ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
If as soon as he is given talented receivers, Tom Brady becomes a statistically great quaterback, then everybody will dismiss the statistics of his first six starting seasons (great as they were) as being greatly lowered by the quality of his receiving corp.
Is it possible to be a statistically great QB on a Bill Belichick football team?
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Is it possible to be a statistically great QB on a Bill Belichick football team?
Why not? In 2005 Tom Brady led the league in passing yardage, yes more yards than Peyton Manning, with Branch and Givens as his top targets.
I think Moss and Stallworth are better than that tandem, and factor in a maturing Maroney and Watson and you have a recipe for explosive offense in 2007.
__________________
Pats NEW LOOK Offense
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This is the year that will determine Brady's legacy. Is he just a great pressure quarterback who won a bunch of superbowls? Or is he also one of the most talented quaterbacks ever to play the game.
This is a silly premise. If Brady doesn't win a Super Bowl this year but finishes with 4 or 5 titles, no one's going to look at his career and say "Yeah, he was good but once he lost in 2007, I knew he wasn't for real..."
This is a silly premise. If Brady doesn't win a Super Bowl this year but finishes with 4 or 5 titles, no one's going to look at his career and say "Yeah, he was good but once he lost in 2007, I knew he wasn't for real..."
Do you deny that even when it was Brady 3, Manning 0, people were saying stuff like "If I had to start a franchise, I'd want Manning, not Brady as QB"? Superbowl titles are, in and of themselves, not sufficient to settle the argument.
If Brady retires with 3 or even 4 titles, and his statistics remain the same (and again, those are pretty darn good statistics), we will hear people saying that he wasn't as good as his superbowl record for all eternity.
If he gets five titles, people will still think it (but they won't say it )
As far as Manning's legacy goes: His failures before this past season DO still tranish his legacy.
Don't worry, the second after the Colts lose in the playoffs, all of the talk will resume once again. "Can he win another?" "Is he a one-hit wonder?" "Can he win without Dungy?" There will always be some doubt based on his past (and inevitable future) playoff failures.
Do you deny that even when it was Brady 3, Manning 0, people were saying stuff like "If I had to start a franchise, I'd want Manning, not Brady as QB"? Superbowl titles are, in and of themselves, not sufficient to settle the argument.
If Brady retires with 3 or even 4 titles, and his statistics remain the same (and again, those are pretty darn good statistics), we will hear people saying that he wasn't as good as his superbowl record for all eternity.
If he gets five titles, people will still think it (but they won't say it )
Everything you've just written here may all be very well and good, but it has nothing to do with your original contention that started this thread. You wrote "This is the year that will determine Brady's legacy." It is simply ridiculous to take a 3 time Super Bowl champion and pin his entire legacy to one single year... like if he fails to win a Super Bowl this year then all of a sudden everyone is going to say "Well, he's just not all that good and shouldn't go to the Hall of Fame..."
Everything you've just written here may all be very well and good, but it has nothing to do with your original contention that started this thread. You wrote "This is the year that will determine Brady's legacy." It is simply ridiculous to take a 3 time Super Bowl champion and pin his entire legacy to one single year... like if he fails to win a Super Bowl this year then all of a sudden everyone is going to say "Well, he's just not all that good and shouldn't go to the Hall of Fame..."
True, but I really don't want to lose out to the Colts and hear about how Brady has failed in the playoffs 3 straight years while Manning gets another ring and they've somehow "switched places".
Everything you've just written here may all be very well and good, but it has nothing to do with your original contention that started this thread. You wrote "This is the year that will determine Brady's legacy." It is simply ridiculous to take a 3 time Super Bowl champion and pin his entire legacy to one single year... like if he fails to win a Super Bowl this year then all of a sudden everyone is going to say "Well, he's just not all that good and shouldn't go to the Hall of Fame..."
OK, let me clarify my comments.
In my mind, a player's legacy is what people think of when that player's name comes up decades after he has stopped playing.
We KNOW that people will say that he won games. Even if Tom Brady sucks the rest of his career, an 80-25 regular season during his first seven seasons proves that.
We KNOW that people will say that he could win big games. 12-2 in the playoffs, 3-0 in the Superbowl during his first seven seasons proves that.
We KNOW that people will say he was a great pressure QB. We KNOW that people will say he was a great leader.
The one aspect of his legacy that remains in doubt is what people think of his on field passing talent.
When people say that Tom Brady "just wins" there is an implication that he only wins; that his winning record far exceeds his observable on field performance.
I think that is just plain wrong. I think that Montana in his prime with Gaffney and Caldwell (instead of Rice and Taylor) wouldn't perform nearly as well as Brady did. I think that Manning would be a joke is you made a similar substitution for Harrison and Wayne.
But this year IS especially important if he wants to prove it because this is his first year with a quality receiving corps. Only by producing great numbers THIS season can he prove that his past numbers were the result of inferior receivers. Great performances in future years won't be sufficient to accomplish this.
Solman.....you speak the truth my friend. I'm with you 110%.
My dream season is for Brady to not only win....but light up his stats this year. On the surface, I don't care if Brady puts up huge stats, as long as the Pats are winning I am happy. But wouldn't it be great to for the season to playout as follows:
Brady throws for over 4,000 yards and 40 TD'S.
While Harrison and Wayne miss time due to minor injuries throughout the season (don't wish major injury on anyone) and Manning looks lost with who ever the replacements are.
Brady wins MVP.....and superbowl of course.
Every football fan that EVER discussed the Manning vs. Brady thing would only be able to think one thing.