Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    Peyton Manning won a SB in the Pouring Rain. I think one of only a few outside SB's ever played.
    Posted by patsfan76



    Well, it's a good thing he handed it off to Addai and Rhodes 40 times because he didn't really do anything well in that game himself.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    Are you being sarcastic? It was at the Ponitac Silverdome, so unless Montana was locked out in the cold right before kick off, I don't get your point. I think the reason why his stats didn't look fantastic early in his career is for a few reasons, but mainly one and that reason is Jerry Rice. It was until 1984 where their offense really becme balanced with Roger Craig replacing Wendell Tyler full time (scaling back Tyler a bit helped the offense) and Walsh bringing in guys like John Frank, Mike Wilson, etc. WR Solomon and Cooper at TE along with Dwight Clark were already there. Montana had good weaponry then, stability, certainly more so than Brady. As much as we love Brown, Branch, Givens, Patten, etc, Brady's weapons aren't quite as good as what Montana had.   He also had years and years with his weapons while Brady did not.     Brown was the only mainstay type.  Branch and Givens were new, Patten a scrapheap WR pick up. SF was a very efficient offense from 1981-1983 (this mirrors Brady's 2001-2004), but they dind't really have the ability to overwhelm teams until 1984. Obviously, Rice coming on board in 1985 only enhanced Montana's stats.  Add in John Taylor and Brent Jones later, and their weaponry only improved. I think this only strengthens Brady's case against MOntana, which is the point I think you're going for.  Each have mirror images type careers, but Montana had far more stability as compared to Brady.  Cap era. This is where the dopes who say Montana had great SB games lose.  Montana had an easier platform to play due to SF easily keeping any player they wanted, or upgrading without a cap. The only thing Brady is missing now is performing like Montana did late in his career in SBs. PS In SB 19, it was foggy, rainy and damp at Stanford Stadium, so I don't really buy into Montana was only a warm weather QB. He was fine in any conditions mostly due to the West Coast offense providing a QB to keep in rhythm and unload the ball quickly. This is more so what Brady needs to get back to which is the Weis Hybrid West Coast Offense that WE USED TO RUN. I know you agree with this, I am just adding this in there. There are only two QB greats who must have good weather to be themselves: Dan Marino and Peyton Manning.
    Posted by BassFishing



    Yeah, that makes sense. I was watching a video of that SB, and the announcer was talking about how frigid it was. Even though it was in the dome it looked cold on the field, I wonder what the temp was in the silver dome that day?

    Anyway that had almost nothing to do with the post, and really took away from what I was saying which was that Montana's SB victories(after the 1st one) was due to HEAVY use of the run game and the RB's as receivers. The running backs accounted for 6 tds on 110 touches for over 600 yards in 3 SB victories. Montana's offense was predictated on balance as ours used to be when we won 3 SB's in 4 years.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    I'd be one of the first to give Manning props, Dogg. I always do. I'm not taking anything away from Indy for who they beat in the SB, they did beat NE a couple weeks earlier, right?

    The Bears of that year are like that Titans team a few years ago that won 13/14 games, didn't think they were as good as they did in the regular season and the Steelers proved that come playoff time. Fortunately for the Bears, noone in the NFC was all that good that year. Their division was pretty poor. The Bears were the only team that won more than 10 games in the NFC that year I believe.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    Could I say the same thing about Carolina in 03? - Delhomme had an 80 passer rating for the year-19 tds and 16 ints.  the 07 Giants were only 9-7.  No one gave Eli any credit before then.  The 2011 giants were 9-7.  Does that matter? We can nitpick just about anything if we wish.  
    Posted by UD6


    The difference between the teams you just mentioned and the Bears that year is that their QB's played well at the end of the year.  Rex Grossman was hot garbage for the entire second half of the regular season and in the playoffs.  Delhomme and Eli were lights out in the postseason in all 3 of those years.  The Bears defense from that year was not the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs and in any event in both of those cases they did not turn it over 5 times like the Bears did in that SB.  I'm not really sure what is so controversial here.  The Colts won the SB that year.  The Bears had a crappy QB.
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    Dude, go look at their schedule that season. The only teams they played that had more than 10 wins, NE & Indy, they lost to. Their opponents had a .447 winning percentage. They played 12-4 NE, 10-6 NYJ and 9-7 Seattle. Thats it for winning teams that regular season. I realize you only play who you're given but come on, they were a middle of the road team most seasons.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    pcm -  go back and look at the game logs for these qb's.  you might be surprised.  Eli - 2007 - in 4 of his last 6 games his highest passer rating was 63.  in 2011, games 14 and 15 he had passer ratings of 45 and 61.  That's not exactly playing well at the end of the year.  Delhomme was a better than Manning finishing the year with ratings of 82, 105, and 81 to finish the year, but None finished better than Grossman who finished with ratings of 114, 104, 80.  So its not so much that I find the comments controversial.  I just find them inaccurate.  And while we may argue who had the best defense, we can't argue that the bears had a top defense in 2006.  they were 3rd in pts against, 5th in yds against.
    Posted by UD6


    You conveniently left out Grossman finishing the season with a 0 or that the game before the one's you mentioned he had a 1.3 and before that a 23.7.  Of course that is a moot point since I said to look at how they played in the postseason.  Grossman was awful whereas Delhomme, and Eli put up 100+ passer ratings in each of the postseasons in question with a combined TD/INT ratio of 21/3.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    "Again you are nitpicking so as not to give full credit where it is due."

    Whatever Dogg, I'm done with this subject. I don't know how many times I've told you I give the Colts 100% credit for winning the Super Bowl that year (one of the few who does). I don't understand why you care if the team they beat wasn't that good, what does it matter?

    And to answer your question, I don't think Carolina was anything special either, but, they beat some much better teams on their road to the Super Bowl than Chicago did.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts