Manhole Eunuchsbane

NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

348 posts in this topic

Some of the Pats defenses weren't great. The defense this past year was just okay, which was why this wasn't one of the better Pats teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Those would be the two. Personally, if I was starting a franchise over from scratch, I would rather have Rodgers or Manning over Brady, and for me, that somewhat undercuts the argument that Brady is the GOAT. 

Have to say my opinion is entirely different. Brady has been consistently great while working with mediocre talent. Manning/Rodgers have had much better talent at WR. Brady has Marino like stats with Montana like winning, to me that's the best of both worlds. Looked at a few stats.

QB                  Yards          TD             PR         WINS

Marino               5th            5th             26th       5th

Brady                4th             4th             3rd         3rd

Montana          17th           16th             13th      10th

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Those would be the two. Personally, if I was starting a franchise over from scratch, I would rather have Rodgers or Manning over Brady, and for me, that somewhat undercuts the argument that Brady is the GOAT. 

I still think Montana is better, due to the era he was playing in, but if I had to start a franchise from scratch I would probably pick Brady; if only because of his willingness to take extremely below market-value contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The thing that separates Montana to me is with regards to how contrary to logic/nature he runs. His rating actually rises with each level, the only guy in history for whom this is true. Ie, his rating goes regular season< wild card< playoffs< conference championships< super bowl. When, in theory, it ought to be getting tougher each level as competition rises. Just bizarre, and obviously not a small sample size either.

Edited by James Arryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dbunting said:

Have to say my opinion is entirely different. Brady has been consistently great while working with mediocre talent. Manning/Rodgers have had much better talent at WR. Brady has Marino like stats with Montana like winning, to me that's the best of both worlds. Looked at a few stats.

QB                  Yards          TD             PR         WINS

Marino               5th            5th             26th       5th

Brady                4th             4th             3rd         3rd

Montana          17th           16th             13th      10th

 

That doesn't really address my point though. Also, I question how good Rodger's weapons have been over the years. 

2 hours ago, Fez said:

I still think Montana is better, due to the era he was playing in, but if I had to start a franchise from scratch I would probably pick Brady; if only because of his willingness to take extremely below market-value contracts.

But in this alternative universe Brady doesn't necessarily marry someone who makes significantly more money than him so maybe he wouldn't be willing to take discount contracts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not giving Brady credit for taking less on his contracts, when he has a wife pulling in 9 figures every year. He's reaping the benefits on the field for sure, but it's not altruism or anything like that.

 

Also, Pats resign Hightower, four years, $43.5, but only two years guaranteed essentially. Every single one of these moves points to Brady and Belichick thinking two more seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sperry said:

Yeah, I'm not giving Brady credit for taking less on his contracts, when he has a wife pulling in 9 figures every year. He's reaping the benefits on the field for sure, but it's not altruism or anything like that.

 

Also, Pats resign Hightower, four years, $43.5, but only two years guaranteed essentially. Every single one of these moves points to Brady and Belichick thinking two more seasons.

Fuck. I was sure they were going to lose Hightower. I guess this is just going to be another middle of the pack defense this season, eh Rock? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sperry said:

Yeah, I'm not giving Brady credit for taking less on his contracts, when he has a wife pulling in 9 figures every year. He's reaping the benefits on the field for sure, but it's not altruism or anything like that.

 

Also, Pats resign Hightower, four years, $43.5, but only two years guaranteed essentially. Every single one of these moves points to Brady and Belichick thinking two more seasons.

He was taking less before he married her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Those would be the two. Personally, if I was starting a franchise over from scratch, I would rather have Rodgers or Manning over Brady, and for me, that somewhat undercuts the argument that Brady is the GOAT. 

But why? I mean, it is possible that if Rodgers or Manning were placed with a coach that suits them as well as Belichick suits Brady, they might have won more than Brady, but why take a possibility over something proven to have worked better than anything in the Superb Owl era? Also, Rodgers himself disagrees with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Those would be the two. Personally, if I was starting a franchise over from scratch, I would rather have Rodgers or Manning over Brady, and for me, that somewhat undercuts the argument that Brady is the GOAT. 

Manning and Brady will finish neck and neck in bulk stats when Brady's career is over. The difference is Brady will be well ahead of him in efficiency stats. Just to give you an idea, it will take Brady 2-4 years to catch Manning in bulk stats. Which will put them roughly even in playing time. BUT and this is a big but, at Brady's current average per season for him to match Manning in the number of interceptions, Brady would have to play 10 more years. But at the same time if he did that he'd also put almost every bulk record out of reach forever. 

