|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Nov 16, 2009 0:03:18 GMT -5
Well, maybe "hate" is a strong word. I really don't care for the New England Patriots--which is so ironic cause I like the city of Boston, and of course, I'm a die hard Celtics fan. But I just can't stand the Patriots (and being an Orioles fan, I also don't care much for the Red Sox either, but not as much as I don't care for the Pats). I'm trying to figure out if I don't like the Pats more, or the Lakers. With that said, I'm glad the Colts won tonight. I thought the Pats were going to win the game, so I turned off the tv, only to find out that they came back and won the game. That brought a smile to my face  |
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Nov 16, 2009 0:11:53 GMT -5
My feelings for the Patriots are a lot like my feelings for the Spurs. I don't mind their players, and I respect what they do, but they've won enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrmzt on Nov 16, 2009 0:24:42 GMT -5
Same here. I respect the Pats for being great at what they do and being a good team to watch. But I just don't find Brady 'appealing' to watch.
As for the spurs, I like them for being a stable and old team. Much respect to Timmy and crew. But seeing as how they've lost a couple already, my hopes are on the nuggets to beat the lakers this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Nov 16, 2009 2:38:23 GMT -5
I guess what bugs me are 3 things:
1) They are too perfect. Everything they do is gold. Every cast away player they pick up turns out to be a key player for them (we traded them Wes Welker, and look at him now)
2) Belichick's demeanor. Something about him irks me.
3) Brady is like the poster child for QB's, but he's really a system player. Look at what Matt Cassel did in his place last year--put up comparable numbers to Brady. Its the system that makes him shine. I don't think Brady is all that great--terrific yes, but not great.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrmzt on Nov 16, 2009 5:07:22 GMT -5
Well then, you got to see Belichik gamble and lose tonight. His expression was priceless.
As for Brady being the poster child for QBs, I think hes pretty good. Hes definitely not Montana or Manning but he is a pretty good QB. I'd compare him to Brees. They both do well because they work within a system that helps them excel. Whereas Manning naturally makes things happen. He gets in two rookie receivers this year and already they look like they should have been top draft picks instead of draft picks from the 4th and 6th rounds. Funny thing I remember reading on ESPN was Andre Johnson shaking hands with Manning after losing to the Colts just a week back and ESPN were talking about how Andre must have looked at Dallas Clark's stats and wondered "what if...what if he just had Peyton for a QB"...Andre's stats would make fantasy owners drool if he had Peyton instead of Schaub.
So anyway which NFL teams do you guys support?
|
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Nov 16, 2009 5:59:01 GMT -5
So anyway which NFL teams do you guys support? The Vikings. Yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by jrmzt on Nov 16, 2009 8:46:46 GMT -5
Ah, Favre or Favre-less Vikings?  I'm a Colts fan. |
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Nov 16, 2009 11:52:22 GMT -5
Woah woah woah. I would go back and forth on Brady vs Manning any day. I don't love Brady, but Brady won three rings with guys like Deon Branch and David Patten and Troy Brown and didn't have much of a running back till his last Super Bowl when he had an older Corey Dillon. Manning, on the other hand had Edgerin James, Reggie Wayne, and Marvin Harrison and some good TEs that Brady didn't have. Further Drew Bledsoe as a vet didn't have success with Belichek, whereas a near rookie Brady had instant success, so if he's a system guy he's one heck of a system guy. Matt Cassell, by comparison had 4 years to prepare for what he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Nov 16, 2009 12:17:39 GMT -5
I'm not saying Brady isn't good, Eja. I'm saying I don't think he's great. Sure he has lots of rings, but to me, its the system he plays in that makes him look great. I'm not using the word "system" in a bad way. Brady works perfectly with the system he's in, whereas Drew Bledsoe may not have fit in as well. Brady does have a very good arm, very accurate, and he makes quick decisions. Obviously, a good QB. But he's being considered among the top all-time QB's, and I don't agree with that. Then again, I must concede that I don't like the Patriots, so my opinion of him is probably biased |
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Nov 16, 2009 18:19:59 GMT -5
But Derren of course he's being considered among the all time great QBs. Montana won 4 rings, but two of them were with Jerry Rice and quite a few other pro-bowlers. Terry Bradshaw won 4 while throwing to two HOFers. Brady won 3 with guys that fell off a cliff the second they left the Pats. I forgot the all mighty David Givens. He was one of Brady's great receivers. And who were the great offensive linemen who protected him? Not one of his OL men will go to the HOF even though they probably all should.
