Indianapolis Colts

[David Morris]

With the first post of the new era in NazNet, I wanted to show some love to my team the Indianapolis Colts, the greatest team with the greatest (ever) quarterback.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm very tempted to give you some negative reputation points for this, but that doesn't seem like the right foot on which to start out.

[Shea Zellweger]

Idunno, I think that new Redskins' QB might just show how great he really is.

[Jeff Scott]

I'm very tempted to give you some negative reputation points for this, but that doesn't seem like the right foot on which to start out.

OK, I will.

Please. Wouldn't the best QB ever have more than one ring which was won against one of the worst NFC representatives in recent memory?

He should stick to beating washed-up boy-band members at ping-pong.

If you'd like further thoughts, please visit the theology forum. That's where we talk about the study of God...and Tom Brady:smilies0262:

[Benjamin Burch]

OK, I will.

Please. Wouldn't the best QB ever have more than one ring which was won against one of the worst NFC representatives in recent memory?

He should stick to beating washed-up boy-band members at ping-pong.

If you'd like further thoughts, please visit the theology forum. That's where we talk about the study of God...and Tom Brady:smilies0262:

Yea, remind me to barf at the mention of him with "great QBs" please. Greatest team and coach ever. They coulda done it with any other QB. Brady doesn't even know how to tie Dan's shoelaces!

[Benjamin Burch]

OK, I will.

Please. Wouldn't the best QB ever have more than one ring which was won against one of the worst NFC representatives in recent memory?

He should stick to beating washed-up boy-band members at ping-pong.

If you'd like further thoughts, please visit the theology forum. That's where we talk about the study of God...and Tom Brady:smilies0262:

And I just want to make clear... As a host, ANY post on the Theology forum which mentions the name "Tom Brady" will be swiftly deleted and labeled blasphemy. Automatic negative reputation points will be assigned to the poster and their posting privileges on the Theology Forum will go under review for suspension...

[Jeff Scott]

And I just want to make clear... As a host, ANY post on the Theology forum which mentions the name "Tom Brady" will be swiftly deleted and labeled blasphemy. Automatic negative reputation points will be assigned to the poster and their posting privileges on the Theology Forum will go under review for suspension...


Don't worry, Ben, I'm sure God would simply cause NN to crash again!:smilies1722:

Ahhh, I miss the NFL! Here's to looking forward to the draft!

[Jeff Scott]

Yea, remind me to barf at the mention of him with "great QBs" please. Greatest team and coach ever. They coulda done it with any other QB. Brady doesn't even know how to tie Dan's shoelaces!

SURELY you're not speaking about Dan "No Rings" Marino????

Oh, to have a running back... Who knows what might have been???

[Benjamin Burch]

SURELY you're not speaking about Dan "No Rings" Marino????

Oh, to have a running back... Who knows what might have been???

oh to have ANYTHING to go with his right arm. That team coulda won TONS of rings.

[James Johnson]

Joe Montana!!!

[David Morris]

Championship Rings = Overvalued.

The logic behind having to have a championship ring to enter the discussion of being the best ever at a specific position in a team sport is absurd. I agree, it sure looks good on the resume, but that pattern of thinking would intend to say Robert Horry is better than Karl Malone and as good as Michael Jordan.

We know that both of those statements are false, but who says you have to have the stats and the ring(s) to be considered for that discussion?


Please. Wouldn't the best QB ever have more than one ring which was won against one of the worst NFC representatives in recent memory?

The idea that it was the worst NFC representative is a joke. They won the NFC outright, by absolutely destroying the New Orleans Saints in the NFC championship. The claim that the competition was weak is a sad argument. The Colts were just that good in 2007.

Rings bode well in individual sports (tennis, golf, track, racing, etc), but it is a different story in a team sport.

[Ryan Scott]

Robert Horry has more rings than Michael Jordan.

[Ryan Scott]

Although you also can't argue that Peyton Manning has proven himself in the playoffs - he simply hasn't. He's still the best person to ever play QB in the NFL - he just might not be the most valuable QB ever.

[Shea Zellweger]

OK, I will.

Please. Wouldn't the best QB ever have more than one ring which was won against one of the worst NFC representatives in recent memory?

He should stick to beating washed-up boy-band members at ping-pong.

If you'd like further thoughts, please visit the theology forum. That's where we talk about the study of God...and Tom Brady:smilies0262:

You're free to debate the merits of Brady, Manning, Marino, et all, but I have to agree with Dave Morris in that judging an individual by rings in a team sport is illogical. If Matt Cassel demonstrated anything in his time with the Patriots and then with the Chiefs, it's that Bill Belichick had a great system in place. Yes, it's probable that Brady would have had a better year than Cassel, but it's still a testimony to Hoody's coaching abilities.

the fact is, this debate about "greatest quarterback" almost ALWAYS comes down to Manning and Brady, so trying to discount Manning's accomplishments might get you some points with Patriots (and Perhaps Jaguars) fans, but it just doesn't have any validity.

Oh, and that "worst NFC representative in recent memory?" They were 13-3 in the regular season, and won the NFC Championship against the Saints in convincing fashion. I believe the Colts beat the Patriots in the AFC Championship game that year as well, so it's not as though Brady didn't have his chance that year.

[James Johnson]

You're free to debate the merits of Brady, Manning, Marino, et all, but I have to agree with Dave Morris in that judging an individual by rings in a team sport is illogical. If Matt Cassel demonstrated anything in his time with the Patriots and then with the Chiefs, it's that Bill Belichick had a great system in place. Yes, it's probable that Brady would have had a better year than Cassel, but it's still a testimony to Hoody's coaching abilities.

the fact is, this debate about "greatest quarterback" almost ALWAYS comes down to Manning and Brady, so trying to discount Manning's accomplishments might get you some points with Patriots (and Perhaps Jaguars) fans, but it just doesn't have any validity.