With Rodgers it's a little different. Rodgers is the best efficiancy stat QB of all time. But he's also the best QB to play post the 2004 rule changes. If you compare Rodgers to Brady/Manning/Brees from 2008 on, Rodgers is still better in efficciancy stats, but only by like a negligible amount. Like Rodgers since 2008 when he started has a 104 passer rating and Manning and Brady are 101. And that's not taking into account that Manning and Brady both missed a season to injury in that time frame. If you go strictly to there last 9 years vs his, it's Rodgers at 104 to Brady at 103 (mainly because you get the 2007 season in there). And Rodgers is never going to catch them in bulk stats. And to catch Brady in winning, well he's 33 now, he'd need the greatest 6 year run in the history of the sport to get anywhere near him. And Rodgers numbers are a bit inflated because earlier in his career he was more willing to take sacks than throw incompletions which effected his passer rating and Manning started from day 1 and Brady started 1 year in, Rodgers got the benefit of missing those growing pain years and started year 3, which also helps his standing there. 

If I'm starting a team from scratch I take Brady. He has the best of both their qualities plus the winning. And to be honest, one game for my life, I really can't go with anybody else besides him or Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That doesn't really address my point though. Also, I question how good Rodger's weapons have been over the years. 

 

Wasn't trying to disprove your opinion, just showing why I think differently. I was comparing Marino, seen as one of the ultimate stat guys, and Montana, seen as the ultimate winner. Brady is consistently higher than both, stats and winning.

Funny thing is I once again combined several posts into my one reply! Others was talking about Manning and Marino, you were referencing Rodgers, not Marino. I would still pick Brady to start a team with. I am a bit biased being a Michigan fan, we hold tight to his limited playing time here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Altherion said:

But why? I mean, it is possible that if Rodgers or Manning were placed with a coach that suits them as well as Belichick suits Brady, they might have won more than Brady, but why take a possibility over something proven to have worked better than anything in the Superb Owl era? Also, Rodgers himself disagrees with you.

Well part of the premise is that you're taking one of the three and starting from scratch with no knowledge about the roster and the coaching staff around the QB. Because of that I have to go with Manning, and for me personally it's not a very hard choice. Deciding between Brady and Rodgers is a bit harder, but I tend to lean towards Rodgers. All that said there's nothing wrong with you saying that Brady would be the guy you'd take.

2 hours ago, lancerman said:

If I'm starting a team from scratch I take Brady. He has the best of both their qualities plus the winning. And to be honest, one game for my life, I really can't go with anybody else besides him or Montana.

I think that's Brady's best argument, and I agree that if it's for one game with my life on the line I'm going with Brady. But that's not how you build a team that needs to rely on a large sample size.

Also I clipped your stats because I think the stats don't matter that much for this particular conversation other then to let you know that all three QBs are in the same relative league of greatness.  This is more about the eye test and projecting how the QBs would do in other situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dbunting said:

Have to say my opinion is entirely different. Brady has been consistently great while working with mediocre talent. Manning/Rodgers have had much better talent at WR. Brady has Marino like stats with Montana like winning, to me that's the best of both worlds. Looked at a few stats.

QB                  Yards          TD             PR         WINS

Marino               5th            5th             26th       5th

Brady                4th             4th             3rd         3rd

Montana          17th           16th             13th      10th

 

I think you have to factor in Coach B. There is a reason why back up NE qbs who got a chance have looked great until they are on a different team. He may be a defensive minded coach, but his gameplans and adjustments are second to none. If you switch Brady and Manning I highly doubt Tom has the success he has had in NE. i think he would still be a hall of famer, but not arguably the GOAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Westerosi Coast Gangster said:

I think you have to factor in Coach B. There is a reason why back up NE qbs who got a chance have looked great until they are on a different team. He may be a defensive minded coach, but his gameplans and adjustments are second to none. If you switch Brady and Manning I highly doubt Tom has the success he has had in NE. i think he would still be a hall of famer, but not arguably the GOAT.

Matt Cassel, IMHO, is the best example of that, but a lot of people don't know (I didn't until recently) that 2007 patriots played  something like the 3rd hardest schedule, went 16-0.  The Matt Cassel patriots played something like the 28th hardest schedule, went 11-5, but lost the division and missed the playoffs.  I don't know if there were other "radical" changes from one year to the next, but if not, it speaks highly of Brady, and Bill's ability to recognize this.  After that, qb-desperate teams were exactly that, desperate.  Making moves out of desperation, whether in monopoly or the NFL, is never a good decision.  Trading or signing Mallet or Hoyer, even back then it was foolish.  I didn't like the Mallet draft.

Sorry man, not trying to give you hard time, so I hope you don't take it as such.  But the Cassel ordeal, I think, coupled with Belichick's somewhat unorthodox approach, leads people to undervalue Brady.  Just my opinion.  

However, Belichick had a 3-5? year sample size at Cleveland, and did nothing.  I think they're both great, but if I have to pin the patriots "greatness" on one man, I pick Brady.  Maybe that's just me.

Just a general thought, in hindsight, deflategate may have been a blessing in disguise for Brady and the patriots.  It seems to have somewhat lit a fire under Craft and Belichick.  Of course they want to repeat, but their wheelings and dealings in FA almost makes me think they want to erase the 18-1 blemish, if you can call that a blemish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(So, my one-day trial just got extended into two so ....) 

