Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54
  1. #21
    thepacksux's Avatar
    thepacksux is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    580

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "oaklandzoo24" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.

  2. #22
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "oaklandzoo24" wrote:
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944943#msg944943 date=1241629015]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.
    [/quote]

    playing style, yes, but based on the fact they both rode their great teams to victory with good, even great, but not best of all time play, they are similar.

  3. #23
    Purplebus is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    81

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    [quote author=oaklandzoo24 link=topic=51771.msg944947#msg944947 date=1241629290]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944943#msg944943 date=1241629015]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.
    [/quote]

    playing style, yes, but based on the fact they both rode their great teams to victory with good, even great, but not best of all time play, they are similar.
    [/quote]

    I couldn't stand Young. I was a 49 fan for years, but after he took the helm and whined so much I just couldn't take it. I followed Montana to KC, watched his abilities decline then lost interest in football at a pro level. My interest has be reignited with the signing of Ian Johnson to the Vikes however. I sincerely hope this QB situation gets ironed out because I just became a Vikings fan. I want to see victory!

  4. #24
    thepacksux's Avatar
    thepacksux is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    580

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    [quote author=oaklandzoo24 link=topic=51771.msg944947#msg944947 date=1241629290]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944943#msg944943 date=1241629015]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.
    [/quote]

    playing style, yes, but based on the fact they both rode their great teams to victory with good, even great, but not best of all time play, they are similar.
    [/quote]

    Most super bowl winning teams have great teams all around.
    You take either of those two players away from their respective teams and i don't think either of them win the super bowl.
    They are/were both extremely good in the clutch and
    leaders for some of the best teams to ever play in the history of the league.


    If this conversation was about Plunkett and Bradshaw, i would completely agree.
    They had phenomenal teams around them and provided competent, sometimes exceptional QB play but at the same time still provide some head-scratching plays/games that left you wondering if they were really that good.

    I never got that feeling watching Young and have yet to see that from Brady.
    Sure, they had their nights where things weren't clicking, but i can't specifically think of any games where they single-handedly cost their team the game.
    (injuries aside)

    As far as Brady not being the same QB, unless he can't get over this injury mentally, he should be exactly the same immobile, yet savvy QB he was prior to injury.

  5. #25
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944950#msg944950 date=1241629582]
    [quote author=oaklandzoo24 link=topic=51771.msg944947#msg944947 date=1241629290]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944943#msg944943 date=1241629015]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.
    [/quote]

    playing style, yes, but based on the fact they both rode their great teams to victory with good, even great, but not best of all time play, they are similar.
    [/quote]

    Most super bowl winning teams have great teams all around.
    You take either of those two players away from their respective teams and i don't think either of them win the super bowl.
    They are/were both extremely good in the clutch and
    leaders for some of the best teams to ever play in the history of the league.


    If this conversation was about Plunkett and Bradshaw, i would completely agree.
    They had phenomenal teams around them and provided competent, sometimes exceptional QB play but at the same time still provide some head-scratching plays/games that left you wondering if they were really that good.

    I never got that feeling watching Young and have yet to see that from Brady.
    Sure, they had their nights where things weren't clicking, but i can't specifically think of any games where they single-handedly cost their team the game.
    (injuries aside)

    As far as Brady not being the same QB, unless he can't get over this injury mentally, he should be exactly the same immobile, yet savvy QB he was prior to injury.
    [/quote]
    Good point. He might be the worst athlete in the NFL prior to the injury, so it shouldn't really hurt him that much.

  6. #26
    Purplebus is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    81

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944950#msg944950 date=1241629582]
    [quote author=oaklandzoo24 link=topic=51771.msg944947#msg944947 date=1241629290]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944943#msg944943 date=1241629015]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.
    [/quote]

    playing style, yes, but based on the fact they both rode their great teams to victory with good, even great, but not best of all time play, they are similar.
    [/quote]

    Most super bowl winning teams have great teams all around.
    You take either of those two players away from their respective teams and i don't think either of them win the super bowl.
    They are/were both extremely good in the clutch and
    leaders for some of the best teams to ever play in the history of the league.


    If this conversation was about Plunkett and Bradshaw, i would completely agree.
    They had phenomenal teams around them and provided competent, sometimes exceptional QB play but at the same time still provide some head-scratching plays/games that left you wondering if they were really that good.

    I never got that feeling watching Young and have yet to see that from Brady.
    Sure, they had their nights where things weren't clicking, but i can't specifically think of any games where they single-handedly cost their team the game.
    (injuries aside)

    As far as Brady not being the same QB, unless he can't get over this injury mentally, he should be exactly the same immobile, yet savvy QB he was prior to injury.
    [/quote]

    'immobile' being the key word. He's not a runner, he just moves out of the way to avoid a sack.

  7. #27
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "Mr" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944956#msg944956 date=1241629835]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944950#msg944950 date=1241629582]
    [quote author=oaklandzoo24 link=topic=51771.msg944947#msg944947 date=1241629290]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944943#msg944943 date=1241629015]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.
    [/quote]

    playing style, yes, but based on the fact they both rode their great teams to victory with good, even great, but not best of all time play, they are similar.
    [/quote]

    Most super bowl winning teams have great teams all around.
    You take either of those two players away from their respective teams and i don't think either of them win the super bowl.
    They are/were both extremely good in the clutch and
    leaders for some of the best teams to ever play in the history of the league.


    If this conversation was about Plunkett and Bradshaw, i would completely agree.
    They had phenomenal teams around them and provided competent, sometimes exceptional QB play but at the same time still provide some head-scratching plays/games that left you wondering if they were really that good.

    I never got that feeling watching Young and have yet to see that from Brady.
    Sure, they had their nights where things weren't clicking, but i can't specifically think of any games where they single-handedly cost their team the game.
    (injuries aside)

    As far as Brady not being the same QB, unless he can't get over this injury mentally, he should be exactly the same immobile, yet savvy QB he was prior to injury.
    [/quote]
    Good point. He might be the worst athlete in the NFL prior to the injury, so it shouldn't really hurt him that much.
    [/quote]

    wrong.
    He's one of the more mobile QB's in the league, just not in the way your thinking.
    To be a mobile qb doesn't mean you tuck the ball and run.
    Stepping up to avoid a sack, moving around in the pocket are all more important than straightline speed.
    If his knee injury affects how he does that, he won't be the Same Tom Brady we are used to.
    Look at Palmer, he's never been the same since.

  8. #28
    thepacksux's Avatar
    thepacksux is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    580

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944968#msg944968 date=1241631115]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944956#msg944956 date=1241629835]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944950#msg944950 date=1241629582]
    [quote author=oaklandzoo24 link=topic=51771.msg944947#msg944947 date=1241629290]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944943#msg944943 date=1241629015]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.
    [/quote]

    playing style, yes, but based on the fact they both rode their great teams to victory with good, even great, but not best of all time play, they are similar.
    [/quote]

    Most super bowl winning teams have great teams all around.
    You take either of those two players away from their respective teams and i don't think either of them win the super bowl.
    They are/were both extremely good in the clutch and
    leaders for some of the best teams to ever play in the history of the league.


    If this conversation was about Plunkett and Bradshaw, i would completely agree.
    They had phenomenal teams around them and provided competent, sometimes exceptional QB play but at the same time still provide some head-scratching plays/games that left you wondering if they were really that good.

    I never got that feeling watching Young and have yet to see that from Brady.
    Sure, they had their nights where things weren't clicking, but i can't specifically think of any games where they single-handedly cost their team the game.
    (injuries aside)

    As far as Brady not being the same QB, unless he can't get over this injury mentally, he should be exactly the same immobile, yet savvy QB he was prior to injury.
    [/quote]
    Good point. He might be the worst athlete in the NFL prior to the injury, so it shouldn't really hurt him that much.
    [/quote]

    wrong.
    He's one of the more mobile QB's in the league, just not in the way your thinking.
    To be a mobile qb doesn't mean you tuck the ball and run.
    Stepping up to avoid a sack, moving around in the pocket are all more important than straightline speed.

