't get me wrong, but he's a slot receiver and by virtue of that he's limited in the amount of impact he can have offensively as opposed to a guy like randy moss, who is CLEARLY the only star receiver Brady has ever had to throw to. Yes gronk is the best TE In the game, but much like welker he's only limited to the amount of impact he can have.

But the biggest thing about this is that he doesn't, and never did, have all these guys at once on one team to utilize as a whole. These are just different names he's had over the years on different rosters.

Tom Brady probably wouldn't be as good on a different team, that's one knock on him I'll concede. But that doesn't change anything really, anyway. Because it doesn't matter. He's on THIS team, and no matter what roster he's given to work with, he wins championships.

You're completely football retarded if you seriously think Brady isn't a great QB.

What it sounds like to me is you just don't like him period. So these emotions you're talking about? You need to check those, my man.

I agree that it is unlikely Tom Brady would be as good on another team. But he is on that team

The same can be said about Joe Montana who had marginal QB skills but the heart of a winner. Take Montana off the 49er West Coast Offense and he would have been an average QB

Look at Archie Manning who spent his prime years in New Orleans. They turned a great QB in to and average QB

 

[rightwinger]

Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs of all time, arguably THE greatest.

Brady is the greatest crybaby, that's about it.

Not only has he put up monster numbers but has repeatedly come up big in big games. Unlike other great QBs, Brady has done it without a Hall of Fame receiver or running back

Because Wes Welker, Julian Adelman, Rob Gronkowski, Randy Moss, and Troy Brown are all such bad receivers. Because Kevin Faulk was such a horrible RB.

I said most of those QBs are Hall of Famers. The two who aren't are Flacco and Wilson. Both could eventually make it if they continue current performance levels.

So Tony Choke-o is going to the HoF? That remains to be seen, as with all of the rest of them. And in any event, it still does not change the fact that QB is an overhyped position. QBs are always evaluated based on observers' personal feelings. The truly great QBs in the league right now are Brees, Rogers, Peyton, and Rivers.

Any decent QB should have been able to score TDs against the Seahawks in the last SB. The Hawks secondary was in tatters by halftime. ALL of the starters were playing with serious injuries. By the time Carroll had to play Simon the writing was on the wall. If even half the starting DBs Seattle had to field were in top physical shape the Pats would have been beaten easily. All season long the Seahawks OWNED the third and fourth qtrs. Brady's dramatic "comeback" at the end was about 10% his skill and about 90% the personnel the Hawks were forced to play in the fourth qtr. Simon was an embarrassment to the LOB. He never played in the regular season except in ST's He was out of his depth. If Maxwell, Thomas, Chancellor. Lane and Sherman had been playing anywhere near healthy the outcome wouldn't have even been close. No excuses but seriously, you can't have 5 of the starters of any group of DBs in ANY defensive backfield, in the league injured with injuries that should have had them in the hospital recovering from surgery, playing and expect the team to dominate in the Super Bowl.

What is amazing is that the Seahawks kept the score so close. With that shattered D backfield the GREAT Brady should have shredded it all game long.

Sour Grapes make the best whine

At least Julian Edelman played in the regular season and had SOME experience. He tore poor Theron Simon a new A-hole and Brady just cashed in on the hapless Simon's mistakes.

I'm pretty sure that if #5 receiver Lockette had managed to catch the ball the headlines wouldn't have read how great the Seahawks were in a repeat but "what the hell was wrong with Brady that he couldn't win against the battered Seahawk D Backfield?". Brady dodged a bullit. In the history of the Super Bowl era there had never been an interception on the one yard line. AKA Pats win on a "FREAK PLAY".

Sour grapes? Hey I'm proud the way the Hawks played in that game. I would call it an heroic effort. Sure it's always more fun to win but sometimes HOW the game is played is what makes it a great game.

I agree.
If the game was replayed Seattle would have won nine out of ten times
Same can be said about the Green Bay game. If that game was replayed, Seattle would have lost nine out of ten times

Brady won against the team that was on the field. He remained calm and executed when his team was down 12 points. Mark of a champion