Still No # 1WR

[203Pat]

From 2005-2013 they paid Tom among the highest paid QB’s in the league, talent was thinner then. Especially when they gave Ty Warren a cornerstone type contract to replace Seymour then he suffered a career ending injury almost immediately. We had to watch UDFA Kyle Love start for years.

But even during those lean years the defense was competitive in points per drive allowed. I’m sure we can search out some analytics and media members have that tells us they were bad but unfortunately for them the NFL still tallies wins and losses with points.

Scar provided great OLines, the defense and special teams were always top half of the league if not top ten. The years they won rings the defense was often top five. But I’m sure that had nothing to do with Tom’s success or other WB’s inability to win rings... they just didn’t have the “it” factor... whatever that is.

Brady was the 5th highest paid in 2005,1st in 2006, 10th in 2007, 2nd in 2008, 4th in 2009, 4th in 2010, 8th in 2011, 17th in 2012, and 5th in 2013. On average that puts him at the 6th highest paid QB over that timeframe.

Hard to complain that a guy who had already won 3 Super Bowls was averaging 6th highest QB salary over your date range.

 

[Wozzy]

Brady was the 5th highest paid in 2005,1st in 2006, 10th in 2007, 2nd in 2008, 4th in 2009, 4th in 2010, 8th in 2011, 17th in 2012, and 5th in 2013. On average that puts him at the 6th highest paid QB over that timeframe.

Hard to complain that a guy who had already won 3 Super Bowls was averaging 6th highest QB salary over your date range.

I don't fault him for wanting to get paid. That's not the point. Despite him getting paid, they were consistently competitive in every position group including QB during that time. Some years were better than others, some position groups were better than others, and again injury often played a role in that.

From 2000-2004 Brady was paid like a 6th round draft choice: 3 rings

From 2014-2019 he took a little less money and they kicked a bunch of salary cap down the road: 3 rings

The decade in between they came close but no cigar... if you want a real estimation of why they have six rings and other elite QB's don't, their talent acquisition, coaching and fiscal responsibility of having more money to spend on the remaining 52 players plus practice squad is a lot more reasonable than a superman QB who is six times/light years better than even the best of his peers.

It's not called the ultimate team sport for nothing, Tom Brady would be the first to tell you that and has.

 

[Deus Irae]

In 2016 the defense and Dion Lewis scoring a TD three different ways in the playoffs carried Tom against the Texans so they could win that ring... team is funny that way.

"Lied..." hilarious.

Yes, you lied. And you keep pivoting to the irrelevant discussion in order to avoid admitting you were full of it about the actual topic.

As for the "team is funny that way" nonsense, literally nobody on the planet who knows how football is played thinks that one person can win a Super Bowl without other players on the roster. So "team is funny that way" is just meaningless tripe.

Here's reality:

Best QBs of the 2000's, acknowledged by pretty much everyone (perhaps not quite exclusive, but close)

Brady
Peyton
Rodgers
Wilson
Brees
Mahomes
Roethlisberger


Since Brady became a starter, in 2001, that list of 8 players has won 15 of the possible 20 Super Bowls. They also largely kept their teams in contention.


That's in comparison to the other 5 winners (Flacco, Johnson, Eli twice, Foles) and all those who've never won.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Yes, you lied. And you keep pivoting to the irrelevant discussion in order to avoid admitting you were full of it about the actual topic.

As for the "team is funny that way" nonsense, literally nobody on the planet who knows how football is played thinks that one person can win a Super Bowl without other players on the roster. So "team is funny that way" is just meaningless tripe.

Here's reality:

Best QBs of the 2000's, acknowledged by pretty much everyone (perhaps not quite exclusive, but close)

Brady
Peyton
Rodgers
Wilson
Brees
Mahomes
Roethlisberger


Since Brady became a starter, in 2001, that list of 8 players has won 15 of the possible 20 Super Bowls.

