Have you ever thought that you might be wrong....you know, like you were when you said he was a terrible cold weather QB?  I mean, if you're wrong there, perhaps you could be wrong somewhere else?

Except I wasn't wrong about him being terrible in cold weather, for two key reasons:

First, the team's record doesn't show everything, and most importantly

Second, because the team's record doesn't reflect all of the "near-misses" where Brady screwed up but the team won anyway. I gave one very specific example that can't be denied; Brady's screw-ups are frequent enough I am certain there are others.

Also, it would be impossible for me to be wrong about Brady being over rated. For him to be as good as people claim, I'd expect the Patriots have won 12 Super Bowls in a row.

16-1and he's terrible in cold weather. Sure. Not a Brady guy here, I'm a Raiders fan. You are ridiculous. Final word right there.

Do you always make certain to miss the forest because of the trees, The Taint?

Posted by bistiza on 2/11/2013 12:31:00 PM (view original):

You've been given statistics and evidence to refute your claims, and your argument is to repeat yourself.  So there's no use in arguing.

There was never any real use in arguing to begin with, because no one who is high on Brady's hype will ever change their minds.

His massive failings don't matter when you can point to a decade ago when he was carried Dilfer-style to three titles. His choke jobs mean nothing because Randy Moss and company dragged him to some records and an undefeated regular season.

As long as that is the mantra, no one will think Brady is over rated precisely because they've bought into the hype that makes him over rated to begin with.

I love how you say

"because no one who is high on Brady's hype will ever change their minds."

Yet, when people who have constantly show you facts, stats and everything under the moon, you say it's because of the kool-aid.  The thing you say about the "hype" is the exact opposite for you.  

Yeah, Moss and company dragged him to some stats.  I mean, the fact he lead the league in passing 2 years before Moss arrived means nothing.  

Let's see, the Pats leading rusher in 2005 was Corey Dillion with 733 yards. That's not much of a rushing game, especially compared with Dillon's past production. Brady was forced to chuck it up.

His yards may have led the league, but the total is far less than many other seasons, indicating it was a down year for passing in the NFL. That total wouldn't have led the league in any of the years near 2005. In fact, it wouldn't have led the league in ANY year between 2002 and now EXCEPT 2005.

You put together a down year in passing for the league and a lack of a running game and a lot of QBs would have a shot to lead the league in passing yards.

Again I debunk the myths the Brady worshippers use to support their cause.

one can twist stats to say anything that you want them to say.

you point out that Corey Dillon led the Pats with 733 yards rushing that year.  While that is true, as a team, the Pats ran for 1512 yards (good for 24th in the league).  They ran the ball 439 times (good for 18th highest total in the league) and threw it 564 times (7th highest total in the league).  Those numbers suggest, not that the Pats were chucking it all over the place constantly, but that they were a moderate (play calling wise) offense that skewed more towards passing because it was successful for them.  Not many teams are going to keep pounding the ball when they are averaging 3.4 yards a carry.

i think this example is really counter productive for you to bring up. i didnt check to see if Brady would or wouldnt have won the passing yardage title in any other year, because that doesnt really matter.  you have argued many times that Brady's team carries him and wins despite him, not because of him.  here is a very average team (actually a little below average statistically; 24th in rushing yards, 8th in rushing yards against, 31st in passing yards against, 17th in scoring defense, oline was very solid, looks to be right around the 5th-7th best statistically) that Brady was not carried by.  without Brady throwing the ball as well as he did, this is not a 10 win playoff team.

leading receiver? Deion Branch with 79 for 998 yards.  next, David Givens with 59 for 738 yards.  third, Troy Brown with 39 for 466.   on that team, 10 guys caught more than 10 passes and 13 players caught TDs.  look at some of the names on that list - Andre Davis, Christian Fauria, Tim Dwight, Bethel Johnson...it is not a super talented team top to bottom. 

you cant argue that "any talented QB would have done that and more".  you cant aruge that because there is no statistical basis whatsoever to justify that arguement.  we cant time machine back and take Brady out and insert someone else.   remove the "eyewitness" evidence and deal with the numbers that are there.

one other thing.

if Brady is a "slightly above average" QB, show a historical prescedent for a slightly above average QB that has won 3 super bowls and been to 5.  In the history of professional football (you can include the NFL and AFL, pre and post merger) show another QB who has been slightly above average, yet still lead the league in passing yards and TDs multiple times and who has been carried by his team and coaches to multiple super bowl titles.


if what you have been arguing is true, doesnt that make the system the greatest offensive system of all time?  It can make a mediocre QB have some of the most impressive passing statistics of all time and win multiple super bowls, which i dont believe has ever been done before (if this is in fact what is happening with Brady).  Doesnt that make Belicheck, since he designed said system, the greatest offensive mind there has ever been?  i dont think i have ever heard anyone say that, so wouldnt that make him seriously under-rated as a coach (you have said before that he is over rated as a coach).

Posted by bistiza on 2/12/2013 8:24:00 AM (view original):
Let's see, the Pats leading rusher in 2005 was Corey Dillion with 733 yards. That's not much of a rushing game, especially compared with Dillon's past production. Brady was forced to chuck it up.

His yards may have led the league, but the total is far less than many other seasons, indicating it was a down year for passing in the NFL. That total wouldn't have led the league in any of the years near 2005. In fact, it wouldn't have led the league in ANY year between 2002 and now EXCEPT 2005.

You put together a down year in passing for the league and a lack of a running game and a lot of QBs would have a shot to lead the league in passing yards.

Again I debunk the myths the Brady worshippers use to support their cause.

Hahaha!!  Yeah, you debunked it.

While that is true, as a team, the Pats ran for 1512 yards (good for 24th in the league).

So 75 percent of the league did better than they did in the running game. This supports my position Brady had no alternative but to throw the ball a great deal.

Those numbers suggest, not that the Pats were chucking it all over the place constantly, but that they were a moderate (play calling wise) offense that skewed more towards passing because it was successful for them.  Not many teams are going to keep pounding the ball when they are averaging 3.4 yards a carry.

This says what I've been saying: The Patriots threw the ball because they had to.

i think this example is really counter productive for you to bring up.

I didn't bring it up. You might want to check on things like this.

we cant time machine back and take Brady out and insert someone else.   remove the "eyewitness" evidence and deal with the numbers that are there.

We can argue whatever we'd like and postulate different circumstances all day - that's the kind of thing this website was founded on.

if what you have been arguing is true, doesnt that make the system the greatest offensive system of all time?  It can make a mediocre QB have some of the most impressive passing statistics of all time and win multiple super bowls, which i dont believe has ever been done before (if this is in fact what is happening with Brady). 

It is an amazingly effective system. I don't think it would work without the right players, including a QB willing to do what it requires, but yes it is tremendously effective. Like I've said before, I would expect a team this talented with such a great system to have won 5-8 of the last 12 or so Super Bowls.

Doesnt that make Belicheck, since he designed said system, the greatest offensive mind there has ever been?  i dont think i have ever heard anyone say that, so wouldnt that make him seriously under-rated as a coach (you have said before that he is over rated as a coach).

I don't necessarily know that he designed the system. I'm sure he had a role in it, but I suspect its design had a lot to do with Charlie Weis and others. I think BB is a lot like Brady in the sense he gets the credit for what others are doing because he is in the position that naturally gets the credit.

if Brady is a "slightly above average" QB, show a historical prescedent for a slightly above average QB that has won 3 super bowls and been to 5.  In the history of professional football (you can include the NFL and AFL, pre and post merger) show another QB who has been slightly above average, yet still lead the league in passing yards and TDs multiple times and who has been carried by his team and coaches to multiple super bowl titles.

 

Troy Aikman and Terry Bradshaw and Bart Starr and Bob Griese and Jim Plunkett won multiple Super Bowls and are almost never mentioned among the greatest QBs of all time.?  The ones that lead the league in passing yards and TDs get mentioned more often (Favre, Manning, Marino, etc.).

A QB winning Super Bowls is the biggest single reason people tend to over rate them. Yes, they contribute to a team winning, but it isn't nearly as much as they get credit for.

This is the biggest reason Brady is so over rated. In the minds of many, his 3 SB rings apparently make up for his costing several seasons' worth of talented teams from getting him a fourth (or more). With the talent on that team, if Brady were half of what he's purported to be, they should have won at least one SB in the past several season, and probably more.

Others in history are over rated for SB wins too (Bradshaw chief among them) but Brady is the king of all that is over rated in the NFL.

Posted by bistiza on 2/12/2013 3:56:00 PM (view original):
A QB winning Super Bowls is the biggest single reason people tend to over rate them. Yes, they contribute to a team winning, but it isn't nearly as much as they get credit for.

This is the biggest reason Brady is so over rated. In the minds of many, his 3 SB rings apparently make up for his costing several seasons' worth of talented teams from getting him a fourth (or more). With the talent on that team, if Brady were half of what he's purported to be, they should have won at least one SB in the past several season, and probably more.

Others in history are over rated for SB wins too (Bradshaw chief among them) but Brady is the king of all that is over rated in the NFL.

blah blah blah blah blah.....blah blah blah!

Seriously biz.  Your argument is hysterical.

Ah, yes, the classic retort from those who vehemently disagree with someone else's position but lack the ability to form an effective argument against it - insult them and/or their position and make no attempt to argue.

Yes, my argument is so hysterical it has you befuddled as to how to argue against it.