I wanted the team to grab a tackle while the Patriots were able to draft one in the top 10, and play him on the right side while he learned the NFL. Others had other ideas for the position. Exactly what does that have to do with Light's talent level? Light's a Pro Bowl left tackle.
Light had a great year last year, but he still has to prove himself before I will say he is a top 10 tackle.
You put forth the 90's Cowboys as an example, claiming they were "far superior talent-wise". It's really that simple: your example was wrong. Why should I go team for team with you when you can't even admit one that's pretty obvious?
I put forth about four different teams including the 80s 49ers, 70s Rams, and late 90s Vikings in my original argument. You chose to latch onto one. Considering the Cowboys already have 3 HOFers and one almost guaranteed, I don't know how I am wrong. I talking talent, not production. So far only Brady and Moss are going to the HOF.
Your argument doesn't make sense given the confines of your examples. It's an incorrect argument. It's an argument that you seemingly didn't bother thinking about before posting. You also point to the HOF as if it means something in context when it doesn't. Arguing about who's got more HOF players when the Patriots players are still playing and the players from most of the other elite offenses are retired is just silly.
So apparently HOF means you suck. Sorry, last time I checked the only player without at least 4 years of playing time on last year's offense was mankins and Kazcur. I qualified Mankins as a potential HOF. We already know that it is doubtful that players like Stallworth, Light, Neal, Faulk, Watson, etc. are getting into the HOF. Even Welker has little shot at making it because he would have to improve to have a shot and his window is closing to have the longevity. Sorry, but we know everyone on last year's offense who has a realistic shot at getting to the HOF so it is a valid argument. Only Brady, Moss, and Mankins have a realistic chance at this point. That fact has little chance of changing. Light is 30 and Koppen is going to be 29 in a month, their window has closed for the Hall because neither are considered top at their position and don't have enough years left.
Now you're just posting gibberish. I don't attack McDaniels, I defend him. The most negative thing I recall ever saying about him is that I don't know why the team didn't run more slant patterns for the outside receivers (throughout the year, not just in the Super Bowl), but I've even defended the Super Bowl game plan that so many people scream about. I call your argument crap because I think it's crap, not because I have some further agenda.
Well I will apologize for that one.
You didn't "show" me anything that made your argument correct. And you keep citing back to Johnston vs. Welker as if it's invalidating my argument when, in fact, it does nothing of the kind. You are the one who pointed to the Cowboys, and their base offense with a fullback, to compare to the Patriots and their 3 WR base offense. It's not my fault that Welker was better this season than Johnston ever was in his career. Given the difference in personnel, it was inevitable that there would be at least one matchup that wasn't an exact position comparison.
Welker was the Patriots #2 WR. Just because he lines up in the slot doesn't make him any different. You can make a strong argument that he was better than Alvin Harper, but comparing him to Moose Johnston is silly because they severed far different functions in the offense. Johnston should be compared to the Patriots second TE in a two TE set if anything.
In fact, it may be preferable to compare Harper and Welker because Haper kills the Stallworth comparison since Stallworth was demoted to the Pats' 4th WR by the end of the year. Granted, Johnston kills Kyle Brady. But comparing Welker to Johnston is just wrong on every level since Welker played the Harper role in terms of percentage of looks by the QB.
Brady is arguably the best quarterback in NFL history and Moss is among the top 2-3 wide receivers of all time. That alone gives the Patriots team an enormous talent edge over almost every other team that's ever played. In order to make up for that, the differences elsewhere need to be a hell of a lot greater than "top 3" vs. "top 5".
So we can agree that the 1989 49ers are better. According to most people, Montana and Rice were the best all time at their position and they had several other players who were considered among the best of all time.
Sorry, you can make the argument that Manning and Harrison were a better combo (I don't agree) or Montana and Rice (yet to be seen who is better combo) or at least in the from 1999 to 2001 Warner and Holt (with Bruce to boot).
Also, having the trio of Aikman, Irvin, and Emmitt can definitely offset the combo of Brady and Moss. Emmitt is considered in many circles the best RB of all time.
Sorry, but I still don't think that this team was one of the most talented and since the offense didn't consist of solely Brady passing to Moss, you can't just say it doesn't matter what the rest of the talent.
I know it sacrilidge to even suggest that last year's Patriots weren't the most talented team of all time. But they weren't. They very talented, but they were also very well coached and were will to play their roles even if it mean less personal glory. Most of the guys on offense played above their heads last year. It is a compliment to them. Not a swipe. You ask any non-bias non-Pats fan and many will say that the Pats offense overall last year wasn't the most talented in terms of historical standpoint.