Great point. Also conversely, while QB is clearly important, most of these guys weren't top echelon draft picks people packaged multiple years of picks for. Just wanted to clarify in almost every case it's still not worth it to mortgage your future for the next annointed sure thing (RGIII, Darnold, Trubisky, Lance).

 

[Wozzy]

Yes, you lied. And you keep pivoting to the irrelevant discussion in order to avoid admitting you were full of it about the actual topic.

As for the "team is funny that way" nonsense, literally nobody on the planet who knows how football is played thinks that one person can win a Super Bowl without other players on the roster. So "team is funny that way" is just meaningless tripe.

Here's reality:

Best QBs of the 2000's, acknowledged by pretty much everyone (perhaps not quite exclusive, but close)

Brady
Peyton
Rodgers
Wilson
Brees
Mahomes
Roethlisberger

Since Brady became a starter, in 2001, that list of 8 players has won 15 of the possible 20 Super Bowls. They also largely kept their teams in contention.

That's in comparison to the other 5 winners (Flacco, Johnson, Eli twice, Foles) and all those who've never won.

I haven't lied or pivoted, you've done a lot of dancing though.

Nobody on the planet who knows how football is played thinks that one person can win a Super Bowl, but you think Tom was the sole difference in seven vs one or none.

Great teams find great talent and that extends to the QB position. Also teams need good/great QB play to win. Amazing insight...

 

[50-yard-line]

Will you stop thorowing magic around like that's what we are aguing? Former players and coaches and respected long time football analysts have a lot more football acumen than you do. I look to them before i look to you. Good for Joe Gibbs and the outlier quarterbacks. You forgot to throw out Trent Dilfer the usual fantacy "drop the mike" you agenda guys like to throw out. Brady has gone to 10 Superbowls and won 7 of them. See any connection there? Everyone but you and Rob Parker does.

And Belichick's been to 9 SBs (with the Pats) and won 6 of them. See any connection?

A couple of those Superbowls were won because Brady was...just amazing. Seattle comes to mind. Another one, at least (the first one) was because Brady has ice in his veins like no one else.

Still, the Seattle SB is lost if not for that last sequence when BB forced Carroll's hand and had exactly the right moment to take the ball away. I doubt any other coach wins that last minute of the SB.

And the Rams game would have been won by pretty much any good QB (I think that's true of last year's Bucs win, as well).

Really simple: Brady would never have gone to all those Superbowls with a lesser coach. Not a chance. Nor would BB have gone to that many without Brady.

The point is: it's not either/or. We were blessed with the GOAT QB, the GOAT HC, and the GOAT organization.

Is this thread really enjoyable for the guys whacking back and forth here?

 

[50-yard-line]

Brady was the 5th highest paid in 2005,1st in 2006, 10th in 2007, 2nd in 2008, 4th in 2009, 4th in 2010, 8th in 2011, 17th in 2012, and 5th in 2013. On average that puts him at the 6th highest paid QB over that timeframe.

Hard to complain that a guy who had already won 3 Super Bowls was averaging 6th highest QB salary over your date range.

That's criminal misuse of statistics. I know they'll tell you anything if you torture them enough, but man, that's Spanish Inquisition/Marque de Sadre level racking right there.

The only player to make more money (and I think it flips this year) playing football ever is Drew Brees, and Brady, as a very low pick started way in the back of the pack, making around $900k total in his first 3 years. He also signed a 6-year deal that looked primo when he signed it, btu the revenues and numbers around him swelled during that time-frame.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

“Virtually every football analyst...” is that a real stat? Virtually every football talking heads only aptitude is a degree in broadcast journalism. You need good QB play, it’s not magic.

Joe Gibbs won three different Super Bowls with three different journeyman QB’s, but it takes one magical one to make it happen... like Nick Foles, Joe Flacco and Eli Manning twice. Sounds legit...

