Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to leatherhelmet's comment:

     

    If trading Brady brought us the pieces to build a dominanted D I'd do it. Dare I say this Baltimore team is a perfect example of what a killer D can do (Dilfer thru Flacco). We already have some of the pieces in place.The 49ers almost went last year and this with Alex Smith because of the confidence in their D. Brady commands a "Kings Randsom" so why not "consider" what might be available.Maybe the threat of a trade will bring the "OLD" TB back to us for one more run.

     



    Yeah and how many SBs has it won them?  One because they didn't have a QB until after Dilfer left.  Yeah they could win one this year, but they had a top 3 D pretty much every year for 10 years and won squat.

     

     




    Right, but as you can see, FLacco isn't a great QB, though. He's above average, doesn't turn it over, etc.

     

    See?

    There is this myth, perpetuated by Brady's 2007 season, that somehow we have to have a 20 mil; per year QB who has gaudy, bloated stats in the regular season in order to win a SB and it isn't true.

    Eli Manning proved this twice. He played smarter than our own QB did. Flacco just did it last week.

    Truth hurts. I know it does. I agree, but it's the truth.

    I remember morons dancing around here seeing Bruschi and Rodney running around late in their careers pretending they were the same player, too. 

    They weren't. Brady is approaching that point. If he doesn't adjust, it's going to be an ugly, ugly finish.

    Don't woryr, what you saw from Gomer this year, won't be like that again next year.   Plenty of film on him now.

     




    Why don't you take your BS agenda and put it where the sun don't shine.

    The truth does hurt and the truth is your stink is very old.

    Anybody with eyes or ears can see that the TEAM did not play well.  It's not a matter of opinion, but FACT.

    Here's an article from your favorite and I really don't care what you and others think his agenda is because he is spot on.

    The TRUTH is, Brady did not win the SB's by himself and any one who thinks so has no concept of what football is.  The ULTIMATE TEAM sport.  You need a complete team to win.

    The Ravens played better than Tom Brady and the Patriots, and they won.

     

    • Save

    A few leftover thoughts on the Patriots’ loss to the Ravens, and on the season overall:

    The big theme from the loss is that just about the entire team (save special teams) did not play well. There were breakdowns of fundamentals all over the place and no one was safe.

    That’s a big reason why I can’t join those who would like to put Tom Brady on the hook. If the rest of the team had played well, and Brady played average in a loss then, fine, put it on Brady. But that’s not the way that I saw it.

    I saw an entire team underperform and not react well to adversity. So why should that be put on Brady’s head? A great quarterback will win you a lot of games during the regular season, but in a one-game situation, the team that plays the best on that day is usually going to win.


    The Ravens played better than the Patriots, and they won.  I don't see why people seem to think that Bra dy was going to overcome that on his own. This isn’t the Bills in November.

    People say, “Well, Joe Flacco was the best quarterback on the field the last two years.” He was. And you know why? Because the Patriots’ defense was terrible last year and had Julian Edelman covering Anquan Boldin. And this year, the Ravens played better overall, and, quite frankly, had more talent last Sunday night.

    The Ravens’ offensive line — after it made the postseason switch to, from left to right, Bryant McKinnie, Kelechi Osemele, Matt Birk, Marshal Yanda, and Michael Oher — played better than the Patriots’, and by a pretty good margin. The Ravens are neck and neck with the 49ers for best offensive line of all the postseason teams. They’ve been unreal leading up to the Super Bowl. The Patriots were good, just not as good as the Ravens.

    The Ravens running backs are better, and they also have a fullback — something Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels obviously desired but never found. Dennis Pitta, Ed Dickson, and Billy Bajema are, as a group, better tight ends than Aaron Hernandez, Michael Hoomanawanui, and Daniel Fells. Actually, it’s not even close. Flacco was making hay in an “11” personnel set that was Boldin, Torrey Smith, Pitta, Jacoby Jones, and Ray Rice. Which group puts more stress on a defense from sideline to sideline, the Ravens’ or Wes Welker, Brandon Lloyd, Hernandez, Deion Branch, and Danny Woodhead/Shane Vereen?

    Defensively, without an extraordinary effort from Vince Wilfork and with the injury to Kyle Love, the Ravens were clearly better and deeper up front with Terrell Suggs, Haloti Ngata, Terrence Cody, and Paul Kruger as starters, and Ma’ake Kemoeatu, Pernell McPhee, Arthur Jones, and Courtney Upshaw in reserve. The Patriots’ group of Rob Ninkovich, Wilfork, Love, and Justin Francis; and Trevor Scott, Jermaine Cunningham, and Brandon Deaderick clearly does not match up.

    Dannell Ellerbe was clearly the best cover linebacker on the field. And I’d be willing to argue that, even with a healthy Aqib Talib, the Ravens’ nickel secondary of Cary Williams, Chykie Brown/Jimmy Smith, Corey Graham, Ed Reed, and Bernard Pollard is better top to bottom than Talib, Alfonzo Dennard, Kyle Arrington, Devin McCourty, and Steve Gregory.

    So Brady doesn’t play his best game with an inferior lineup on that given day. So what? When the Patriots were winning Super Bowl titles with Brady, they were doing it with a team that was better or executed better than their opponents. They are not or have not recently. Brady wasn’t carrying them to victory in 2001, ’03, or ’04. So why do people think the championship formula should be any different now? The Patriots, especially without Rob Gronkowski and Chandler Jones, were not there yet. But I have a feeling it’s coming.

    Thanks to legend and NFL Films, you might believe otherwise, but Joe Montana didn’t carry the 49ers to greatness. Not only was the execution of those teams terrific under Bill Walsh, but San Francisco was operating a West Coast offense that really didn’t find a true adversary until Dick LeBeau and Dom Capers dedicated themselves to the zone blitz in 1992. And probably the most important reason why Montana was so good: Most of those 49ers teams were absolutely loaded with talent since the salary cap didn’t exist until 1994, which happened to be Montana’s last NFL season.

    So, basically, I think any criticism of Brady is nonsense. His team was less talented than its foe. His team didn’t play well. He didn’t play that well. Nobody in the salary cap era is ever going to be as good as Montana. That’s just the way it is.

    To me, if there is a common link between the playoff losses to the Giants, Jets, and Ravens, it’s a lack of execution. This has to be what Bill Belichick is racking his brain about. Why does his team execute so consistently during the regular season — especially in the second half of the season — but fail to do so in the biggest games?

    I don’t think there’s a simple answer. I think the Patriots were just as physical as the Ravens.

    My fleeting thought: The Patriots seem to play tight in big spots. It seems like, as individuals, they are trying not to make a mistake. Almost robotic.

    The Ravens, Giants, and Jets appeared to take the fight to the Patriots with an aggressive, throw-caution-to-the-wind mentality. I could be wrong on that, but I think the Patriots need to find some of that themselves.

    VIEW FROM THE TOP

     

     

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

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    If Montana can be dealt, Peyton Manning released, etc, Tom Brady isn't above the world.

     



    Montana was coming off an injury, they knew Steve Young was legit and they only got a mid round first round pick and had to give up a 3rd making the value equivalent to a lower 1st rounder.

    Peyton was coming of an injury, they had the number one overall pick and the chance to draft the best QB prospect in years.

    Neither of those situations are close to what the Pats are experiencing now and considering what Montana fetched in a trade I find it hard to believe any team would offer anything close to the scenario described earlier (2 1sts, 2nds and 3rds).

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    If Montana can be dealt, Peyton Manning released, etc, Tom Brady isn't above the world.

     



    Montana was coming off an injury, they knew Steve Young was legit and they only got a mid round first round pick and had to give up a 3rd making the value equivalent to a lower 1st rounder.

     

    Peyton was coming of an injury, they had the number one overall pick and the chance to draft the best QB prospect in years.

    Neither of those situations are close to what the Pats are experiencing now and considering what Montana fetched in a trade I find it hard to believe any team would offer anything close to the scenario described earlier (2 1sts, 2nds and 3rds).




    This.  If Brady goes down and Mallet comes in and lights it up, we go on to win games and Mallet looks like the second coming, ok, let's start thinking about what we can get for Brady. 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to leatherhelmet's comment:

     

    If trading Brady brought us the pieces to build a dominanted D I'd do it. Dare I say this Baltimore team is a perfect example of what a killer D can do (Dilfer thru Flacco). We already have some of the pieces in place.The 49ers almost went last year and this with Alex Smith because of the confidence in their D. Brady commands a "Kings Randsom" so why not "consider" what might be available.Maybe the threat of a trade will bring the "OLD" TB back to us for one more run.

     



    Yeah and how many SBs has it won them?  One because they didn't have a QB until after Dilfer left.  Yeah they could win one this year, but they had a top 3 D pretty much every year for 10 years and won squat.

     

     




    Right, but as you can see, FLacco isn't a great QB, though. He's above average, doesn't turn it over, etc.

     

    See?

    There is this myth, perpetuated by Brady's 2007 season, that somehow we have to have a 20 mil; per year QB who has gaudy, bloated stats in the regular season in order to win a SB and it isn't true.

    Eli Manning proved this twice. He played smarter than our own QB did. Flacco just did it last week.

    Truth hurts. I know it does. I agree, but it's the truth.

    I remember morons dancing around here seeing Bruschi and Rodney running around late in their careers pretending they were the same player, too. 

    They weren't. Brady is approaching that point. If he doesn't adjust, it's going to be an ugly, ugly finish.

    Don't woryr, what you saw from Gomer this year, won't be like that again next year.   Plenty of film on him now.

     

     




    Why don't you take your BS agenda and put it where the sun don't shine.

     

    The truth does hurt and the truth is your stink is very old.

    Anybody with eyes or ears can see that the TEAM did not play well.  It's not a matter of opinion, but FACT.

    Here's an article from your favorite and I really don't care what you and others think his agenda is because he is spot on.

    The TRUTH is, Brady did not win the SB's by himself and any one who thinks so has no concept of what football is.  The ULTIMATE TEAM sport.  You need a complete team to win.

    The Ravens played better than Tom Brady and the Patriots, and they won.

     

    • Save

    A few leftover thoughts on the Patriots’ loss to the Ravens, and on the season overall:

    The big theme from the loss is that just about the entire team (save special teams) did not play well. There were breakdowns of fundamentals all over the place and no one was safe.

    That’s a big reason why I can’t join those who would like to put Tom Brady on the hook. If the rest of the team had played well, and Brady played average in a loss then, fine, put it on Brady. But that’s not the way that I saw it.

    I saw an entire team underperform and not react well to adversity. So why should that be put on Brady’s head? A great quarterback will win you a lot of games during the regular season, but in a one-game situation, the team that plays the best on that day is usually going to win.

     

    The Ravens played better than the Patriots, and they won.  I don't see why people seem to think that Bra dy was going to overcome that on his own. This isn’t the Bills in November.

    People say, “Well, Joe Flacco was the best quarterback on the field the last two years.” He was. And you know why? Because the Patriots’ defense was terrible last year and had Julian Edelman covering Anquan Boldin. And this year, the Ravens played better overall, and, quite frankly, had more talent last Sunday night.

    The Ravens’ offensive line — after it made the postseason switch to, from left to right, Bryant McKinnie, Kelechi Osemele, Matt Birk, Marshal Yanda, and Michael Oher — played better than the Patriots’, and by a pretty good margin. The Ravens are neck and neck with the 49ers for best offensive line of all the postseason teams. They’ve been unreal leading up to the Super Bowl. The Patriots were good, just not as good as the Ravens.

    The Ravens running backs are better, and they also have a fullback — something Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels obviously desired but never found. Dennis Pitta, Ed Dickson, and Billy Bajema are, as a group, better tight ends than Aaron Hernandez, Michael Hoomanawanui, and Daniel Fells. Actually, it’s not even close. Flacco was making hay in an “11” personnel set that was Boldin, Torrey Smith, Pitta, Jacoby Jones, and Ray Rice. Which group puts more stress on a defense from sideline to sideline, the Ravens’ or Wes Welker, Brandon Lloyd, Hernandez, Deion Branch, and Danny Woodhead/Shane Vereen?

    Defensively, without an extraordinary effort from Vince Wilfork and with the injury to Kyle Love, the Ravens were clearly better and deeper up front with Terrell Suggs, Haloti Ngata, Terrence Cody, and Paul Kruger as starters, and Ma’ake Kemoeatu, Pernell McPhee, Arthur Jones, and Courtney Upshaw in reserve. The Patriots’ group of Rob Ninkovich, Wilfork, Love, and Justin Francis; and Trevor Scott, Jermaine Cunningham, and Brandon Deaderick clearly does not match up.

    Dannell Ellerbe was clearly the best cover linebacker on the field. And I’d be willing to argue that, even with a healthy Aqib Talib, the Ravens’ nickel secondary of Cary Williams, Chykie Brown/Jimmy Smith, Corey Graham, Ed Reed, and Bernard Pollard is better top to bottom than Talib, Alfonzo Dennard, Kyle Arrington, Devin McCourty, and Steve Gregory.

    So Brady doesn’t play his best game with an inferior lineup on that given day. So what? When the Patriots were winning Super Bowl titles with Brady, they were doing it with a team that was better or executed better than their opponents. They are not or have not recently. Brady wasn’t carrying them to victory in 2001, ’03, or ’04. So why do people think the championship formula should be any different now? The Patriots, especially without Rob Gronkowski and Chandler Jones, were not there yet. But I have a feeling it’s coming.

    Thanks to legend and NFL Films, you might believe otherwise, but Joe Montana didn’t carry the 49ers to greatness. Not only was the execution of those teams terrific under Bill Walsh, but San Francisco was operating a West Coast offense that really didn’t find a true adversary until Dick LeBeau and Dom Capers dedicated themselves to the zone blitz in 1992. And probably the most important reason why Montana was so good: Most of those 49ers teams were absolutely loaded with talent since the salary cap didn’t exist until 1994, which happened to be Montana’s last NFL season.

    So, basically, I think any criticism of Brady is nonsense. His team was less talented than its foe. His team didn’t play well. He didn’t play that well. Nobody in the salary cap era is ever going to be as good as Montana. That’s just the way it is.

    To me, if there is a common link between the playoff losses to the Giants, Jets, and Ravens, it’s a lack of execution. This has to be what Bill Belichick is racking his brain about. Why does his team execute so consistently during the regular season — especially in the second half of the season — but fail to do so in the biggest games?

    I don’t think there’s a simple answer. I think the Patriots were just as physical as the Ravens.

    My fleeting thought: The Patriots seem to play tight in big spots. It seems like, as individuals, they are trying not to make a mistake. Almost robotic.

    The Ravens, Giants, and Jets appeared to take the fight to the Patriots with an aggressive, throw-caution-to-the-wind mentality. I could be wrong on that, but I think the Patriots need to find some of that themselves.

    VIEW FROM THE TOP

     

     

     




    I agree with that analysis.  All I am saying is, Brady is not above reproach, where you, Hurlie and Babe (your little group), think he is.

     

    That's the difference.

    It's why you ran in to blame the D after last year's SB.  You think that it's going to stick on the wall here, and I am here to call you phonies out.

    You love to brag about his stats, the player fo the week awards, etc, but all I care about is him playing well/good when it counts.

    He hasn't been good in literally THREE straight home AFC title games. He's turning into the Bill Cowher of QBs in home AFC title games.

    Don't you find it a little funny that Phat REx, a Jets troll agrees with you as to why NE didn't win the SB last year or just lost last weekend? I don't. He's sour BB left the Jets at the altar over 10 years ago. He's sour BB helped put together a dynasty.

    So, he too, does what you do and somehow pretends Brady can't be held accountable, pining everything on the guys who don't own a SB ring (yet).

    It's an agenda.

    Nothing new here. I can sniff out an agenda a mile away.

     



    NOT one person on here has ever said TB was without fault.  That's just a figment of your twisted, agendra driven imagination.

    What we have maintained and will continue to maintain, as long as trolls like you exist, is that it's very difficult for a QB (any QB) to beat a team while trying to overcome his own teams weaknesses.

    ALL QB's need RB's that can punch it in the EZ or not fumble at the most inopportune time. (That didn't happen)

    ALL QB's need recievers that can seperate and not drop balls at the most inopportune time.

    (that didn't happen)

    All Qb's need a D that they can trust to make a stop at the most important times.

    (that didn't happen and hasn't happened for years.)

    Pointing those things out, doesn't EXCUSE any one.  It's just the way it is.

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

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    We're still in the same spot. My premise is that only Brady can change this. He needs to want to hand off a bit more, not be in the shotgun (his preference) as much, etc.

    Again, he was surging well over 40 pass attempts after trailing by 1 point at the end of the 3rd qtr.

    Enough already. The forumla is clear. Audibiling into a shotgun at that rate is a major failure.

     

     



    This is where we will continue to disagree.  I will say this yet again.  When Ridley fumbled in the 4th quarter the offense had only put up 13 points and had sucked according to you.  The Patriots had rushed the ball 27 times at that point and Brady had thrown 33 passes.  That is almost perfectly balanced.  So no the formula is not clear.  They ran the offense just like you wanted all year and it yielded 13 points over 3.25 quarters.  Again situational football called for all the additional passes after that point (down 15 points in the 4th quarter).  Your claim is that the offense was bad all game (which it was), but that is incompatible with your argument that the offense would perform well automatically if the run game was utilized to the degree you wanted.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Either the offense didn't suck for the first 3.25 quarters (which is laughable) or your premise is wrong.  There is no way out of this conclusion imo.

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from cellucci. Show cellucci's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    trade him to Balt for Flacco

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

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    I don't think anyone is saying "trade Brady",



    I am. Cretins like you don't deserve a Brady junior. You deserve a Sanchez.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to leatherhelmet's comment:

     

    If trading Brady brought us the pieces to build a dominanted D I'd do it. Dare I say this Baltimore team is a perfect example of what a killer D can do (Dilfer thru Flacco). We already have some of the pieces in place.The 49ers almost went last year and this with Alex Smith because of the confidence in their D. Brady commands a "Kings Randsom" so why not "consider" what might be available.Maybe the threat of a trade will bring the "OLD" TB back to us for one more run.

     



    Yeah and how many SBs has it won them?  One because they didn't have a QB until after Dilfer left.  Yeah they could win one this year, but they had a top 3 D pretty much every year for 10 years and won squat.

     

     




    Right, but as you can see, FLacco isn't a great QB, though. He's above average, doesn't turn it over, etc.

     

    See?

    There is this myth, perpetuated by Brady's 2007 season, that somehow we have to have a 20 mil; per year QB who has gaudy, bloated stats in the regular season in order to win a SB and it isn't true.

    Eli Manning proved this twice. He played smarter than our own QB did. Flacco just did it last week.

    Truth hurts. I know it does. I agree, but it's the truth.

    I remember morons dancing around here seeing Bruschi and Rodney running around late in their careers pretending they were the same player, too. 

    They weren't. Brady is approaching that point. If he doesn't adjust, it's going to be an ugly, ugly finish.

    Don't woryr, what you saw from Gomer this year, won't be like that again next year.   Plenty of film on him now.

     

     




    Why don't you take your BS agenda and put it where the sun don't shine.

     

    The truth does hurt and the truth is your stink is very old.

    Anybody with eyes or ears can see that the TEAM did not play well.  It's not a matter of opinion, but FACT.

    Here's an article from your favorite and I really don't care what you and others think his agenda is because he is spot on.

    The TRUTH is, Brady did not win the SB's by himself and any one who thinks so has no concept of what football is.  The ULTIMATE TEAM sport.  You need a complete team to win.

    The Ravens played better than Tom Brady and the Patriots, and they won.

     

    • Save

    A few leftover thoughts on the Patriots’ loss to the Ravens, and on the season overall:

    The big theme from the loss is that just about the entire team (save special teams) did not play well. There were breakdowns of fundamentals all over the place and no one was safe.

    That’s a big reason why I can’t join those who would like to put Tom Brady on the hook. If the rest of the team had played well, and Brady played average in a loss then, fine, put it on Brady. But that’s not the way that I saw it.

    I saw an entire team underperform and not react well to adversity. So why should that be put on Brady’s head? A great quarterback will win you a lot of games during the regular season, but in a one-game situation, the team that plays the best on that day is usually going to win.

     

    The Ravens played better than the Patriots, and they won.  I don't see why people seem to think that Bra dy was going to overcome that on his own. This isn’t the Bills in November.

    People say, â€ÂÂœWell, Joe Flacco was the best quarterback on the field the last two years.” He was. And you know why? Because the Patriots’ defense was terrible last year and had Julian Edelman covering Anquan Boldin. And this year, the Ravens played better overall, and, quite frankly, had more talent last Sunday night.

    The Ravens’ offensive line — after it made the postseason switch to, from left to right, Bryant McKinnie, Kelechi Osemele, Matt Birk, Marshal Yanda, and Michael Oher — played better than the Patriots’, and by a pretty good margin. The Ravens are neck and neck with the 49ers for best offensive line of all the postseason teams. They’ve been unreal leading up to the Super Bowl. The Patriots were good, just not as good as the Ravens.

    The Ravens running backs are better, and they also have a fullback — something Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels obviously desired but never found. Dennis Pitta, Ed Dickson, and Billy Bajema are, as a group, better tight ends than Aaron Hernandez, Michael Hoomanawanui, and Daniel Fells. Actually, it’s not even close. Flacco was making hay in an â€ÂÂœ11” personnel set that was Boldin, Torrey Smith, Pitta, Jacoby Jones, and Ray Rice. Which group puts more stress on a defense from sideline to sideline, the Ravens’ or Wes Welker, Brandon Lloyd, Hernandez, Deion Branch, and Danny Woodhead/Shane Vereen?

    Defensively, without an extraordinary effort from Vince Wilfork and with the injury to Kyle Love, the Ravens were clearly better and deeper up front with Terrell Suggs, Haloti Ngata, Terrence Cody, and Paul Kruger as starters, and Ma’ake Kemoeatu, Pernell McPhee, Arthur Jones, and Courtney Upshaw in reserve. The Patriots’ group of Rob Ninkovich, Wilfork, Love, and Justin Francis; and Trevor Scott, Jermaine Cunningham, and Brandon Deaderick clearly does not match up.

    Dannell Ellerbe was clearly the best cover linebacker on the field. And I’d be willing to argue that, even with a healthy Aqib Talib, the Ravens’ nickel secondary of Cary Williams, Chykie Brown/Jimmy Smith, Corey Graham, Ed Reed, and Bernard Pollard is better top to bottom than Talib, Alfonzo Dennard, Kyle Arrington, Devin McCourty, and Steve Gregory.

    So Brady doesn’t play his best game with an inferior lineup on that given day. So what? When the Patriots were winning Super Bowl titles with Brady, they were doing it with a team that was better or executed better than their opponents. They are not or have not recently. Brady wasn’t carrying them to victory in 2001, ’03, or ’04. So why do people think the championship formula should be any different now? The Patriots, especially without Rob Gronkowski and Chandler Jones, were not there yet. But I have a feeling it’s coming.

    Thanks to legend and NFL Films, you might believe otherwise, but Joe Montana didn’t carry the 49ers to greatness. Not only was the execution of those teams terrific under Bill Walsh, but San Francisco was operating a West Coast offense that really didn’t find a true adversary until Dick LeBeau and Dom Capers dedicated themselves to the zone blitz in 1992. And probably the most important reason why Montana was so good: Most of those 49ers teams were absolutely loaded with talent since the salary cap didn’t exist until 1994, which happened to be Montana’s last NFL season.

    So, basically, I think any criticism of Brady is nonsense. His team was less talented than its foe. His team didn’t play well. He didn’t play that well. Nobody in the salary cap era is ever going to be as good as Montana. That’s just the way it is.

    To me, if there is a common link between the playoff losses to the Giants, Jets, and Ravens, it’s a lack of execution. This has to be what Bill Belichick is racking his brain about. Why does his team execute so consistently during the regular season — especially in the second half of the season — but fail to do so in the biggest games?

    I don’t think there’s a simple answer. I think the Patriots were just as physical as the Ravens.

    My fleeting thought: The Patriots seem to play tight in big spots. It seems like, as individuals, they are trying not to make a mistake. Almost robotic.

    The Ravens, Giants, and Jets appeared to take the fight to the Patriots with an aggressive, throw-caution-to-the-wind mentality. I could be wrong on that, but I think the Patriots need to find some of that themselves.

    VIEW FROM THE TOP

     

     

     




    I agree with that analysis.  All I am saying is, Brady is not above reproach, where you, Hurlie and Babe (your little group), think he is.

     

    That's the difference.

    It's why you ran in to blame the D after last year's SB.  You think that it's going to stick on the wall here, and I am here to call you phonies out.

    You love to brag about his stats, the player fo the week awards, etc, but all I care about is him playing well/good when it counts.

    He hasn't been good in literally THREE straight home AFC title games. He's turning into the Bill Cowher of QBs in home AFC title games.

    Don't you find it a little funny that Phat REx, a Jets troll agrees with you as to why NE didn't win the SB last year or just lost last weekend? I don't. He's sour BB left the Jets at the altar over 10 years ago. He's sour BB helped put together a dynasty.

    So, he too, does what you do and somehow pretends Brady can't be held accountable, pining everything on the guys who don't own a SB ring (yet).

    It's an agenda.

    Nothing new here. I can sniff out an agenda a mile away.

     

     



    NOT one person on here has ever said TB was without fault.  That's just a figment of your twisted, agendra driven imagination.

     

    What we have maintained and will continue to maintain, as long as trolls like you exist, is that it's very difficult for a QB (any QB) to beat a team while trying to overcome his own teams weaknesses.

    ALL QB's need RB's that can punch it in the EZ or not fumble at the most inopportune time. (That didn't happen)

    ALL QB's need recievers that can seperate and not drop balls at the most inopportune time.

    (that didn't happen)

    All Qb's need a D that they can trust to make a stop at the most important times.

    (that didn't happen and hasn't happened for years.)

    Pointing those things out, doesn't EXCUSE any one.  It's just the way it is.

     




    You and your cohorts have spent 2 years here bashing BB and his draft picks, his FA signings, everything pertaining to his defensive coacing prowess, etc, as a way to specifically avoid putting any accountability on Brady and the offense he essentially runs.

     

    Even in the Underpants debates, the whole premise was that Brady didn't make stupid mistakes, could play outdoors in the cold, win on the road, etc.

    Now, with Brady at home in these games, playing the cold, having very good talent around him, etc, all of you have REFUSED to hold him accountable.

    I don't care if it's 2010 with the deer in the headlights, confused look in the second half vs the Jets, last year's AFC title game, the SB in the 4th qtr, or this game last week!  You all acted like he played well!

    Don't lie now. You lost.

    The D actually played more to its ceiling in every example as opposed to the O.  ALl of a sudden you expect MORE from the D than the O, yet the O had more experience, more invested in it for Brady, and had more talent.

    All of that knowing it's an offensive era where you can't breather on a receiver, can't hit one, can't brush a QB, can't draw a holding penatly to save your life, etc.

     




    I have never bashed BB or ANY draft pick.  I have however bashed a D that has ranked in the bottom of the league for the past few years.  (it's a huge problem)

    I have never even come out and said that the D is a by product of the coach but I don't think you can dismis that notion.  If the TEAM is underperforming, than how can you not eventually look at the Master chef.

    There were many, many,times I thought the team over performed and that is a reflection of BB, but when it doesn't, how can you not look at it the same way.

    You are very wrong!  Some of us are bright enough to see that the teams performance effects QB play.  That is the PROBLEM in a nut shell.

    Blaming one person, even the coach, is ludicrous.  Beyond stupid, actually!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stewart7557. Show stewart7557's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    I would love to see us trade Tom, that way the phonies on here would get to see first hand just how pathetically average a roster we have here (aside from Brady). And as for the first round picks we'd get...I can hear it now...so and so player didn't work out because the draft was weak that year. Then we'd go out and use Tom's cap space on 42 backup tightends and 20 washed up defensive linemen...we can throw in 10 corners that are great on special teams, but can't return kicks or actually be on the field during defensive plays. Sounds dreamy...

     

    The satisfaction gained by seeing idiots who don't have enough brains to appreciate greatness have the castor oil of reality shoveled down their gullets would be awesome. Of course anybody that dense would simply spin and deny they ever offered such analysis. These rubes think HOF QBs grow on trees. LMAO@THEM

     



    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I would love to see us trade Tom, that way the phonies on here would get to see first hand just how pathetically average a roster we have here (aside from Brady). And as for the first round picks we'd get...I can hear it now...so and so player didn't work out because the draft was weak that year. Then we'd go out and use Tom's cap space on 42 backup tightends and 20 washed up defensive linemen...we can throw in 10 corners that are great on special teams, but can't return kicks or actually be on the field during defensive plays. Sounds dreamy...

     

    The satisfaction gained by seeing idiots who don't have enough brains to appreciate greatness have the castor oil of reality shoveled down their gullets would be awesome. Of course anybody that dense would simply spin and deny they ever offered such analysis. These rubes think HOF QBs grow on trees. LMAO@THEM

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    ========================================================================================================

    I don't think the argument is about fans appreciating how great Tommy B has been - I think the argument is how much longer do you expect that greatness to last and - if you think the window is shortening, would you be willing to mortgage the next few years at the QB position if you had the opportunity to get sell high now, especially if you thiought Mallet was at least servicable with growth potential 

    I'm no expert but I do think Tommy B's performance has tapered off recently and if you accept the premise that he's going to steadily decline moving forward, would you entertain getting as the author stated -a deal of at the least Ricky Williams proportions (somebody’s entire draft) or maybe even to the extremes that the Vikings paid Dallas for Herschel Walker (two 1sts, two 2nds, two 3rds).

    To me - its a fair question.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    Not saying it's a good or bad idea, but I don't think it's all that farfetched.  Remember that Belichick's philosophy is he'd rather move on from someone a year early than a year late.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to stewart7557's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    I would love to see us trade Tom, that way the phonies on here would get to see first hand just how pathetically average a roster we have here (aside from Brady). And as for the first round picks we'd get...I can hear it now...so and so player didn't work out because the draft was weak that year. Then we'd go out and use Tom's cap space on 42 backup tightends and 20 washed up defensive linemen...we can throw in 10 corners that are great on special teams, but can't return kicks or actually be on the field during defensive plays. Sounds dreamy...

     

    The satisfaction gained by seeing idiots who don't have enough brains to appreciate greatness have the castor oil of reality shoveled down their gullets would be awesome. Of course anybody that dense would simply spin and deny they ever offered such analysis. These rubes think HOF QBs grow on trees. LMAO@THEM

     

     



     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I would love to see us trade Tom, that way the phonies on here would get to see first hand just how pathetically average a roster we have here (aside from Brady). And as for the first round picks we'd get...I can hear it now...so and so player didn't work out because the draft was weak that year. Then we'd go out and use Tom's cap space on 42 backup tightends and 20 washed up defensive linemen...we can throw in 10 corners that are great on special teams, but can't return kicks or actually be on the field during defensive plays. Sounds dreamy...

     

    The satisfaction gained by seeing idiots who don't have enough brains to appreciate greatness have the castor oil of reality shoveled down their gullets would be awesome. Of course anybody that dense would simply spin and deny they ever offered such analysis. These rubes think HOF QBs grow on trees. LMAO@THEM

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    ========================================================================================================

    I don't think the argument is about fans appreciating how great Tommy B has been - I think the argument is how much longer do you expect that greatness to last and - if you think the window is shortening, would you be willing to mortgage the next few years at the QB position if you had the opportunity to get sell high now, especially if you thiought Mallet was at least servicable with growth potential 

    I'm no expert but I do think Tommy B's performance has tapered off recently and if you accept the premise that he's going to steadily decline moving forward, would you entertain getting as the author stated -a deal of at the least Ricky Williams proportions (somebody’s entire draft) or maybe even to the extremes that the Vikings paid Dallas for Herschel Walker (two 1sts, two 2nds, two 3rds).

    To me - its a fair question.

     




    I disagree with you on what the argument is and your assessment of Brady.

     

    The argument is that Brady needs to be traded so HE can find an atmosphere to play where the fanbase hasn't become a bunch of clueless spoiled goofballs. Rest assured that no matter what we would gain from trading him we will be looking at a great number of lean years once he departs for whatever reason.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    You would know clueless goofballs wouldn't you. The one upside of when Brady retires is that we won't have to read your idiocy anymore.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Tribune article on the beneifts of trading Tommy B

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    We're still in the same spot. My premise is that only Brady can change this. He needs to want to hand off a bit more, not be in the shotgun (his preference) as much, etc.

    Again, he was surging well over 40 pass attempts after trailing by 1 point at the end of the 3rd qtr.

    Enough already. The forumla is clear. Audibiling into a shotgun at that rate is a major failure.

     

     

     



    This is where we will continue to disagree.  I will say this yet again.  When Ridley fumbled in the 4th quarter the offense had only put up 13 points and had sucked according to you.  The Patriots had rushed the ball 27 times at that point and Brady had thrown 33 passes.  That is almost perfectly balanced.  So no the formula is not clear.  They ran the offense just like you wanted all year and it yielded 13 points over 3.25 quarters.  Again situational football called for all the additional passes after that point (down 15 points in the 4th quarter).  Your claim is that the offense was bad all game (which it was), but that is incompatible with your argument that the offense would perform well automatically if the run game was utilized to the degree you wanted.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Either the offense didn't suck for the first 3.25 quarters (which is laughable) or your premise is wrong.  There is no way out of this conclusion imo.

     



    Very observant - Rusty spends 2 years talking about the running game, balance, predictable play calling - and here is a game in which we do exactly what he wants and we put up our lowest playoff point output in ten years.

    It's a team game. It's about a defense rising to a level that can win you an important game - not about a defense that needs recievers to drop balls and kickers to miss gimme field goals (like what happened last afc championship game). It's NOT all about your quarterback...Brady was never perfect in the post season. I really don't understand how a guy that claims to know everything about football can forget that important fact. Brady has thrown picks in Super Bowls that we won. He's thrown picks in title games that we've won. The offense was stalled virtually the entire game against the Rams during that first Super Bowl. The offense was stalled during an entire half against the Raiders during that memorable win. He threw a crushing pick against the Panthers during the second half during that Super Bowl. He threw a drive killing and point robbing pick on the 12 yard line against the Eagles during our third Super Bowl win. It happens.

    The difference is we had a better team then and a much better defense.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share