Oh, and that "worst NFC representative in recent memory?" They were 13-3 in the regular season, and won the NFC Championship against the Saints in convincing fashion. I believe the Colts beat the Patriots in the AFC Championship game that year as well, so it's not as though Brady didn't have his chance that year.

I don't know that I have heard a "greatest quarterback" debate in the last 15 years that did not include Montana and Elway.

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't know that I have heard a "greatest quarterback" debate in the last 15 years that did not include Montana and Elway.

sorry, should've said "greatest active quarterback." We all know the greatest QB of all time is Ryan Leaf

[Benjamin Burch]

. If Matt Cassel demonstrated anything in his time with the Patriots and then with the Chiefs, it's that Bill Belichick had a great system in place. Yes, it's probable that Brady would have had a better year than Cassel, but it's still a testimony to Hoody's coaching abilities.


I would actually go farther than this. Cassel had NEVER started an NFL game. He went 3-3 in his first 6 games, 7-2 after that. If he'd been accustomed to the system there is no reason to assume that those first 6 games don't end up 4-2 or 5-1 and the Patriots would have made the playoffs outright. They went 10-5 with a QB without a single NFL start and were 11-5 on the season. The fact that an 11-5 team missed the playoffs is criminal and with the way that team was playing in the last 7 or 8 games gives me every reason to believe they would have been a force in the playoffs.

Hoody is simply THAT good. I honestly think the smart move for the Pats would have been to keep Cassel, groom him in that system (much like they'd done with BradY) and trade their golden boy for the entire farm. That team would have been set to dominate for the next 10 years or so. Sadly, impressions of "greatness" for Tom Brady handicapped that team. (Or, from a Dolphins fan's point of view - IT IS GREAT! because the Patriots are so last decade in the AFC East. The Jets - Dolphins rivalry will define that division for some time to come, me thinks!)

[Ryan Scott]

I would actually go farther than this. Cassel had NEVER started an NFL game.

Or a college game.

[Benjamin Burch]

Or a college game.

true that.

[David Morris]

I don't know that I have heard a "greatest quarterback" debate in the last 15 years that did not include Montana and Elway.


Although you also can't argue that Peyton Manning has proven himself in the playoffs - he simply hasn't. He's still the best person to ever play QB in the NFL - he just might not be the most valuable QB ever.

Joe Montana was a product of his system, playing for one of the most innovative coaches ever in football. He played on Super Bowl teams that averaged 7 pro-bowlers and 3 All-Pro's a year (and for the record, I think making 1st team All-Pro says a lot more than being a pro-bowler). He was handing off and passing to some pretty incredible players, least of which was Jerry Rice. John Elway was a great quarterback as well, but no where near the caliber that Manning is.

And Peyton is arguably the best to ever play the QB position, and is also the hands down MVP. Peyton Manning doesn't play in a system, he simply is the system. The Colts are 2-14 without him (hey, we play the Texans twice a year, can't help it).

[Ryan Scott]

And Peyton is arguably the best to ever play the QB position, and is also the hands down MVP. Peyton Manning doesn't play in a system, he simply is the system. The Colts are 2-14 without him (hey, we play the Texans twice a year, can't help it).

I probably shouldn't have said MVP. He is more important to his team than any other player in NFL history. However, if we're talking strictly about which QB is going win you a championship - he's just not on the top of that list. Although he does still have time to get there. One of the best things about the NFL is how many different factors have to come together to win a championship.

Marino never won. Montana had a system catered to him. Brady had a genius coach and an innovative defense. Elway had mediocre results until Shanahan came along. Manning has had a sub-par playoff career. Favre throws the wrong pass at the wrong time.

This is the perfect sports debate, because it really is completely subjective. People can make a case for nearly a dozen guys for one reason or another.

[James Johnson]

So Joe montana was just a product of the system. LOL

[Benjamin Burch]

So Joe montana was just a product of the system. LOL

Not just a product of the system (such as I believe Tom Brady is). Instead, I think that Montanna's success, both stats and wins, are exaggerated by the system.

He would have won.

He would have had good stats.

But neither would have been as much and dramatic had it not been for the innovative system and the ridiculous teammates he had around him. Montanna was able to throw a 3 yard pass and have the runner run for 70 on a regular basis. He also had a great defense playing on the other side of the ball - something Marino never had.

[James Johnson]

I know this will come as a shock to you Ben, but I disagree with you. :smile: Montana was great, period!

[Shea Zellweger]

I know this will come as a shock to you Ben, but I disagree with you. :smile: Montana was great, period!

Montana was great. He also played on a great team. Manning plays on a pretty great team as well. So does Brady. If we're going from the "did less with more" to determine greatest QB, then IMHO Marino and McNabb should be in the conversation, but I don't find the argument as convincing when it comes to a guy like Montana. I'd say Brady's success is far more a result of his system than Montana's was, but since he will probably retire a Pat, or not be traded until he's on the decline anyway, we will probably never know.

[Steven Martinez]

Montana was great. He also played on a great team. Manning plays on a pretty great team as well. So does Brady. If we're going from the "did less with more" to determine greatest QB, then IMHO Marino and McNabb should be in the conversation, but I don't find the argument as convincing when it comes to a guy like Montana. I'd say Brady's success is far more a result of his system than Montana's was, but since he will probably retire a Pat, or not be traded until he's on the decline anyway, we will probably never know.

