Tom Brady says he's done "for good"

[venecol]

Brady threw for 505 yards, 3 TD’s and lost.

But the better QB always wins… so Patriot fans can take comfort in that.

Like you say, it takes a team. In the above case, the HC lost that game.

 

[venecol]

Brady was a large part of 6 rings, but that wouldn’t have happened anywhere else.

For two decades he played with the best defenses, best O-Lines, special teams and had good weapons around him.

Lol, this isn't even a mile close from the truth. Come on man, we weren't born yesterday.

 

[venecol]

So in summation… QB’s are a small piece of what it takes for a team to win a ring.

Tell that to Vegas when the lines move dramatically only when the QB is injured but don't when other players are.

 

[Wozzy]

Tell that to Vegas when the lines move dramatically only when the QB is injured but don't when other players are.

QB is one position group, Vegas moved the line when 3 of Joe Burrow's starting offensive linemen got hurt as well.

 

[Wozzy]

Lol, this isn't even a mile close from the truth. Come on man, we weren't born yesterday.

Luckily for the rest of us who aren't fawning fangirls there are facts/stats... also known as the truth.

 

[Wozzy]

Wussies take: football is a team sport. It takes the entire team to win. The team includes coaches, cheerleaders, training staff, water boys. They all contribute to the wins. You don't even need elite players. Anyone can win because it takes a team to win.

Real deep analysis there my dude. Bravo.

Wussie's take? Clearly from somebody who has never played football at even the peewee level.

Here's the your take on football:

Does your wife know about your secret life?

 

[venecol]

Luckily for the rest of us who aren't fawning fangirls there are facts/stats... also known as the truth.

Except that we know that for several seasons the Pats D and OL were not "the best for two decades" which is what you said. Typical for you to move goal posts though.

 

[Wozzy]

I named 11 bad quarterbacks (out of 112) to play in the Super Bowl.

Here's a list of elite quarterbacks to play in 3 or more Super Bowls:

Tom Brady (10)
John Elway (5)
Joe Montana (4)
Terry Bradshaw (4)

Terry Bradshaw won 4 rings, he wasn't that good in relation to his peers each season.

He never led the league in passing yards, passer rating, completion percentage, passes completed, only led the NFL in passing TD's twice at the tail end of his career and threw the same amount of INT's as he did TD's for his career.

 

[venecol]

Wussie's take? Clearly from somebody who has never played football at even the peewee level.

Here's the your take on football:

Does your wife know about your secret life?

Wussie's take:
Football is a team sport. During the entire SB era, a team won the SB. That proves my point.

 

[Wozzy]

Except that we know that for several seasons the Pats D and OL were not "the best for two decades" which is what you said. Typical for you to move goal posts though.

Outside of 2002 Brady never dealt with rosters that were bad everywhere like Brees, Rogers, Mannings and all his peers.

I didn't have to move anything... stats suck for you because uncomfortable truths make your fawning fanboy takes look terrible.

 

[Wozzy]

Wussie's take:
Football is a team sport. During the entire SB era, a team won the SB. That proves my point.

You reducing a sport with 63 man rosters, a horde of coaches and scouts down to a single player is pathetic, insulting to every other position and outright wrong. But you're the rabid Justin Bieber fan attacking somebody online for having a viewpoint that doesn't align with yours... so it makes sense.

 

[Wozzy]

If Patrick Mahomes switched from the Chiefs to almost any other team in the NFL, that team would become instant Super Bowl favorites while the Chiefs would drop to middle/bottom odds. But what do oddsmakers know anyway? They're just hedging the risk of a multi-billion dollar industry. They're not enlightened enough to post in this thread.

Patrick Mahomes on the Bears or Texans wouldn't make them a Super Bowl anything... they'd still suck. He would give them another 2-3 wins possibly.

And the conversation isn't what would happen if you took Mahomes away from the Chiefs, it was what would happen if you took Mahomes away and replaced him with Burrows, Herbert, Watson, Lawrence or any number of QB's... and the answer would be the same. Andy Reid would find a way to win with all of them. The difference between the best of the best is tiny.

 

[venecol]

Outside of 2002 Brady never dealt with rosters that were bad everywhere like Brees, Rogers, Mannings and all his peers.

I didn't have to move anything... stats suck for you because uncomfortable truths make your fawning fanboy takes look terrible.

It's awfully convenient to ignore what the offensive production was during those two decades in comparison to the defense. For you statement to be valid it would mean the D was better than the O for 20 years. It just wasn't.

 

[venecol]

You reducing a sport with 63 man rosters, a horde of coaches and scouts down to a single player is pathetic, insulting to every other position and outright wrong.

That would be true if that were what I was doing. It's not. Time for your mental wellness check.

 

[Wozzy]

It's awfully convenient to ignore what the offensive production was during those two decades in comparison to the defense. For you statement to be valid it would mean the D was better than the O for 20 years. It just wasn't.

The Patriots with Brady almost always had good offensive lines, weapons, defenses and special teams. The few times they didn't were largely due to injury.

The graphic I posted above wasn't an opinion, it is statistical fact. Brady's defenses gave up fewer points than anyone in his peer group and it wasn't even close. Brady never made a tackle, sack or an interception.

Facts suck for you.

 

[Wozzy]

That would be true if that were what I was doing. It's not. Time for your mental wellness check.

This is what fanboys do.... gush all day about the magical power of their sacred cow, then when someone points out an uncomfortable truth they insist "I never said that."

 

[venecol]

The Patriots with Brady almost always had good offensive lines, weapons, defenses and special teams. The few times they didn't were largely due to injury.

This just isn't true. Brady is known for making his OLs better and elevating his mediocre receivers. How many HOF offensive players did Brady play with in his 2 decades? Compare that with the other QBs you listed.

The graphic I posted above wasn't an opinion, it is statistical fact. Brady's defenses gave up fewer points than anyone in his peer group and it wasn't even close.

Why don't you post the link so we can review the entire source and basis of that chart.

 

[venecol]

This is what fanboys do.... gush all day about the magical power of their sacred cow, then when someone points out an uncomfortable truth they insist "I never said that."

You seem confident of your opinion about me. Should be easy for you to back it up by quoting all these "daily" posts of me saying that Brady was the one and only player carrying the entire team. I'll be waiting.

 

[Wozzy]

This just isn't true. Brady is known for making his OLs better and elevating his mediocre receivers. How many HOF offensive players did Brady play with in his 2 decades? Compare that with the other QBs you listed.

In two decades worth of football, some units were stronger or weaker than others but they were never "bad," or if they were for a tiny fraction of the time, it was mainly due to injuries. Largely he played with good, very good or even great offensive lines and almost always had capable weapons.

You are judging these units based on other years of the dynasty... you know, the winningest franchise is the history of pro football.

Mediocre is relative, compared to the Lions, Browns or Jets we always had five all pros. Brady didn't block, didn't tackle, didn't assemble the team and if you asked him he would be the first to tell you he was surrounded by great teams. You believe in superheroes... but they don't exist.

Why don't you post the link so we can review the entire source and basis of that chart.

You hate what the numbers tell you so you desperately want it to be wrong. It's not. Jason Pauly posted that graphic, he's been featured in Sport's Illustrated and other media sites for his analysis. Again... facts suck for you.

 

[venecol]

In two decades worth of football, some units were stronger or weaker than others but they were never "bad," or if they were for a tiny fraction of the time, it was mainly due to injuries. Largely he played with good, very good or even great offensive lines and almost always had capable weapons.

OK, so you're finally walking back what you previously stated as fact that I questioned. Good for you.

You are judging these units based on other years of the dynasty... you know, the winningest franchise is the history of pro football.

No it isn't. You suck at Facts.

Mediocre is relative, compared to the Lions, Browns or Jets we always had five all pros.

No we didn't. More sucky facts.

Brady didn't block, didn't tackle,

Yes he did. More sucky facts.

You believe in superheroes... but they don't exist.

Yes they do.

You hate what the numbers tell you so you desperately want it to be wrong. It's not. Jason Pauly posted that graphic, he's been featured in Sport's Illustrated and other media sites for his analysis.

I'm just asking for a link. Lighten up Francis.