I don't see how Manning can possibly be considered in his league. You're telling me he would have been able to come to the Pats, play with less good players, and win more rings.
Troy Aikman. Surrounded by pro-bowlers and HOFers. Steve Young. Also surrounded and one whole ring to show for it.
Elway was never given pro-bowlers till the end of his career and that's when he started to win.
Which leads me to my conclusion...the Pats were underrated all along. They should have like 9 HOFers when it's all said and done, but they'll end up with two or three. They were the greatest dynasty off all time (the only dynasty of the salary cap era..with only the Steelers in striking distance) and will have 3 HOFers. Maybe 4. And none on the offensive side other than Brady.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Nov 16, 2009 19:42:48 GMT -5
I guess I'm just biased, that's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrmzt on Nov 16, 2009 21:31:14 GMT -5
Mmm I agree that rings make statements and the more you have, the bigger the statement you make. Manning is more of a statistical statement because chances are that by the time he ends his career, he'll have his name on nearly every NFL QB record that he can possibly get. But anyway, HOF-ers aren't always decided by the number of rings they have... Just ask Sir Charles Barkley |
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Nov 16, 2009 23:39:24 GMT -5
I will weigh in here. B Belichick is poor looser. Rather than admit he made a horrible call the other day, he says it was the "right call."
|
|
|
|
Post by jrmzt on Nov 17, 2009 0:07:21 GMT -5
I will weigh in here. B Belichick is poor looser. Rather than admit he made a horrible call the other day, he says it was the "right call." mmm to be fair to him, the whole day today i was watching ESPN, from sportscenter to pardon the interruption to around the horn and even the commentators on Monday night football were talking about it. Everyone just seems to be talking about it and what was really interesting was that it seemed as if belichick isn't alone with that call. Some say it was a good call, some say it was a bad call, some say it was a call that they would not have called because they wouldn't have dared to...but at the end of the day, its hard to second guess a 3 time super bowl head coach. And also, they brought up some statistics about the call. On 4th down, if they succeeded, the Pats would have an 80% chance of winning the game. If they punted, they would have a 70+% chance of winning the game. Another statistic they brought up was Belichick's success with that strategy over his tenure as head coach. He has had a 70% success rate compared to the rest of the league that only have 50% success with that strategy. Lets not forget that the Pats have both Walker and Moss who are excellent receivers and a future HOF QB. One could argue that the defense which had so much success against Manning all game could have handle Manning if they punted but then we've also gotta consider Manning's history. In the 4th he marched down the field 70-80 yards so quickly which got them back into contention despite being down by so much at the start. So if the defense were doing such a spectacular job, why did they falter in the 4th. Belichick gambled the on his offense hoping they who have already scored 34 on the Colts, would come through. This isn't the Browns offense which on a side note, were shutout tonight by the Ravens. The Pats are one of the top ranked offenses in the league and its hard to doubt their abilities. Anyyywayyy, I personally think that punting it would be what most coaches do but Belichick isn't most coaches. However that said, if i was the coach, i'd punt it and hope that Manning's hot hand would fizzle out or that none of the Colts would punt return for huge gains. So yeah...thats just my take on it. Understandably, people are furious that he made the call that cost them the game but what if they made first down..then he'd be called a genius. Or what if they punt returned and lost? Would people then be saying they should have gone for it on 4&2? Anyway..as much of a Colts fan as I am, I will readily admit that the Pats could have just as easily won it. I don't believe any one of the teams were better than each other significantly, but last night it just so happened to go our way at the very last minute. As for Belichick, he has his supporters and his critics after that call but hes not Jim Zorn or Mangini...Hes a winner and he doesn't gamble to lose. If he goes all in, he makes sure hes got pocket aces but it just so happened the Colts had a straight flush. |
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Nov 17, 2009 7:48:29 GMT -5
Eja is right. Brady had some fine years with a pretty motley crew of receivers. For the longest time the only talented receiver he had was Deon Branch, and look what happened when he left New England (though that knee injury had a lot to do with his downfall).
But one thing that Brady has never had to do that Manning had to a lot in his early years is play on a team with pitiful defense. Some of those early 2000s Indy teams were a joke on D, constantly forcing Manning to have the game of his life each week just to have a chance to win. Brady has never had to deal with that.
In regards to the best QBs in the last 10 years, I put Manning first, and Brady 2nd. They are both sure fire hall of famers and will go down as two of the greatest QBs of all time.
|
|