Translation: I can cite a few quarterbacks who won Super Bowls, out of 55 Super Bowls, so having a good quarterback must not be as important as what these uninformed pom pom wavers think. But the fact that almost every Super Bowls has featured at least one MVP-winning quarterback, if not two? Irrelevant.

Also, Joe Theismann was an MVP winning QB who played for the Redskins for over a decade. That's not a journeyman.

 

[Deus Irae]

I haven't lied or pivoted, you've done a lot of dancing though.

Nobody on the planet who knows how football is played thinks that one person can win a Super Bowl, but you think Tom was the sole difference in seven vs one or none.

Great teams find great talent and that extends to the QB position. Also teams need good/great QB play to win. Amazing insight...

Yes, you've lied. No, I haven't danced.

And, here

Nobody on the planet who knows how football is played thinks that one person can win a Super Bowl, but you think Tom was the sole difference in seven vs one or none.

you made an insane attempt at a godawful comparison.

 

[PatsWSB47]

And Belichick's been to 9 SBs (with the Pats) and won 6 of them. See any connection?

A couple of those Superbowls were won because Brady was...just amazing. Seattle comes to mind. Another one, at least (the first one) was because Brady has ice in his veins like no one else.

Still, the Seattle SB is lost if not for that last sequence when BB forced Carroll's hand and had exactly the right moment to take the ball away. I doubt any other coach wins that last minute of the SB.

And the Rams game would have been won by pretty much any good QB (I think that's true of last year's Bucs win, as well).

Really simple: Brady would never have gone to all those Superbowls with a lesser coach. Not a chance. Nor would BB have gone to that many without Brady.

The point is: it's not either/or. We were blessed with the GOAT QB, the GOAT HC, and the GOAT organization.

Is this thread really enjoyable for the guys whacking back and forth here?

There is a connection with Belichick certainly. My point was that Wozzi's dismissal of Brady's connection by siting some outliars. Brady and Belichick demanded players rise to their level of preparation......more than any other coach-quarterback combintion for such a sustained amount of time. Now Brady's gone and the same thing happened in Tampa. The NFL world did the math. Winning follows Brady. Yes he needs a team but a team needs and believes in him

 

[Wozzy]

Translation: I can cite a few quarterbacks who won Super Bowls, out of 55 Super Bowls, so having a good quarterback must not be as important as what these uninformed pom pom wavers think. But the fact that almost every Super Bowls has featured at least one MVP-winning quarterback, if not two? Irrelevant.

Also, Joe Theismann was an MVP winning QB who played for the Redskins from 73-84. That's not a journeyman.

One QB can win the Super Bowl every year... yet it's a rare fraternity. And not surprisingly many of these winners appear on teams that did a great job acquiring talent. Brilliant insights yet again...

Doug Williams and Mark Rypien also won a championship with Joe Gibbs... so one decent QB and two journeymen at best. Seems Joe Gibbs had the blueprint to win regardless of whether he had a magic QB or not... TEAM.

 

[Wozzy]

There is a connection withe Belichick certainly. My point was that Wozzi'a dismissal of Brady's connection by siting some outliars.

Tom Brady's the best QB to ever play the game. Been saying that since 2007... is that not succinct or direct enough?

The difference between him and his closest peers isn't the difference between 7 rings vs one or none.

It's not an indictment of Brady, it's a statement about the oversimplification by fans who have a child-like fantasy football perspective on what it actually requires to win championships in pro football and the overrating of the QB position at large.

I've provided multiple examples of just "good" QB's who have won a championship, or two in Eli Manning's case... not one person here can provide an example of a great QB lifting just a "good" or average team to a championship.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tom Brady's the best QB to ever play the game. Been saying that since 2007... is that not succinct or direct enough?

The difference between him and his closest peers isn't the difference between 7 rings vs one or none.

Clearly, it is. And that's going to remain true no matter how many times you make crappy attempt at godawful comparisons.

 

[Wozzy]

Clearly, it is. And that's going to remain true no matter how many times you make crappy attempt at godawful comparisons.