 

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Fuck. I was sure they were going to lose Hightower. I guess this is just going to be another middle of the pack defense this season, eh Rock? ;)

The HIghtower resigning was fucking huge.  This is the leader of the D; everything goes through him; he makes everyone better, he makes huge plays, he is the communication with the coaches during plays; everything goes through him.  

But if he was gone?  The team devolves immediately into "Devon McCourty and 10 role-players."  While that's an exaggeration, its only a slight one.  Hightower makes this D respectable; without him; without Collins; without Butler; without Jones, this D is on the down-side of that ranking, falling almost certainly to the twenties in DVOA defense.  With High they are probably in the low teens.  

Regardless, huge day for the Pats that will almost certainly cap one of their best free-agent experiences to date.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

(So, my one-day trial just got extended into two so ....) 

The HIghtower resigning was fucking huge.  This is the leader of the D; everything goes through him; he makes everyone better, he makes huge plays, he is the communication with the coaches during plays; everything goes through him.  

But if he was gone?  The team devolves immediately into "Devon McCourty and 10 role-players."  While that's an exaggeration, its only a slight one.  Hightower makes this D respectable; without him; without Collins; without Butler; without Jones, this D is on the down-side of that ranking, falling almost certainly to the twenties in DVOA defense.  With High they are probably in the low teens.  

Regardless, huge day for the Pats that will almost certainly cap one of their best free-agent experiences to date.  

If they end up keeping Butler as well, this defense will be pretty beastly methinks. Even without him they're improved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

If they end up keeping Butler as well, this defense will be pretty beastly methinks. Even without him they're improved.

I don't know.  I actually think Butler is better than Gilmore so losing him- which I think is all but done -has the potential to make the team worse. I think Guy is akin to Long so that's a wash.  Will Ealy be the breakthrough player?  I don't know; my inclination is that he's the guy who makes an impact here and there, but I do not think the Pats have anybody that makes me think, "The team got immediately better."  I think that they have potential and we will see what happens there.  

And if Butler resigns - and I do not believe he will - then, yes, they are better.  But I think that they have the POTENTIAL to be better, but that may also mean they have the potential to be "meh."  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

 

However, Belichick had a 3-5? year sample size at Cleveland, and did nothing.  I think they're both great, but if I have to pin the patriots "greatness" on one man, I pick Brady.  Maybe that's just me.

 

He built a team many favored to win the league before the owner announced he was moving the team to Baltimore.  About the biggest "distraction" possible.  He also was the DC for 2 Super Bowl defenses with the Giants. The team and some of the organization staff he set up turned into the Ravens (including GM Ozzie Newsome).  It's more a tale of "don't take a single bad season amid other factors as a reason to fire a guy" than "Brady makes Belichick/Belichick didn't do anything in Cleveland." 

On a completely unrelated note, my sun addled brain (I'm so sunburnt, Washington named their team after me) had a thought earlier today.  It seems to me like there aren't enough true field general linebackers out there in the NFL.  I know my college team had one during Von MIller's years, and the defense was the best it's been during my fandom. I was wondering why guys like Colin Klein from K State weren't considered conversion projects similar to QB-> WR/RB/TE that occurs in the NFL.  Guys who have that high character factor, high leadership factor, that have shown they know how to scheme and read defenses, but don't have the physical tools or the accuracy to be NFL QBs.  Obviously this only applies to guys with the frame for it, but it would seem a lot of the skills that made those guys good QBs would make fantastic MLBs for a team willing to take a developmental (LATE) pick/UDFA signing on one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

He built a team many favored to win the league before the owner announced he was moving the team to Baltimore.  About the biggest "distraction" possible.  He also was the DC for 2 Super Bowl defenses with the Giants. The team and some of the organization staff he set up turned into the Ravens (including GM Ozzie Newsome).  It's more a tale of "don't take a single bad season amid other factors as a reason to fire a guy" than "Brady makes Belichick/Belichick didn't do anything in Cleveland." 

On a completely unrelated note, my sun addled brain (I'm so sunburnt, Washington named their team after me) had a thought earlier today.  It seems to me like there aren't enough true field general linebackers out there in the NFL.  I know my college team had one during Von MIller's years, and the defense was the best it's been during my fandom. I was wondering why guys like Colin Klein from K State weren't considered conversion projects similar to QB-> WR/RB/TE that occurs in the NFL.  Guys who have that high character factor, high leadership factor, that have shown they know how to scheme and read defenses, but don't have the physical tools or the accuracy to be NFL QBs.  Obviously this only applies to guys with the frame for it, but it would seem a lot of the skills that made those guys good QBs would make fantastic MLBs for a team willing to take a developmental (LATE) pick/UDFA signing on one.

 

Not athletic enough to play linebacker, and most QBs aren't. Tebow probably could have made the switch, but he got drafted in the first round to play quarterback so no incentive to do so.

 

The learning curve is also going to be about 10 times steeper than switching to receiver.  As a QB, you already know how the offense runs and the receivers routes and route trees. You don't have any of that experience on the defensive side of the ball.

Edited by sperry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now