Your evidence is "Marshall Faulk thinks so?" - OK.
The Patriots were punished by the commissioner for other actions and the commissioner supposedly found no evidence to suggest they cheated in the Super Bowl, but like I said, to me that rings about as true as the O.J. Simpson verdict.
It's not that Faulk agrees, although he obviously does.
Look at what he has to say in some of the examples he gives about how the Patriots defended plays they couldn't have seen in film or otherwise UNLESS they'd watched the Rams practice specifically for the Super Bowl.
A whore, by definition, is "A person considered sexually promiscuous." So, sure, you can believe in your own definition. I won't tell you what to think.
By that definition, Brady fits. He was with at least two women within a short period of time. That's promiscuous.
I've said several times that Brady gets rid of the ball quicker than almost all QBs, and then gave you the stats to back it up. It's hard to get sacked when you hold the ball less than almost all QBs. I could start at QB and never get sacked if I wanted to, but it doesn't mean the o-line is good. Please stop ignoring that.
Fine. Brady gets rid of the ball quick, but the offensive line sometimes holds their ground for long periods of time as well. If we say they are equally responsible for the success of Brady's passing, that still means Brady gets far too much credit and they get far too little, i.e. Brady is over rated and over hyped, which is what this debate is about to begin with.
You also ripped BB for being overhyped, when he would be the one creating this system. So who is it thats overrated? BB or Brady?
They both get more credit than they deserve.
When Belicheat was in Cleveland he didn't win any Super Bowls.
When Brady went down, the team did fine without him.
Both of those things show that they aren't the end-all and be-all many people make them out to be.
However, between the two, Brady is WAY more hyped than Belicheat.
I don't understand the question "So now you're admitting Cassel is as good as Brady?" Is that your way of further ignoring Cassel's year in KC?
You said Cassel (there. satisfied on the spelling?) had a good season in KC similar to the one he had in NE. The season he had in NE is similar to the ones Brady has had in multiple seasons in NE.
So if Casell's KC Season = Cassel's NE Season which = several's Brady's NE seasons, that means Cassel = Brady (again, this is all rough, but nontheless true).
So my question then is this: Did you intend to point out that Cassel is essentially equal to Brady, or was that just an accident?
Or are you going to find some way to say Brady is still better despite what I've just shown you (again, the hype factor is huge for Brady, so I'm expecting you to find some reason to say Brady is better).
Re: bad people - I believe we are thinking different things when we say "bad people." I had a feeling we may have been.
This is really another entire discussion, but since you laid this idea out there, what are you thinking of when you say "bad people"?