This is because you are young and probably do not remember when Montana took Kansas City to the playoffs his last two seasons. KC was not a WCO team and their talent was not on offense. To me that was proof of the greatness of Montana as a QB because he was never the best athlete but mentally was perhaps the greatest QB ever that made the best decisions for his team.
Arguably the best QB to ever play the game as far as having all of the skills was Steve Young. He began in the USFL and then went to Tampa Bay before backing up Montana. He has the mind and accuracy of Montana with a much better arm. It is a shame that his best years were spent on the bench. Another QB who gets lost in the shuffle is Jim Kelly who also began in the USFL. He was essentially Peyton Mannig before Peyton Manning by having a no huddle offense where he was able to call and audible the game. I know he never got a ring (not his fault) but 4 straight Super Bowls is impressive. He was a field goal away from one and a misplaced helmet from a possible second.

One last thought. What I think is amazing about Peyton Manning and Bret Farve is that they have proven that they can win with different coaches. Peyton has led his team to the playoffs under three different coaches. Farve has done it with 4. Brady might never have to prove what he can do outside of Hoodie but to have that kind of success regardless of who is coaching tells me a lot about the player.

[Benjamin Burch]

This is because you are young and probably do not remember when Montana took Kansas City to the playoffs his last two seasons. KC was not a WCO team and their talent was not on offense. To me that was proof of the greatness of Montana as a QB because he was never the best athlete but mentally was perhaps the greatest QB ever that made the best decisions for his team.
Arguably the best QB to ever play the game as far as having all of the skills was Steve Young. He began in the USFL and then went to Tampa Bay before backing up Montana. He has the mind and accuracy of Montana with a much better arm. It is a shame that his best years were spent on the bench. Another QB who gets lost in the shuffle is Jim Kelly who also began in the USFL. He was essentially Peyton Mannig before Peyton Manning by having a no huddle offense where he was able to call and audible the game. I know he never got a ring (not his fault) but 4 straight Super Bowls is impressive. He was a field goal away from one and a misplaced helmet from a possible second.

One last thought. What I think is amazing about Peyton Manning and Bret Farve is that they have proven that they can win with different coaches. Peyton has led his team to the playoffs under three different coaches. Farve has done it with 4. Brady might never have to prove what he can do outside of Hoodie but to have that kind of success regardless of who is coaching tells me a lot about the player.

Kelly definitely gets lost in that shuffle. Since my brother passed away I don't have someone around to remind me anymore (he was a hardcore Bills fan, I swear it was just to spite his older brother!!!). Kelly was fabulous.

I also think you bring up a great point with Young. There's a reason he is in the top of every category that matters. I also think you're point about Montanna on the Chiefs is well taken, but I still stand by my statement that his numbers and wins are inflated due to the system - that's not to say he wasn't great.

All in all, even as a Marino fan, I don't think there's any sense in debating the issue. Bret Favre is the greatest Quarterback to play the game of football. His ability to win without the talent Montanna had, without the system Brady had, and to perform with the stats for longer than Young, Marino, or Elway could. He even won the elusive ring so that's not standing in his way unless people want to make the case that "more equals better." The problem is when it comes to Dan everyone says "he never won one." But when it comes to Favre or Manning they say "he only won one!" I do think Favre was a better playoff QB than Manning though.

If Marino had won one there'd be no discussion. It'd be Marino and Favre... until the day comes that Peyton Manning hangs his cleats up and we all have to acknowledge that he was the greatest to ever step on a football field.

[Shea Zellweger]

This is because you are young and probably do not remember when Montana took Kansas City to the playoffs his last two seasons. KC was not a WCO team and their talent was not on offense. To me that was proof of the greatness of Montana as a QB because he was never the best athlete but mentally was perhaps the greatest QB ever that made the best decisions for his team.
Arguably the best QB to ever play the game as far as having all of the skills was Steve Young. He began in the USFL and then went to Tampa Bay before backing up Montana. He has the mind and accuracy of Montana with a much better arm. It is a shame that his best years were spent on the bench. Another QB who gets lost in the shuffle is Jim Kelly who also began in the USFL. He was essentially Peyton Mannig before Peyton Manning by having a no huddle offense where he was able to call and audible the game. I know he never got a ring (not his fault) but 4 straight Super Bowls is impressive. He was a field goal away from one and a misplaced helmet from a possible second.

One last thought. What I think is amazing about Peyton Manning and Bret Farve is that they have proven that they can win with different coaches. Peyton has led his team to the playoffs under three different coaches. Farve has done it with 4. Brady might never have to prove what he can do outside of Hoodie but to have that kind of success regardless of who is coaching tells me a lot about the player.

I think you may be confusing what I said with what Ben said. I pointed out that Montana was a great Quarterback who happened to play on a great team, as opposed to Brady, who I believe is an average quarterback playing on a great team for a great coach.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think you may be confusing what I said with what Ben said. I pointed out that Montana was a great Quarterback who happened to play on a great team, as opposed to Brady, who I believe is an average quarterback playing on a great team for a great coach.

How would that be confusing the two of us then? I said the same thing. I just highlighted that I do in fact think that Montana's winning and stats are slightly inflated due to his coaching, system, and surrounding talent. He just had what none of the other guys in this conversation had. To say that had no effect would be to kid ourselves. However, I also affirmed that Montana was a great Quarterback.

[Shea Zellweger]

How would that be confusing the two of us then? I said the same thing. I just highlighted that I do in fact think that Montana's winning and stats are slightly inflated due to his coaching, system, and surrounding talent. He just had what none of the other guys in this conversation had. To say that had no effect would be to kid ourselves. However, I also affirmed that Montana was a great Quarterback.

Ah, I kinda got the impression that you were putting Montana on par with Brady...

[Benjamin Burch]

Ah, I kinda got the impression that you were putting Montana on par with Brady...

No, not in the least.