Stay in your lane...

 

[Deus Irae]

, no Stay in your lane...

Patriots 2019, with Brady: 12-4, playoffs
Patriots 2020, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs

Bucs 2019, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs
Bucs 2020, with Brady: 11-5, Super Bowl champs


My lane is the entire road. Your lane is apparently a pedestrian path off in the woods.

 

[Wozzy]

Patriots 2019, with Brady: 12-4, playoffs
Patriots 2020, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs

Bucs 2019, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs
Bucs 2020, with Brady: 11-5, Super Bowl champs


My lane is the entire road. Your lane is apparently a pedestrian path off in the woods.

Every year is a new year, every team starts over from scratch.

Cam was terrible, this was visible to all. The team around him was young, inexperienced with a few exceptions on O-Line and at DB, and the team was in cap hell. It's the reason the two sides split. Tom didn't want to start over with a rebuild.

Brady inherited an offense in Tampa that led the NFL in passing and with a defense ready to win. They had just about everything but a QB and couple other pieces. There was no bigger reason the Bucs were 7-9 than Jameis Winston leading the NFL in turnovers. It was about as close to a turn-key championship that Tom could find, he chose wisely. Like Phil Jackson choosing the Bulls then the Lakers. Tom is smart... but we all know that. He just doesn't possess magic powers.

 

[50-yard-line]

There is a connection with Belichick certainly. My point was that Wozzi's dismissal of Brady's connection by siting some outliars. Brady and Belichick demanded players rise to their level of preparation......more than any other coach-quarterback combintion for such a sustained amount of time. Now Brady's gone and the same thing happened in Tampa. The NFL world did the math. Winning follows Brady. Yes he needs a team but a team needs and believes in him

Dismissing either is silly, in my opinion. And you seem to be dismissing BB here.

Brady went into a great position in Tampa - he picked carefully, and wisely. That team was, and is, loaded, in the prime of their run. They got lucky last year in that their injured players came back ready to romp at the end of the year, with the exception of one TE in a redundant position for them. Do they win out without Vea? They also got fortunate in the playoffs, particularly in catching a depleted KC team in the SB. THat's usually the way it works - factors beyong just talent and coaching happen. Brady could have had a perfect season if his OL wasn't beat to crap before the SB. He might have had one the next season (was there really anyone who could compete with the Pats at that time?) if he hadn't been injured in week 1.

Tampa Bay also added Gronk, AB, Fournette, Haig last year, and re-signed all their top players, losing no one of note, and have a roster loaded with high-1st/early 2nd-round draft picks. They went all-in and are doing so again, now pushing tons of $$$ down the road. Give them credit.

Manning took an 8-8 Broncos team to 13-3, right? He also won a Superbowl with them - when he was a shell of his former self. Do you really think that Denver turnaround was solely on Manning?

I and you have watched BB patch together secondaries out of duct tape and bandages. His game plan to stifle the greatest show on turf was nothing short of remarkable. His ending of that Seattle SB was legendary. He assembles great teams and coaches them to over-perform year after year.

7-9 with that roster, that schedule, that QB play, is absolutely amazing to me.

And a big part of that - of how they were able to remake the team three tines, at least, in their historic run had to do with money management as much as anything else. Brady was a part of that - he was the perfect player, both in leadership, humility, and work ethic.

But you'll never ever convince me that any other coach/gm could have done it, even with Brady. There are other good organizations in the NFL, and other great coaches (Andy Reid, Harbaugh, and as much as we make fun of him for his blunders, Tomlin is in it every year), but BB is above all of them. Brady will tell you that.

I think Brady could have won 3, maybe, with Andy Reid (if injuries didn't cripple the teams, as so often happens). No way he wins 6 over 20 years, with three completely different set of teammates.

 

[Deus Irae]

Every year is a new year, every team starts over from scratch.

That's changes literally nothing of what I posted.

Cam was terrible, this was visible to all. The team around him was young, inexperienced with a few exceptions on O-Line and at DB, and the team was in cap hell. It's the reason the two sides split. Tom didn't want to start over with a rebuild.

Brady inherited an offense in Tampa that led the NFL in passing and with a defense ready to win. They had just about everything but a QB and couple other pieces. There was no bigger reason the Bucs were 7-9 than Jameis Winston leading the NFL in turnovers. It was about as close to a turn-key championship that Tom could find, he chose wisely. Like Phil Jackson choosing the Bulls then the Lakers. Tom is smart... but we all know that. He just doesn't possess magic powers.

Again, that changes literally nothing of what I posted. It's ridiculousness on your part, as well. Your argument is essentially that the QBs aren't going to make a big SB difference from one to the other, because team, yet your attempted disabusement here consists of you noting the vast QB difference. In the history of the Super Bowl, only two QBs have won one with more than one team, and Brady is one of them. In the history of the SB, only three QBs have won the Super Bowl with a team in their first year, and Brady is one of them. So, to repeat:

Patriots 2019, with Brady: 12-4, playoffs
Patriots 2020, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs

Bucs 2019, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs
Bucs 2020, with Brady: 11-5, Super Bowl champs


My lane is the entire road. Your lane is apparently a pedestrian path off in the woods.

 

[203Pat]

That's criminal misuse of statistics. I know they'll tell you anything if you torture them enough, but man, that's Spanish Inquisition/Marque de Sadre level racking right there.

The only player to make more money (and I think it flips this year) playing football ever is Drew Brees, and Brady, as a very low pick started way in the back of the pack, making around $900k total in his first 3 years. He also signed a 6-year deal that looked primo when he signed it, btu the revenues and numbers around him swelled during that time-frame.

I don't know what you're taking about. This was based on his cap number. The only thing that matters in this argument. I don't care if he made $4 billion or $4 million over the life of his career if it didn't count against the cap. The numbers I provided was a list of his cap numbers relative to the other QB's in the league over the same stretch.

 

[Wozzy]

That's changes literally nothing of what I posted.

Again, that changes literally nothing of what I posted. It's ridiculousness on your part, as well. Your argument is essentially that the QBs aren't going to make a big SB difference from one to the other, because team, yet your attempted disabusement here consists of you noting the vast QB difference. In the history of the Super Bowl, only two QBs have won one with more than one team, and Brady is one of them. In the history of the SB, only three QBs have won the Super Bowl with a team in their first year, and Brady is one of them. So, to repeat:

Patriots 2019, with Brady: 12-4, playoffs
Patriots 2020, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs

Bucs 2019, w/o Brady: 7-9, no playoffs
Bucs 2020, with Brady: 11-5, Super Bowl champs


My lane is the entire road. Your lane is apparently a pedestrian path off in the woods.

In the vast history of QB's...?

Until free agency players were indentured servants that teams owned wholly and unconditionally. Since then teams have paid QB's a premium not to leave. Tom played on the same team for twenty years until they maxed out what they could do by stressing their salary cap to the tune of four Super Bowls with three rings to show for it.

Gilmore, Gronk, Edelman,Hightower, DMC, Mason, Thuney, Bennett, Ghost, Cooks... didn't they have other superstars along the way? Nobody is saying QB's are not important, that's you misrepresenting everything I'm saying.

The Patriots were the best, most talented teams when they won rings, the 2020 Bucs were a superteam, something I called them in the offseason before a single preseason game had been played based on roster alone. And hey, newsflash the Patriots added a whole bunch of new players to the roster this offseason, I'm going to guess they'll be better. If Mac Jones is for real and they stay healthy they'll be fighting for the AFC East...

Imagine that, I can predict that before a single game has been played based off personnel alone. It's almost as if great players leads to great results... yet somehow Deshaun Watson's amazing QB abilities won't lift the Texans out of the dumpster...odd.