    If his knee injury affects how he does that, he won't be the Same Tom Brady we are used to.
    Look at Palmer, he's never been the same since.
    [/quote]

    The term mobile when used regarding a quarterback is mostly used to describe the likes of Vick, Young, etc.


    In any case, his injury should not limit his mobility in regards to how he played before the injury.
    His ability to dodge pass rushers and extend the play is more of a mental attribute than physical.
    The same goes for Payton Manning.
    Not a "mobile" QB, but has the ability to feel the pass rush and is able to extend plays that many qb's are unable to do unless they leave the pocket.

    Carson Palmer was a mobile qb before his injury and i agree, has not and most likely will not be the same.

  9. #29
    Schutz's Avatar
    Schutz is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944968#msg944968 date=1241631115]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944956#msg944956 date=1241629835]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944950#msg944950 date=1241629582]
    [quote author=oaklandzoo24 link=topic=51771.msg944947#msg944947 date=1241629290]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944943#msg944943 date=1241629015]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.
    [/quote]

    playing style, yes, but based on the fact they both rode their great teams to victory with good, even great, but not best of all time play, they are similar.
    [/quote]

    Most super bowl winning teams have great teams all around.
    You take either of those two players away from their respective teams and i don't think either of them win the super bowl.
    They are/were both extremely good in the clutch and
    leaders for some of the best teams to ever play in the history of the league.


    If this conversation was about Plunkett and Bradshaw, i would completely agree.
    They had phenomenal teams around them and provided competent, sometimes exceptional QB play but at the same time still provide some head-scratching plays/games that left you wondering if they were really that good.

    I never got that feeling watching Young and have yet to see that from Brady.
    Sure, they had their nights where things weren't clicking, but i can't specifically think of any games where they single-handedly cost their team the game.
    (injuries aside)

    As far as Brady not being the same QB, unless he can't get over this injury mentally, he should be exactly the same immobile, yet savvy QB he was prior to injury.
    [/quote]
    Good point. He might be the worst athlete in the NFL prior to the injury, so it shouldn't really hurt him that much.
    [/quote]

    wrong.
    He's one of the more mobile QB's in the league, just not in the way your thinking.
    To be a mobile qb doesn't mean you tuck the ball and run.
    Stepping up to avoid a sack, moving around in the pocket are all more important than straightline speed.

    If his knee injury affects how he does that, he won't be the Same Tom Brady we are used to.
    Look at Palmer, he's never been the same since.
    [/quote]

    Yeah agreed.
    There is a difference between fast/playmaker and mobile.

  10. #30
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Brady's days as a great QB are done

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "thepacksux" wrote:
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944968#msg944968 date=1241631115]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944956#msg944956 date=1241629835]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944950#msg944950 date=1241629582]
    [quote author=oaklandzoo24 link=topic=51771.msg944947#msg944947 date=1241629290]
    [quote author=i_bleed_purple link=topic=51771.msg944943#msg944943 date=1241629015]
    [quote author=Zeus link=topic=51771.msg944940#msg944940 date=1241628622]
    [quote author=Json link=topic=51771.msg944878#msg944878 date=1241624636]
    Tom Brady = Best QB to ever live

    except for all the ones taht are better.
    That's my point, nobody is or has ever been better then Brady.
    Wow.
    If not for a bad interpretation of the tuck-rule, the kicking leg of Adam Vinatieri and the cheating of Bill Belicheck, there would be no Tom Brady legend to debate.