That's why I said:


Not just a product of the system (such as I believe Tom Brady is).

I was trying to say "not what I think Tom Brady is." I was trying to say that while Montana certainly owes some of his success to the other factors, he is not solely dependent on those, as I believe Brady to be.

[Jeff Scott]

Bret Favre is the greatest Quarterback to play the game of football. His ability to win without the talent Montanna had, without the system Brady had, and to perform with the stats for longer than Young, Marino, or Elway could. He even won the elusive ring so that's not standing in his way unless people want to make the case that "more equals better." The problem is when it comes to Dan everyone says "he never won one." But when it comes to Favre or Manning they say "he only won one!" I do think Favre was a better playoff QB than Manning though.

I have started to type a reply to this statement about 10 times because I can't collect my thoughts. The combination of the words "Favre" and "great" does this to me. And you've gone further and called him the greatest ever. I will concede that he was a good quarterback, clearly a headed to the Hall of Fame. But Favre doesn't even make the top 5, probably not the top 10.

If you want a very exciting regular season, give me Favre. If you want an almost sure-fire way to lose the big playoff game in ways just as exciting, give me Favre.
-Lost the 1997 Superbowl when heavily favored against the Broncos.
-In 2001, The Packers lost 45-17 to the Rams in the playoffs with Favre throwing an NFL postseason record six interceptions, three of which were returned for touchdowns. This is against a team that was known for it's offense more than defense.
-In 2002, His team lost a home playoff game after going 8-0 at home that season. The temp was 34 degrees and the Falcons were an indoor team. 27-7.
-2003, Overtime interception returned to set up a game winning field goal.
-2004, Wild card loss (clobbering) to the Vikings. Favre threw 4 interceptions and fumbled once.
-2007, First play of overtime in the NFC championship was an interception, again led to the game winning field goal. This made him the only QB ever to throw two interceptions in OT in the playoffs.

He's a turnover machine. 5 times he's had more turnovers than TDs. (1991, 1993, 1999, 2005, and 2008, I suppose it's fair to throw out 91).

He's averaged over 22 turnovers a season.

Is he likable? Well, I suppose. Although his recent struggles with retirement has somewhat damaged this.
Does he hold significant records. Yes- all time TD passes, yards, and wins. Not to mention his consecutive starts record, injured or not. When you start that many games, have the abilities Favre had(s), and the longevity that he's had, the numbers are going to be up there. Perhaps these records will not be broken. Nor will the interception record. The most important job a quarterback has is to NOT TURN THE BALL OVER, a job that is magnified in the playoffs.

Given my feelings about Favre, this past season was difficult to take. My father-in-law and I go back an forth about Favre. He loves him. I don't. Week after week he'd call and say, "Did you see Favre this week?" I'd reply, "Yep, he's looking great. But wait. He'll blow it when it counts the most."

I was right.

Best QB ever? Not with his huge failure rate.

[Benjamin Burch]

I have started to type a reply to this statement about 10 times because I can't collect my thoughts. The combination of the words "Favre" and "great" does this to me. And you've gone further and called him the greatest ever. I will concede that he was a good quarterback, clearly a headed to the Hall of Fame. But Favre doesn't even make the top 5, probably not the top 10.

If you want a very exciting regular season, give me Favre. If you want an almost sure-fire way to lose the big playoff game in ways just as exciting, give me Favre.
-Lost the 1997 Superbowl when heavily favored against the Broncos.
-In 2001, The Packers lost 45-17 to the Rams in the playoffs with Favre throwing an NFL postseason record six interceptions, three of which were returned for touchdowns. This is against a team that was known for it's offense more than defense.
-In 2002, His team lost a home playoff game after going 8-0 at home that season. The temp was 34 degrees and the Falcons were an indoor team. 27-7.
-2003, Overtime interception returned to set up a game winning field goal.
-2004, Wild card loss (clobbering) to the Vikings. Favre threw 4 interceptions and fumbled once.
-2007, First play of overtime in the NFC championship was an interception, again led to the game winning field goal. This made him the only QB ever to throw two interceptions in OT in the playoffs.

He's a turnover machine. 5 times he's had more turnovers than TDs. (1991, 1993, 1999, 2005, and 2008, I suppose it's fair to throw out 91).

He's averaged over 22 turnovers a season.

Is he likable? Well, I suppose. Although his recent struggles with retirement has somewhat damaged this.
Does he hold significant records. Yes- all time TD passes, yards, and wins. Not to mention his consecutive starts record, injured or not. When you start that many games, have the abilities Favre had(s), and the longevity that he's had, the numbers are going to be up there. Perhaps these records will not be broken. Nor will the interception record. The most important job a quarterback has is to NOT TURN THE BALL OVER, a job that is magnified in the playoffs.

Given my feelings about Favre, this past season was difficult to take. My father-in-law and I go back an forth about Favre. He loves him. I don't. Week after week he'd call and say, "Did you see Favre this week?" I'd reply, "Yep, he's looking great. But wait. He'll blow it when it counts the most."

I was right.

Best QB ever? Not with his huge failure rate.

I think his incredible ability to even put himself in the position to fail in ALL OF THOSE GAMES MENTIONED just goes to prove how good he is. He did what he had to do, he won ONE Super Bowl. But the guy just wins. Over and over again, and puts himself in a position to win. Not just that, he wins no matter who his coach is, and no matter what team he's on.

If he didn't have the interceptions he'd be Peyton Manning with more success. And that's what will separate the two when Manning retires.... he didn't turn the ball over.

[Ryan Scott]

until the day comes that Peyton Manning hangs his cleats up and we all have to acknowledge that he was the greatest to ever step on a football field.

I'll say it now - greatest QB ever. I just wouldn't pick him to win me the Superbowl, if I was choosing just for one game.

[Jeff Scott]

I think his incredible ability to even put himself in the position to fail in ALL OF THOSE GAMES MENTIONED just goes to prove how good he is. He did what he had to do, he won ONE Super Bowl. But the guy just wins. Over and over again, and puts himself in a position to win. Not just that, he wins no matter who his coach is, and no matter what team he's on.

If he didn't have the interceptions he'd be Peyton Manning with more success. And that's what will separate the two when Manning retires.... he didn't turn the ball over.

He also blows it in big games, over and over again.

As for being Peyton Manning with more success, you're right, he would be, except that he's not. That's why he shouldn't be called the best ever.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the people who love Favre just do. They're not going to change. Fortunately, it's just football and really doesn't matter! I just don't understand why he gets a free pass on what are really dumb football decisions.

[James Johnson]

I'll say it now - greatest QB ever. I just wouldn't pick him to win me the Superbowl, if I was choosing just for one game.

And Ryan, that's why he's not the greatest QB ever.

[Ryan Scott]

And Ryan, that's why he's not the greatest QB ever.

And that's a completely subjective statement, which is why this argument is so fun and never ending.

[Kelcey Snyder]

Jeff,

One of the worst NFC teams? Really? How in the world did they get to the Super Bowl then? AND How in the world did they pretty much kill every team they played? But, somehow they were one the worst NFC teams in recent memory? I agree they are horrible now and I can't stand the Bears, however, they were pretty amazing that year. How's Brady doing? Will they have a winning season next year?

[Benjamin Burch]

Jeff,

One of the worst NFC teams? Really? How in the world did they get to the Super Bowl then? AND How in the world did they pretty much kill every team they played? But, somehow they were one the worst NFC teams in recent memory? I agree they are horrible now and I can't stand the Bears, however, they were pretty amazing that year. How's Brady doing? Will they have a winning season next year?

That's Heresy, John Calvin would disagree with you.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. had to do it once. Welcome to NazNet Kelsth. *SEEP*

[Kelcey Snyder]

That's Heresy, John Calvin would disagree with you.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. had to do it once. Welcome to NazNet Kelcth. *SEEP*

"You all think you are hilariousth!"

[Jeff Scott]

Jeff,

One of the worst NFC teams? Really? How in the world did they get to the Super Bowl then? AND How in the world did they pretty much kill every team they played? But, somehow they were one the worst NFC teams in recent memory? I agree they are horrible now and I can't stand the Bears, however, they were pretty amazing that year. How's Brady doing? Will they have a winning season next year?

They got to the Superbowl because the NFC stunk that year. And they were the best team in it. They were killing bad teams, you know, until they played the AFC, which had good teams.

The tide has begun to turn, however, as it always does. Brady hasn't called me lately, so I can't say how he's doing. I'll assume he's fine until I hear otherwise. As for the Pats' season...I was just looking at their upcoming schedule and I can't remember a tougher one in recent years. It's ranked as the 6th toughest schedule in the NFL next year, but I've got to say, there probably isn't any other team with a more difficult out-of-division schedule including Cincinnati, Baltimore, San Diego, Indianapolis, Minnesota, Pittsburg, and Green Bay. Not to mention they're facing the Jets and Miami twice. Given the tough schedule, the lack of receiving, and the young defense, I don't see a whole lot to feel confident about this year. If they don't have a winning season this year, it'll be the first time since the 2000 season.

[Benjamin Burch]

They got to the Superbowl because the NFC stunk that year. And they were the best team in it. They were killing bad teams, you know, until they played the AFC, which had good teams.

The tide has begun to turn, however, as it always does. Brady hasn't called me lately, so I can't say how he's doing. I'll assume he's fine until I hear otherwise. As for the Pats' season...I was just looking at their upcoming schedule and I can't remember a tougher one in recent years. It's ranked as the 6th toughest schedule in the NFL next year, but I've got to say, there probably isn't any other team with a more difficult out-of-division schedule including Cincinnati, Baltimore, San Diego, Indianapolis, Minnesota, Pittsburg, and Green Bay. Not to mention they're facing the Jets and Miami twice. Given the tough schedule, the lack of receiving, and the young defense, I don't see a whole lot to feel confident about this year. If they don't have a winning season this year, it'll be the first time since the 2000 season.

I think they'll have a winning season. I think they'll split with NYJ and sweep Buffalo. Miami will sweep them. That's 3-3...

They'll beat Cincy,Detroit, and Cleveland pretty easily. That's 6-3...

Baltimore, Indy, and Minnesota will beat them... that's 6-6....

Green Bay will beat them but they'll beat SD... that's 7-7....

Pittsburgh is a toss-up and Chicago is a sure win...

8-8 is worse case scenario. They'll probably beat Pittsburgh, they might beat Green Bay. That's possibly a 10-6 season with 8-8 as the worst outcome. I think you guys are gonna do fine in the #3 spot in the AFC east for the next 5-10 years. :tongue:

Edited to Add: If the best QB ever doesn't return to Minnesota that game goes in the W column with a now possible 11-5 season, still putting you a game behind Miami for the #2 spot in the AFC East.

[Benjamin Burch]

They got to the Superbowl because the NFC stunk that year. And they were the best team in it. They were killing bad teams, you know, until they played the AFC, which had good teams.

The tide has begun to turn, however, as it always does.

Are you saying "The tide is turning" in regards to the NFC becoming dominant? Or were you referring to Miami and NYJ taking over the AFC East?

[Jeff Scott]

Are you saying "The tide is turning" in regards to the NFC becoming dominant? Or were you referring to Miami and NYJ taking over the AFC East?

Ugh...I'm afraid "yes" to both. As much as I hate to say it. Miami and NYJ still need QBs though. I don't believe Sanchez is all that good. At least he has a receiver or two now. They'll be better. I'm not sure that LT makes them better though. Sad as it is for him. Don't get me wrong, I still have confidence that the Pats are going to be a tough opponent, even push for the playoffs where anything can happen. They still have Hoodie and Brady. Add good defense and they'll do OK.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ugh...I'm afraid "yes" to both. As much as I hate to say it. Miami and NYJ still need QBs though. I don't believe Sanchez is all that good. At least he has a receiver or two now. They'll be better. I'm not sure that LT makes them better though. Sad as it is for him. Don't get me wrong, I still have confidence that the Pats are going to be a tough opponent, even push for the playoffs where anything can happen. They still have Hoodie and Brady. Add good defense and they'll do OK.

I think the idea that the NFC is becoming dominant would be pretty hard, if not impossible, to defend.

Miami needs a QB? I think Henne is going to be a very good franchise QB for us. I agree with you on Sanchize.

[Jeff Scott]

I think the idea that the NFC is becoming dominant would be pretty hard, if not impossible, to defend.

Miami needs a QB? I think Henne is going to be a very good franchise QB for us. I agree with you on Sanchize.

Well, before you're dominant you start to become dominant. But your point is sound. Dominant is kind of a strong word. I certainly feel like there are more good teams now. I mean, come on, New Orleans beat Indy. And it wasn't a fluke. Or so we don't think right now! The 2009 Saints reminded me of the 2003-2004 Patriots. Solid, solid, solid making catches that should be caught and tackles that should be tackles.

You may be right about Henne. Sanchize was more like Sanhype.

I hate when the Patriots lose to the Dolphins more than any other team. I just do. I'm not sure why. Close second is the Broncos.

[Benjamin Burch]

Well, before you're dominant you start to become dominant. But your point is sound. Dominant is kind of a strong word. I certainly feel like there are more good teams now. I mean, come on, New Orleans beat Indy. And it wasn't a fluke. Or so we don't think right now! The 2009 Saints reminded me of the 2003-2004 Patriots. Solid, solid, solid making catches that should be caught and tackles that should be tackles.

You may be right about Henne. Sanchize was more like Sanhype.

I hate when the Patriots lose to the Dolphins more than any other team. I just do. I'm not sure why. Close second is the Broncos.

Probably because:

(1) The rivalry runs pretty deep

(2) Our team has been quite terrible for about 6 or 7 years now

(3) Your team has been the dominant team in the NFL during those 7 years

(4) We've beaten you more than just about any other team has in those 7 years

Edited to Add: And I hate it when the Dolphins lose to the Patriot more than any other team. Now, last year, I would have hated to lose to the Jets more because they were such a bad team. I still hate it when people talk about their playoff success as having any indication that they were a "great team" last year. Please...

[Jeff Scott]

All tremendous points!

I'd probably that the Dolphins seem like a legitimate threat in the future and I don't ever want the future to be now. As for the Jets...I see them as a joke. Always have been, always will be. You know, post-Joe "I want to kiiiissss you!" Losses to them don't usually bother me. The only one I can remember was in 2008 that bothered me when the most over-rated QB in the NFL beat them and then managed to lose when it mattered, as usual, to Miami to keep the Pats at 11-5 out of the playoffs!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!! Thanks for reminding me!

[Shea Zellweger]

They got to the Superbowl because the NFC stunk that year. And they were the best team in it. They were killing bad teams, you know, until they played the AFC, which had good teams.



This doesn't accurately represent what actually happened that season. The Bears went 2-2 against the AFC East. They manhandled the Bills, Shut out the Jets, barely lost to the Pats, and were beat pretty soundly by the Dolphins. Based on the rest of their respective seasons, that Dolphins loss looks very much like a fluke. So in reality, the only AFC team they played in the regular season that you could convincingly say was better than them was the Patriots, who reached the AFC championship game. In fact, their win against the Jets on the road made them 1-1 against AFC playoff teams, so even if we narrow the pool to the elite AFC teams, the Bears had a strong showing against them, winning one and losing the other (The eventual AFC Runner-up) by less than a touchdown. So, although I won't disagree that the Colts were better than the Bears on Super Bowl Sunday, I think that the Bears could easily have tied the season series against the Patriots if there were one, and it follows logically that if they could beat the 2nd best team in the AFC, they could probably beat most of the other AFC teams as well.

[Ryan Scott]

Somebody on ESPN radio yesterday said they'd "bet the farm" Parcells was working on a trade for Roethlisberger. That would be quite the move. I'm not sure it makes sense for them, but I love it when things get shaken up.

[Benjamin Burch]

Somebody on ESPN radio yesterday said they'd "bet the farm" Parcells was working on a trade for Roethlisberger. That would be quite the move. I'm not sure it makes sense for them, but I love it when things get shaken up.

I know I haven't participated much on the "Sports" forum BC. However, anyone who really knows my sports life knows that if Ben Roethlisberger was playing for the Miami Dolphins I would be the happiest man in the entire world. He is the ONLY QB that I would take over Chad Henne right now.

That being as it is, I've invested a lot emotionally into Chad Henne as my "new favorite player" much like Gordon Beckham in baseball. We'll see what happens. If that happened there's no doubt Big Ben (who's already my #3 behind Taylor and Henne) would be my undisputed #1 favorite player....

[Benjamin Burch]

This doesn't accurately represent what actually happened that season. The Bears went 2-2 against the AFC East. They manhandled the Bills, Shut out the Jets, barely lost to the Pats, and were beat pretty soundly by the Dolphins. Based on the rest of their respective seasons, that Dolphins loss looks very much like a fluke. So in reality, the only AFC team they played in the regular season that you could convincingly say was better than them was the Patriots, who reached the AFC championship game. In fact, their win against the Jets on the road made them 1-1 against AFC playoff teams, so even if we narrow the pool to the elite AFC teams, the Bears had a strong showing against them, winning one and losing the other (The eventual AFC Runner-up) by less than a touchdown. So, although I won't disagree that the Colts were better than the Bears on Super Bowl Sunday, I think that the Bears could easily have tied the season series against the Patriots if there were one, and it follows logically that if they could beat the 2nd best team in the AFC, they could probably beat most of the other AFC teams as well.

It's never a fluke when the Dolphins beat a team. It's destiny.

[Benjamin Burch]

All tremendous points!

I'd probably that the Dolphins seem like a legitimate threat in the future and I don't ever want the future to be now. As for the Jets...I see them as a joke. Always have been, always will be. You know, post-Joe "I want to kiiiissss you!" Losses to them don't usually bother me. The only one I can remember was in 2008 that bothered me when the most over-rated QB in the NFL beat them and then managed to lose when it mattered, as usual, to Miami to keep the Pats at 11-5 out of the playoffs!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!! Thanks for reminding me!

I remember watching the final interception in that game! I was home on Christmas break from Olivet at my parents' house in VA. When "The Greatest QB of All Time" threw that last interception I jumped off the couch and ran around the house in glee, celebrating that the perfect storm had just taken place. It could have been A Jets win, and Jets/Patriots in the playoffs with Miami out... Instead Miami made the playoffs ousting both NE and NYJ! Truly one of the greatest moments of my entire life.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I got to this thread late (though we had the same one fifteen or twenty times BC).

My positions:
A. Peyton Manning has been a better regular season QB than Tom Brady (when it matters some)
B. Tom Brady has been a better play-off QB than Peyton Manning (when it matters most)
C. There is no "greatest quarterback" between the two of them
D. The New England Patriots are the best franchise during both of their careers

"D" is more important than A, B, or C.

Since the link was lost from BC, here it is again (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ai4UF1-tMKDddGtQdFh4WVpfVC1mSVV0MjZBQXNBQXc&hl=en).

[Shea Zellweger]

I got to this thread late (though we had the same one fifteen or twenty times BC).

My positions:
A. Peyton Manning has been a better regular season QB than Tom Brady (when it matters some)
B. Tom Brady has been a better play-off QB than Peyton Manning (when it matters most)
C. There is no "greatest quarterback" between the two of them
D. The New England Patriots are the best franchise during both of their careers

"D" is more important than A, B, or C.

Since the link was lost from BC, here it is again (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ai4UF1-tMKDddGtQdFh4WVpfVC1mSVV0MjZBQXNBQXc&hl=en).

1) I still take exception to your inclusion of the Steelers and not the Eagles :D
2) The question is, is "D" due to the presence of Tom Brady, or is Tom Brady's success the result of D?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

The question is, is "D" due to the presence of Tom Brady, or is Tom Brady's success the result of D?

Why is that a question? As you pose it, it's a question of logic (Is A-->B or B-->A?). But in reality, all we can say for sure is: Tom Brady was the quarterback of the greatest NFL franchise in the last decade. Could they have done it without him? That kind of question is sillier and sillier to me. It's futile.

[Shea Zellweger]

Why is that a question? As you pose it, it's a question of logic (Is A-->B or B-->A?). But in reality, all we can say for sure is: Tom Brady was the quarterback of the greatest NFL franchise in the last decade. Could they have done it without him? That kind of question is sillier and sillier to me. It's futile.

I'm not saying we can definitively answer it, I'm saying that the answer to that question would tell us whether Brady even deserves to be in this discussion. There are ways it could be answered, but none of them are likely to happen.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I'm not saying we can definitively answer it, I'm saying that the answer to that question would tell us whether Brady even deserves to be in this discussion. There are ways it could be answered, but none of them are likely to happen.

Now I'm even more confused. If Tom Brady can't even be in the discussion...? Let me put it this way...how can Peyton Manning be in the discussion? How can Joe Montana be in the discussion? If Tom Brady's not even in the discussion, I'm not sure how there is a discussion.

[Shea Zellweger]

Now I'm even more confused. If Tom Brady can't even be in the discussion...? Let me put it this way...how can Peyton Manning be in the discussion? How can Joe Montana be in the discussion? If Tom Brady's not even in the discussion, I'm not sure how there is a discussion.

Because when any of those guys went down (or were pulled), their teams suffered greatly. This past season, the Colts were 16-1 with Peyton Manning playing the whole game, 0-2 with him being pulled. Yes, Curtis Painter was brand new to starting, but he's an NFL quarterback who was given the ball with a lead in place and could not hold it. When Brady went down for an entire year, the Patriots still came out 11-5, and in any other season they would have been in the playoffs. Matt Cassel is not an elite quarterback, but he managed to win 11 games thanks in large part to a great supporting cast and an excellent head coach, despite the fact that his last start at Quarterback was in a high school game. So, if there were a way to determine whether Brady could be successful apart from the Patriots' system, it would answer very quickly the question of whether or not he deserves to be in this discussion. There are ways, but none of them will happen, so he will remain in the discussion for quite some time. All I'm saying is that if we could know definitively whether it's the player or the system, we'd have our answer about Brady very quickly, and either he would be the greatest QB of all time, or he wouldn't even be top 10.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Because when any of those guys went down (or were pulled), their teams suffered greatly. This past season, the Colts were 16-1 with Peyton Manning playing the whole game, 0-2 with him being pulled. Yes, Curtis Painter was brand new to starting, but he's an NFL quarterback who was given the ball with a lead in place and could not hold it. When Brady went down for an entire year, the Patriots still came out 11-5, and in any other season they would have been in the playoffs. Matt Cassel is not an elite quarterback, but he managed to win 11 games thanks in large part to a great supporting cast and an excellent head coach, despite the fact that his last start at Quarterback was in a high school game. So, if there were a way to determine whether Brady could be successful apart from the Patriots' system, it would answer very quickly the question of whether or not he deserves to be in this discussion. There are ways, but none of them will happen, so he will remain in the discussion for quite some time. All I'm saying is that if we could know definitively whether it's the player or the system, we'd have our answer about Brady very quickly, and either he would be the greatest QB of all time, or he wouldn't even be top 10.

So to recap...you're questioning Tom Brady's ability to be in the discussion of "Greatest Quarterback of All-Time" based on the fact that the Patriots went 11-5 for the one year they were without him, right?

I just want to be clear...


Matt Cassel is not an elite quarterback

How can you be so definitive...? Matt Cassel has played 2.5 years in the NFL...you're basing Tom Brady's ability to be in the discussion of "Greatest Quarterback of All-Time" based on Matt Cassel's first and so far only one year on a franchise that went 2-14 and 4-12 in the two previous years that he got there (their record improved with him on the team, by the way). Not to mention that last year KC had a new general manager, a new head coach, a new offensive coordinator, and I'm sure a dozen new other coaches. For sure, he's not elite, but to throw him out as a decent quarterback is extremely premature.

So that's it? Tom Brady shouldn't be in the discussion of Greatest QB because the KC Chiefs went 4-12 last year with 26-year old Matt Cassel?

I've seen some round-about reasoning before, but that's quite a stretch.

I have no problem with using that one year as a reminder that Tom Brady plays in a heck of a system on the Pats, but to say that it takes him out of the discussion is really stretching it.

[Shea Zellweger]

So to recap...you're questioning Tom Brady's ability to be in the discussion of "Greatest Quarterback of All-Time" based on the fact that the Patriots went 11-5 for the one year they were without him, right?

I just want to be clear...



How can you be so definitive...? Matt Cassel has played 2.5 years in the NFL...you're basing Tom Brady's ability to be in the discussion of "Greatest Quarterback of All-Time" based on Matt Cassel's first and so far only one year on a franchise that went 2-14 and 4-12 in the two previous years that he got there (their record improved with him on the team, by the way). Not to mention that last year KC had a new general manager, a new head coach, a new offensive coordinator, and I'm sure a dozen new other coaches. For sure, he's not elite, but to throw him out as a decent quarterback is extremely premature.

So that's it? Tom Brady shouldn't be in the discussion of Greatest QB because the KC Chiefs went 4-12 last year with 26-year old Matt Cassel?

I've seen some round-about reasoning before, but that's quite a stretch.

I have no problem with using that one year as a reminder that Tom Brady plays in a heck of a system on the Pats, but to say that it takes him out of the discussion is really stretching it.

You seem to be ignoring half of my statement.

I said "All I'm saying is that if we could know definitively whether it's the player or the system, we'd have our answer about Brady very quickly, and either he would be the greatest QB of all time, or he wouldn't even be top 10." For one, that's a really big "if," because as I've stated several times, there are no circumstances under which we could make that determination which would actually happen. However, IF you could demonstrate that Tom Brady is simply the product of the Patriots' system, it would be proof that he is not the greatest of all time. On the other hand, IF you could demonstrate that he was the primary catalyst (or one of the primary catalysts) behind the success of the most successful NFL franchise of any decade, I don't see how there could be any argument against him earning that #1 overall ranking. As far as I can tell, this is where the discussion ends up every time any way, with those who favor Manning, Marino, Montana, Elway, Young, etc. stating that Brady is an average QB on a great team, and those who favor Brady saying he's a great QB on a great team. So, IF you could determine which group is right in that regard, I think you'd have your answer about Brady, and nobody would be able to argue it any longer.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

For one, that's a really big "if"...

There is a point where the bigness of an "if" grows to the point of "not even remotely possible, so might as well not say 'if'".

[Ryan Scott]

I think Matt Cassell's year had more to do with Bellichick shrinking the offense for him and the last remnants of the best team in the league. It's a 16-0 squad that actually improved slightly and finished 11-5. That seems like a fall off to me.

Brady deserves everything he's received. He was a good QB even in college, except Michigan got pressure playing the "big arm" superstar Drew Henson over him.

As I've said before, every QB "in the discussion" has serious drawbacks on his resume, but they're all there for legitimate reasons.

[Shea Zellweger]

They got to the Superbowl because the NFC stunk that year. And they were the best team in it. They were killing bad teams, you know, until they played the AFC, which had good teams.


I had another thought here, so I checked the overall inter-conference records.
AFC East was 12-4
AFC North 9-7
AFC South 9-7
AFC West 10-6
AFC Playoff Teams- 21-3

So overall, The AFC East was the only conference that had a GREAT year against their NFC opponents, which happened to be the NFC North, arguably the weakest division in the conference that year. The AFC was, however, very top-heavy, with its best teams establishing themselves as superior to the NFC.

Were the Bears your typical 13-3 team? I don't think so. In fact, Most folks I knew picked first the Eagles (on the basis of a tougher division) and then the Saints (on the basis of beating the Eagles mixed with a touch of sympathy for Hurricane Katrina) to win the Conference, but the Bears pulled it out, and if anything they proved that defense can't always win championships without help from the offense. The Bears were most certainly over-rated that year, but given the generally superiority of the AFC to the NFC in the last decade, I don't think they were particularly unique from a couple of the teams the Patriots beat at the beginning of the same decade.