    All great QBs are products of their systems and fellow teammates, to a degree.
    But to blithely toss aside the accomplishments of great QBs of the past like Unitas, Otto Graham, Joe Montana and, yes, Terry Bradshaw is simply ludicrous and will move you down about 50 spaces on the 'ol spreadsheet, once Marrdro returns from his flirtation with the Bengals.
    for once we agree on something!

    I'd also like to point out for those who use the whole "ring theory" for deciding on who's a good QB.

    Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Phil Simms, John Elway and Jim plunkett are all tied for the 3rd best quarterback of all time.

    You can make arguments for Elway, sure... Starr's in a category of his own, since the game was so different then.
    Griese, Simms and Plunkett were good, but nothing truly special.

    Dan Marino has none, does that make him a worthless QB?
    Exactly.
    In a team sport like Football, you cant evaluate any one player based on position purely on rings.
    Rings go to teams, not a player.
    Based purely on talent, skill level, and work ethic, I would put Marino, Peyton, Montana, and Unitas as the greatest QBs to play.
    +1
    I like how you didn't include Montana or Young in that list
    Montana is the 3rd QB he listed, dude.

    No love for Otto Graham, however.

    =Z=
    [/quote]

    haha.. how'd I miss that one.

    Still hate it when people list both Montana and Young in the top 5.
    Brady is basically Steve Young 2.0
    [/quote]

    How do you figure?
    Brady and Young are polar opposites of each other in terms of the way they play(ed) the game.
    [/quote]

    playing style, yes, but based on the fact they both rode their great teams to victory with good, even great, but not best of all time play, they are similar.
    [/quote]

    Most super bowl winning teams have great teams all around.
    You take either of those two players away from their respective teams and i don't think either of them win the super bowl.
    They are/were both extremely good in the clutch and
    leaders for some of the best teams to ever play in the history of the league.


    If this conversation was about Plunkett and Bradshaw, i would completely agree.
    They had phenomenal teams around them and provided competent, sometimes exceptional QB play but at the same time still provide some head-scratching plays/games that left you wondering if they were really that good.

    I never got that feeling watching Young and have yet to see that from Brady.
    Sure, they had their nights where things weren't clicking, but i can't specifically think of any games where they single-handedly cost their team the game.
    (injuries aside)

    As far as Brady not being the same QB, unless he can't get over this injury mentally, he should be exactly the same immobile, yet savvy QB he was prior to injury.
    [/quote]
    Good point. He might be the worst athlete in the NFL prior to the injury, so it shouldn't really hurt him that much.
    [/quote]

    wrong.
    He's one of the more mobile QB's in the league, just not in the way your thinking.
    To be a mobile qb doesn't mean you tuck the ball and run.
    Stepping up to avoid a sack, moving around in the pocket are all more important than straightline speed.

    If his knee injury affects how he does that, he won't be the Same Tom Brady we are used to.
    Look at Palmer, he's never been the same since.
    [/quote]
    Did I say mobile? I was just talking athleticism. You don't need to be a good athlete to do what he does in the pocket, it's all mechanics and awareness. His pocket skills shouldn't change from the injury.

    You say look at Palmer, I say look at Palmer's injury. Multiple ligament tears, cartilage damage, and a dislocated knee cap. That's way more than just an ACL(and maybe MCL) tear. Not to mention the team he plays, the fact he returned only 9 months later, and subsequent injuries. Palmer is not the best comparison. If anything I'd say look at McNabb a few years ago, but add another 3-4 months onto his recovery time.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Great memory of days gone by-1987 Vikings
    By Boyum in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11-17-2007, 11:42 AM
  2. Tom Brady's Baby Ends Holdout
    By Zeus in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 11:48 PM
  3. MOVED: Tom Brady's Baby Ends Holdout
    By triedandtruevikesfan in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 01:43 PM
  4. Tom Brady's boys can swim
    By Zeus in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-19-2007, 08:01 AM
  5. Tom Brady's $24-million signing bonus
    By PurplePharaoh in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-29-2005, 06:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •