Randy Moss waived?

[Shea Zellweger]

Randy Moss has been placed on Waivers (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/How-Randy-Moss-quitting-on-a-play-indirectly-led?urn=nfl-281576)just 4 weeks after the Vikings traded their 3rd round pick to acquire him. Teams now will be given the opportunity (in reverse win-loss order) to claim him. Any speculation as to where he'll end up?

[Dennis M. Scott]

Minnesota waived Randy Moss? I haven't even heard the Boston media response yet. Can someone from away from the Boston market help me get a handle on what's going on? Surely his appreciative comments in Boston last night didn't make anybody THAT mad.

[Bob Hunter]

Randy Moss has been placed on Waivers (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/How-Randy-Moss-quitting-on-a-play-indirectly-led?urn=nfl-281576)just 4 weeks after the Vikings traded their 3rd round pick to acquire him. Teams now will be given the opportunity (in reverse win-loss order) to claim him. Any speculation as to where he'll end up?

The Cleveland Browns could use him. Moss suffers from loose lips disease, he shoulda kept his mouth shut in NE. Now he vows not to talk to the media for the rest of the year. Funny thing is, I don't think his problems were the media's fault. Loose lips sink ships. Luckily, you can still catch the ball, or you would be at home watching the game instead of playing it.

[Shea Zellweger]

The Cleveland Browns could use him. Moss suffers from loose lips disease, he shoulda kept his mouth shut in NE. Now he vows not to talk to the media for the rest of the year. Funny thing is, I don't think his problems were the media's fault. Loose lips sink ships. Luckily, you can still catch the ball, or you would be at home watching the game instead of playing it.

LOL! You know Moss's problem has historically been a refusal to talk to the media, right? He got fined last week for refusing to be available to the press, which is apparently required by the NFL (though it was never a problem in New England). I think Moss knew exactly what he was doing when he stepped up to that microphone, and it probably has to do with him not wanting to be in Minnesota. Of course, as the article I linked to above points out, he was already bailing on the team during the game anyway. The last time Moss had 1 catch for 8 yards was Nov 12, 2006, in his final season with Oakland. He was held to 1 catch on three occasions with New England, and only one of those was in a losing effort. If he had run that play out- and it looks like he didn't- the Vikings very well may have been set up for a win (with an uninjured QB), and that little post-game speech would've probably been seen as respect to his former team... although Childress may still have been mad about it.

And yeah, the Browns could definitely use him.

[Ryan Scott]

San Diego, maybe? Kansas City? Both teams have a good shot at the playoffs. He could help.

[Steven Martinez]

The issue is which team is going to pony up nearly 4 million for the rest of the year? That's a lot of money for a single use player. According to his contract he cannot be franchised either so you are looking for a half season player who admits to quitting. My guess is that he gets snagged by Dallas and if not them then Denver. I think their coach would like to have Moss back on his team. Also with the AFC West up for grabs there is no way that Denver would give San Diego, Oakland or KC a chance to snag Moss.

[Bob Hunter]

The issue is which team is going to pony up nearly 4 million for the rest of the year? That's a lot of money for a single use player. According to his contract he cannot be franchised either so you are looking for a half season player who admits to quitting. My guess is that he gets snagged by Dallas and if not them then Denver. I think their coach would like to have Moss back on his team. Also with the AFC West up for grabs there is no way that Denver would give San Diego, Oakland or KC a chance to snag Moss.

The only thing that makes Denver a questionable destination for Moss is the fact that that Moss doesn't even begin to solve their problems. Actually Orton is connecting with his receivers, he has pretty good stats. The team overall has been plagued with injuries. In addition to that they are on a 4 game skid and McDaniels is looking pretty vulnerable. I just don't think they will spend the $$$ to get Moss when they have much deeper needs. I am pleased that they are using Tim Tebow, he's helping them in the wildcat (as predicted) and has scored a TD in each of the last two games.

[Shea Zellweger]

The only thing that makes Denver a questionable destination for Moss is the fact that that Moss doesn't even begin to solve their problems. Actually Orton is connecting with his receivers, he has pretty good stats. The team overall has been plagued with injuries. In addition to that they are on a 4 game skid and McDaniels is looking pretty vulnerable. I just don't think they will spend the $$$ to get Moss when they have much deeper needs. I am pleased that they are using Tim Tebow, he's helping them in the wildcat (as predicted) and has scored a TD in each of the last two games.

Mcdaniels has experience with Moss, and Moss would provide the deep threat the Broncos need. Yeah, Orton is hitting his receivers, but his receivers will be open more often and easier to hit if they can stretch the defense.

[Hal Kreps]

Moss, TO and 85 can all be great players but all suffer from mouth overload. They will be problems anywhere they go.

[John Brickley]

Yahoo sports posted one article that suggested that the Pats are interested in re signing Moss. As a Pats fan I would not be happy about that at all. I think that Brady was too focused on Moss and it resulted in their offense become two dimensional between Moss and Welker. The way they are playing now is much more like the teams that actually won Superbowls and not just regular seasons.

Having said that Belichick is a master collector of draft picks, but if they re-sign Moss this would be a first even for him, a 3rd round pick for renting Moss to the Vikings for four weeks. Regardless of what happens Belichick is going to come out of this looking like a genius and Childress a moron, but then I guess we already knew that.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Seriously...everyone loves to pile on Belichick outside of New England, but the man is the reason why a team with such a lack of talent like the Pats have the best record in the NFL and a team coached by Childress with all sorts of talent is 2-5. Time and again people ridicule him for letting certain players go, yet no one has more wins in the NFL in the last decade (or since 2000, take your pick) than Bill Belichick's Patriots. The big mark against him in later years is drafting, but this year's class is looking pretty good (only seven games in, but good nonetheless).

Everyone laughed four weeks ago at the trade.

...anyone laughing now?

[Ryan Scott]

I've heard a lot of people saying St. Louis - since they're QB is working out so well, but lacks receivers.

Also, I'll echo Bill Simmons and say NE would be great. Belichick would have to get serious credit for trading Randy Moss for a 3rd Round pick... and Randy Moss.

[David Morris]

Seriously...everyone loves to pile on Belichick outside of New England, but the man is the reason why a team with such a lack of talent like the Pats have the best record in the NFL and a team coached by Childress with all sorts of talent is 2-5. Time and again people ridicule him for letting certain players go, yet no one has more wins in the NFL in the last decade (or since 2000, take your pick) than Bill Belichick's Patriots. The big mark against him in later years is drafting, but this year's class is looking pretty good (only seven games in, but good nonetheless).

Everyone laughed four weeks ago at the trade.

...anyone laughing now?

Patriots fans love to think they do so much with very little. Such a lack of talent? Seriously?

2009: 7 Pro Bowlers, 2 First Team All Pro
2008: 3 Pro Bowlers, 1 First Team All Pro
2007: 8 Pro Bowlers, 5 First Team All Pro
2006: 2 Pro Bowlers
2005: 2 Pro Bowlers, 1 First Team All Pro

That doesn't seem to me like "a team with such a lack of talent." That line describes a team like Tampa Bay, Oakland, or Kansas City. I would like to see how the Patriots do the 2nd half of the season, after playing the Colts, Packers, Steelers, and Jets again. Don't take me wrong, I don't like the Patriots, but I will admit they are a great team with a great coach. However, they have plenty of talent.

[Benjamin Burch]

Patriots fans love to think they do so much with very little. Such a lack of talent? Seriously?

2009: 7 Pro Bowlers, 2 First Team All Pro
2008: 3 Pro Bowlers, 1 First Team All Pro
2007: 8 Pro Bowlers, 5 First Team All Pro
2006: 2 Pro Bowlers
2005: 2 Pro Bowlers, 1 First Team All Pro

That doesn't seem to me like "a team with such a lack of talent." That line describes a team like Tampa Bay, Oakland, or Kansas City. I would like to see how the Patriots do the 2nd half of the season, after playing the Colts, Packers, Steelers, and Jets again. Don't take me wrong, I don't like the Patriots, but I will admit they are a great team with a great coach. However, they have plenty of talent.

2 and 3 pro-bowlers is not much. Especially considering that was Brady and probably O-Linemen.

Also, the Dolphins should be on that list of teams with the Jets, Packers, Steelers, and Colts.

[Mike Schutz]

http://sports.espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/30766/possible-interest-in-randy-moss

[Billie Goodson]

The issue is which team is going to pony up nearly 4 million for the rest of the year? That's a lot of money for a single use player. According to his contract he cannot be franchised either so you are looking for a half season player who admits to quitting. My guess is that he gets snagged by Dallas and if not them then Denver. I think their coach would like to have Moss back on his team. Also with the AFC West up for grabs there is no way that Denver would give San Diego, Oakland or KC a chance to snag Moss.

If they let Moss clear waivers, then the cost could be much cheaper -- with the ability to negotiate a longer term deal. IF anyone wants to take the chance. If the Pats re-sign him after waivers, they would really look brilliant. Get a third round pick, then sign him to a cheaper deal! I would then be the first to say that Belichick is an outright genius to go along with being a master manipulator.

[Shea Zellweger]

Patriots fans love to think they do so much with very little. Such a lack of talent? Seriously?

2009: 7 Pro Bowlers, 2 First Team All Pro
2008: 3 Pro Bowlers, 1 First Team All Pro
2007: 8 Pro Bowlers, 5 First Team All Pro
2006: 2 Pro Bowlers
2005: 2 Pro Bowlers, 1 First Team All Pro

That doesn't seem to me like "a team with such a lack of talent." That line describes a team like Tampa Bay, Oakland, or Kansas City. I would like to see how the Patriots do the 2nd half of the season, after playing the Colts, Packers, Steelers, and Jets again. Don't take me wrong, I don't like the Patriots, but I will admit they are a great team with a great coach. However, they have plenty of talent.

The Patriots of 2010 (not listed in your analysis) are the epitome of a rebuilding team. There was a stat box on CBS during their 4th game stating that for the first time in Belichik's tenure, the Pats had started something like 18 or more rookies and 2nd year players every game to that point. IF there were no overlap on special teams (and there is), that would still be more than half of the team. According to all the information I'm finding, the Pats had 4 players elected to the Pro Bowl last year (none of them Moss), and two of those were starters- Logan Mankins and Vince Wilfork. Wilfork is no longer a Patriot, and Mankins is expected to rejoin the team from an extended holdout today, meaning they haven't had him up to this point. That leaves Brady and Welker as the only Pro Bowlers on the Pats' roster through the first 7 games. Those two are quite talented, but they are far from proof of an extensive amount of talent on the team.

[Benjamin Burch]

The Patriots of 2010 (not listed in your analysis) are the epitome of a rebuilding team. There was a stat box on CBS during their 4th game stating that for the first time in Belichik's tenure, the Pats had started something like 18 or more rookies and 2nd year players every game to that point. IF there were no overlap on special teams (and there is), that would still be more than half of the team. According to all the information I'm finding, the Pats had 4 players elected to the Pro Bowl last year (none of them Moss), and two of those were starters- Logan Mankins and Vince Wilfork. Wilfork is no longer a Patriot, and Mankins is expected to rejoin the team from an extended holdout today, meaning they haven't had him up to this point. That leaves Brady and Welker as the only Pro Bowlers on the Pats' roster through the first 7 games. Those two are quite talented, but they are far from proof of an extensive amount of talent on the team.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5546

smh...????

[Jeremy D. Scott]

That doesn't seem to me like "a team with such a lack of talent." That line describes a team like Tampa Bay, Oakland, or Kansas City. I would like to see how the Patriots do the 2nd half of the season, after playing the Colts, Packers, Steelers, and Jets again. Don't take me wrong, I don't like the Patriots, but I will admit they are a great team with a great coach. However, they have plenty of talent.

You missed my point. Obviously I think they have talent - I think that they've had the best QB in the league the last decade. My point was that in the NFL, a coach can make all the difference. If Belichick were coaching the talent that Minnesota has, they wouldn't be 2-5 (though, it might be well-said that Belichick wouldn't put up with Brett Favre). Belichick has done things that people have winced at, and still yet found ways to win games with the players he has. So it's not a big deal to him to trade away the second greatest deep-threat WR of all-time for nothing but a 3rd rounder.

Also, your point is weakened by the fact that you chose to list only years that the Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl. Why'd you do that? Oh yeah...because the Patriots won those SuperBowls with players that weren't exactly fantasy-football-worthy.

[Shea Zellweger]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5546

smh...????

wow... that was a complete brain fart. Turns out Vince Wilfork and Mike Vrabel are not the same person anywhere other than my mind when I don't check my facts.

[David Morris]

The Patriots of 2010 (not listed in your analysis) are the epitome of a rebuilding team. There was a stat box on CBS during their 4th game stating that for the first time in Belichik's tenure, the Pats had started something like 18 or more rookies and 2nd year players every game to that point. IF there were no overlap on special teams (and there is), that would still be more than half of the team.

Not sure where this stat came from. The only offensive starters that are rookies or second year players are Brandon Tate (WR) and Sebastian Vollmer (OL).

More on defense, with 2nd year players Kyle Arrington (CB) and Pat Chung (FS) starting with rookies Devin McCourty (CB) and Brandon Spikes (LB).

I count 2 rookies and 4 second year players starting...not 18. Perhaps 18 rookies and 2nd year players see action, but that is far different than saying 18 of them start.


According to all the information I'm finding, the Pats had 4 players elected to the Pro Bowl last year (none of them Moss), and two of those were starters- Logan Mankins and Vince Wilfork. Wilfork is no longer a Patriot, and Mankins is expected to rejoin the team from an extended holdout today, meaning they haven't had him up to this point.

Ummm...well, I see you already took care of this slip.



That leaves Brady and Welker as the only Pro Bowlers on the Pats' roster through the first 7 games. Those two are quite talented, but they are far from proof of an extensive amount of talent on the team.

There is an extensive amount of talent on the team. It is filled with plenty Pro Bowl caliber players and led by a competent coaching staff. The surprise is not the Patriots being 6-1 at this point, but it would be if they were playing .500 ball.

[David Morris]

You missed my point. Obviously I think they have talent - I think that they've had the best QB in the league the last decade. My point was that in the NFL, a coach can make all the difference. If Belichick were coaching the talent that Minnesota has, they wouldn't be 2-5 (though, it might be well-said that Belichick wouldn't put up with Brett Favre).

So why couldn't the best coach in NFL history (in your mind) win the Super Bowl with all the talent? Wouldn't that be proof he couldn't do it in Minnesota?

And I agree, BB wouldn't even think about making a call to Favre, he knows better than that.


Belichick has done things that people have winced at, and still yet found ways to win games with the players he has. So it's not a big deal to him to trade away the second greatest deep-threat WR of all-time for nothing but a 3rd rounder.

A coach can make a huge difference, I would agree. But you love to believe you have half an arena league team playing in New England, when in reality the team is filled with talent. And Moss is not all he is cracked up to be. He can be lazy, play well in contract years, and complain...and make millions doing so. In his career year, he doesn't even win the big game.

By the way, who do you think the #1 deep threat of all time is?


Also, your point is weakened by the fact that you chose to list only years that the Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl. Why'd you do that? Oh yeah...because the Patriots won those SuperBowls with players that weren't exactly fantasy-football-worthy.

Why did I do that? Because I didn't think of adding more years, to be honest. I was trying to prove that they aren't necessarily rebuilding (and I don't know what the exact criteria is that says, "yes, this is a rebuilding year."). So safe to say, I did miss your point. Let me attempt to recover though, with SB winning seasons:

2001: 5 Pro Bowlers
2003: 3 Pro Bowlers, 3 First Team All Pro
2004: 5 Pro Bowlers, 2 First Team All Pro

So I would say they were right there in the mix with more recent years as far as talent is concerned. I am not looking for "fantasy-football-worthy" players, but look at the stats and you will see they have guys, on both sides of the ball, that produced.

I admit they are a great team (although not unanimously the best of the decade). They have great players with a great coach, but BB has always had the talent around him to do well. Not sure why he could only muster one winning season with the Browns, and it took getting Tom Brady to do anything with the Patriots.

[Benjamin Burch]

In his career year, he doesn't even win the big game.

What does that have to do with anything? The opposing team played amazing defense and kept Brady out of rhythm. What power does Moss have against that? This is not even a "point." It's just rhetoric.



By the way, who do you think the #1 deep threat of all time is?


I'm interested in the answer to this question as well. Personally, I don't think anyone has ever been as good as Moss (as a deep threat)





I admit they are a great team (although not unanimously the best of the decade). They have great players with a great coach, but BB has always had the talent around him to do well. Not sure why he could only muster one winning season with the Browns, and it took getting Tom Brady to do anything with the Patriots.

I think Bellicheck's coaching is the reason players have made pro-bowls. Lol. Brady without Bellicheck and without the best O-Line ever = a guy who goes down as a mediocre QB.

Bellicheck - along with the OLine - have made Brady. Brady is a perfect example of how good Bellicheck is without amazing talent. Not to mention the fact that Teddi Bruschi and Mike Vrabel were stars on his teams. Without Bellicheck neither of those two guys would have ever become pro-bowlers at their positions.

I think it's undeniable that the Patriots have never had the most talent in the league aside from one year. That one year they were simply beat by a team with the better defense. I'm not seeing any argument that says they have had more talent than anyone else or even top-tier talent.

[David Morris]

2 and 3 pro-bowlers is not much. Especially considering that was Brady and probably O-Linemen.

Also, the Dolphins should be on that list of teams with the Jets, Packers, Steelers, and Colts.

Going back to 2001, when New England won their first of three Super Bowls:

List of Tom Brady and Offensive Lineman Selected as Pro Bowlers
(* denotes that player was also selected First Team All Pro)

2001: Brady (of 5 Pro Bowlers)
2002: One OL (of 5 Pro Bowlers and 1 All Pro)
2003: None (3 Pro Bowlers and 3 All Pro)
2004: Brady (5 Pro Bowlers and 2 All Pro)
2005: Brady (2 Pro Bowlers and 1 All Pro)
2006: One OL (2 Pro Bowlers)
2007: Brady* and 3 OL* (8 Pro Bowlers and 5 All Pro)
2008: None (3 Pro Bowlers and 1 All Pro)
2009: Brady and 1 OL (7 Pro Bowlers and 2 All Pro)

So from 2001-2009, Patriots players were voted in 40 times as Pro Bowlers and 15 times as First Team All Pro. 11 of those 40 times were Brady and/or an offensive lineman being selected as the Pro Bowler, and 2 of 15 times as the player being selected First Team All Pro. So, 2 or 3 pro bowlers may not be much, but the Patriots average 4.5 every year since 2001, and only 28% of the time was it "Brady and probably O-Linemen." There has been plenty of talent on the Patriots roster since 2001, and that continues today.

And the Dolphins are still a season or two away from being up there with the Jets, Packers, Steelers, and Colts.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

There is an extensive amount of talent on the team. It is filled with plenty Pro Bowl caliber players and led by a competent coaching staff. The surprise is not the Patriots being 6-1 at this point, but it would be if they were playing .500 ball.

Competent? Calling Belichick competent is like calling Peyton Manning mediocre.

And before the season, few would have said that the Patriots would have the best record at this point. Their first seven games were to be pretty difficult (NYJ, Baltimore (away), San Diego (away), Minnesota).


So why couldn't the best coach in NFL history (in your mind) win the Super Bowl with all the talent? Wouldn't that be proof he couldn't do it in Minnesota?

He did. Three out of four times thus far. "Best" means better than anyone else, not "perfect." Name someone better. Actually, forget that...my point was that Bill Belichick would do better than any other coach with any set of talent today. You're really disputing that?


And Moss is not all he is cracked up to be. By the way, who do you think the #1 deep threat of all time is?
Yes he is. Jerry Rice.

(If you even come back with something about Marvin Harrison, I'll puke (and I'm a big fan of Syracuse alums).


I admit they are a great team (although not unanimously the best of the decade).

Oh good grief, here we go again. You're right...it's not unanimous, there are always some wayward voters.


They have great players with a great coach, but BB has always had the talent around him to do well. Not sure why he could only muster one winning season with the Browns, and it took getting Tom Brady to do anything with the Patriots.

Okay, folks...which is it when it comes to the last decade:
Is Tom Brady "just" a system's QB? (thus not making him the best QB)
Is Bill Belichick successful just because of Tom Brady? (thus not making him the best coach)
Or is it some combination of these? (thus making the Pats the best team)

Something's gotta break. You all talk in circles about the Pats. I don't mind people hating on a team for their success, but even I can say that the Yankees are the best baseball team of all time and I'm a Sox fan.

[Shea Zellweger]

Not sure where this stat came from. The only offensive starters that are rookies or second year players are Brandon Tate (WR) and Sebastian Vollmer (OL).

More on defense, with 2nd year players Kyle Arrington (CB) and Pat Chung (FS) starting with rookies Devin McCourty (CB) and Brandon Spikes (LB).

I count 2 rookies and 4 second year players starting...not 18. Perhaps 18 rookies and 2nd year players see action, but that is far different than saying 18 of them start.
there were 25 on the roster at the start of the season (See here (http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/columns/story?columnist=reiss_mike&id=5441174))
23 Remain (http://www.theday.com/article/20101102/SPORT14/311029849/1044), and there are 5 rookies starting on defense alone- not 2 on the entire team. Based on the Yahoo depth chart, there are up to 7 rookies who start (depending on formation of the first offensive play), and that's not getting into 2nd year players.



Ummm...well, I see you already took care of this slip.

Yes, they have 3 pro bowlers instead of 2. That's a huge increase in the talent pool.




There is an extensive amount of talent on the team. It is filled with plenty Pro Bowl caliber players and led by a competent coaching staff. The surprise is not the Patriots being 6-1 at this point, but it would be if they were playing .500 ball.

I'm pretty sure the surprise is indeed the Patriots being 6-1 at this point. I'm having trouble finding anybody who went on record predicting the Pats would be on track for 12-14 wins at the halfway mark, and I've been living in Patriot land since OTAs started. Even as recently as Sunday's pregame show there were still guys whose sole job it is to cover the Pats saying that this team is not as talented as their record indicates. their opinions may have changed in the last 54 hours, but I doubt it. This was supposed to be a rebuilding year. It was supposed to be a restocking year. Somehow, the coach in the hooded shirt has found a way to extract every ounce of talent from his players. I'm not inclined to give Brady nearly as much credit as others on this board, because I believe the Belichik system is responsible for his success, just as it is for the majority of other players on the Pats' roster. How many players have we seen leave for greener pastures, only to watch their stats plummet once they're away from Gilette? I agree with Ben that the coach is creating the pro bowlers, not being handed pro bowlers ready made.

[Benjamin Burch]

Something's gotta break. You all talk in circles about the Pats. I don't mind people hating on a team for their success, but even I can say that the Yankees are the best baseball team of all time and I'm a Sox fan.

I don't think I've ever talked in circles. :) I think I've consistenly given the credit to BB and to the management for getting the right players on the team to do what BB wanted and trust him. "Right" in no way equals best. In fact, I agree that usually "right" specifically meant "not the best."

Brady was the right guy because he knew that BB was the key to him becoming a great QB. Same for plenty of other players who have won with that team.

My Answer:

Patriots are undisputedly the best team since 2000. They have the best coach in the history of the NFL and a brilliant, rutheless, stingy management crew that has worked hard to put all the right guys in the right places to play for BB.

[David Morris]

What does that have to do with anything? The opposing team played amazing defense and kept Brady out of rhythm. What power does Moss have against that? This is not even a "point." It's just rhetoric.

So we can knock other greats for not winning the big game, like quarterbacks, but not receivers? It has to do with the fact Moss isn't as great as we may want to make him out to be. No rhetoric involved.




I'm interested in the answer to this question as well. Personally, I don't think anyone has ever been as good as Moss (as a deep threat)

Jerry Rice is my guess.





I think Bellicheck's coaching is the reason players have made pro-bowls. Lol. Brady without Bellicheck and without the best O-Line ever = a guy who goes down as a mediocre QB.

Bellicheck - along with the OLine - have made Brady. Brady is a perfect example of how good Bellicheck is without amazing talent. Not to mention the fact that Teddi Bruschi and Mike Vrabel were stars on his teams. Without Bellicheck neither of those two guys would have ever become pro-bowlers at their positions.

I think it's undeniable that the Patriots have never had the most talent in the league aside from one year. That one year they were simply beat by a team with the better defense. I'm not seeing any argument that says they have had more talent than anyone else or even top-tier talent.

Does the team with the most talent always win the Super Bowl? I think if you look back at the last 10 years, it would be an immediate no. You may not see the argument because you look at the wrong things or simply choose not to listen. The year the Ravens won a super bowl they had a mediocre QB in Trent Dilfer, but had a great offensive line and one of the greatest defenses ever that year. The Patriots, in the last 10 years, have had superior special team, GREAT defenses, and incredible offensive lines, and a pretty good QB. They may not have 10 great names on their team, but they have a great TEAM. It's just saying we have Matt Light and Ty Law doesn't sound as sexy as saying we have Ladanian Tomlinson or Ray Lewis.

I think the greater argument here, as with much of sports, is figuring out the relationship between players and coaches success. How would Brady do coaching the Texans? How would Phil Jackson do coaching the Bulls now? How would Joe Torre do if he had been coaching the Red Sox instead of the Yankees in the late 90's? I would be interested in researching those.

[Benjamin Burch]

So we can knock other greats for not winning the big game, like quarterbacks, but not receivers? It has to do with the fact Moss isn't as great as we may want to make him out to be. No rhetoric involved.


No. We can't knock other greats. Not unless you can point to a way in which their individual performance specifically led to the loss - such as a QB throwing multiples unforced errors/INTs... a Kicker missing multiple must-make FGs... a RB or WR fumbling on big plays where there is no excuse.

But each of those is subjective in its own right. Was the throw really an error, or did the defense disguise it's coverage perfectly? (a la Harrison against Warner)...

Was the fumble obviously the offensive players fault or did the defender just make a brilliant play?

Was the missed field goal due to the kicker or the holder, or the snap?

The fact is that no individual should ever get the credit for any championship in any sport. Period. Championships do not reflect on players. Failures may, but even that's rare.

Championships reflect on teams. Great teams need everything to go right in the course of playing better as a whole unit (players and coaches) in order to beat the other great team they're facing. No single player is ever the reason one team triumphs.

Most losses are simply a matter of the other unit as a whole simply getting the job done on that specific day.

I think this is a myth we've told ourselves over the years and nothing else.

[Shea Zellweger]

Going back to 2001, when New England won their first of three Super Bowls:

List of Tom Brady and Offensive Lineman Selected as Pro Bowlers
(* denotes that player was also selected First Team All Pro)

2001: Brady (of 5 Pro Bowlers)
2002: One OL (of 5 Pro Bowlers and 1 All Pro)
2003: None (3 Pro Bowlers and 3 All Pro)
2004: Brady (5 Pro Bowlers and 2 All Pro)
2005: Brady (2 Pro Bowlers and 1 All Pro)
2006: One OL (2 Pro Bowlers)
2007: Brady* and 3 OL* (8 Pro Bowlers and 5 All Pro)
2008: None (3 Pro Bowlers and 1 All Pro)
2009: Brady and 1 OL (7 Pro Bowlers and 2 All Pro)

So from 2001-2009, Patriots players were voted in 40 times as Pro Bowlers and 15 times as First Team All Pro. 11 of those 40 times were Brady and/or an offensive lineman being selected as the Pro Bowler, and 2 of 15 times as the player being selected First Team All Pro. So, 2 or 3 pro bowlers may not be much, but the Patriots average 4.5 every year since 2001, and only 28% of the time was it "Brady and probably O-Linemen." There has been plenty of talent on the Patriots roster since 2001, and that continues today.

And the Dolphins are still a season or two away from being up there with the Jets, Packers, Steelers, and Colts.

Okay, I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but at least one set are wrong- 2009. If by "2009" you mean the Pro Bowl which took place in '09 (after the '08 season), the Patriots had 2 players selected to the Pro Bowl- Wes Welker (as a reserve) and Stephen Gostkowski. If by "2009" you mean the Pro Bowl which took place after the '09 season (in '10), which I assume is the case since you said Brady played, then the Pats had 4 selections- Brady, Welker, Wilfork, and Mankins. Maybe you're counting alternates and additions to the roster made due to injury or withdrawal, I don't know, but you're giving higher numbers than I can find.



Okay, folks...which is it when it comes to the last decade:
Is Tom Brady "just" a system's QB? (thus not making him the best QB)
Is Bill Belichick successful just because of Tom Brady? (thus not making him the best coach)
Or is it some combination of these? (thus making the Pats the best team)

Something's gotta break. You all talk in circles about the Pats. I don't mind people hating on a team for their success, but even I can say that the Yankees are the best baseball team of all time and I'm a Sox fan.

BB system all the way ;)

[David Morris]

Competent? Calling Belichick competent is like calling Peyton Manning mediocre.

And before the season, few would have said that the Patriots would have the best record at this point. Their first seven games were to be pretty difficult (NYJ, Baltimore (away), San Diego (away), Minnesota).

No, San Diego should not be on that list. If the first 7 were to be difficult, what about the 2nd half of the schedule?


[QUOTE=Jeremy D. Scott;36202]He did. Three out of four times thus far. "Best" means better than anyone else, not "perfect." Name someone better. Actually, forget that...my point was that Bill Belichick would do better than any other coach with any set of talent today. You're really disputing that?

Yes, I am. With the 2007 season, I was asking why, if BB had better talent, they weren't the best team that year? You didn't answer that.



Yes he is. Jerry Rice.

(If you even come back with something about Marvin Harrison, I'll puke (and I'm a big fan of Syracuse alums).

You may not like me, but please don't think I am stupid.



Oh good grief, here we go again. You're right...it's not unanimous, there are always some wayward voters.

Okay, folks...which is it when it comes to the last decade:
Is Tom Brady "just" a system's QB? (thus not making him the best QB)
Is Bill Belichick successful just because of Tom Brady? (thus not making him the best coach)
Or is it some combination of these? (thus making the Pats the best team)

Something's gotta break. You all talk in circles about the Pats. I don't mind people hating on a team for their success, but even I can say that the Yankees are the best baseball team of all time and I'm a Sox fan.

So what do you base it on? Do you rank every team in order of Super Bowl wins and appearances, and whoever has the most is the best team of the decade? What criteria do you base it on?

[Benjamin Burch]

Yes, I am. With the 2007 season, I was asking why, if BB had better talent, they weren't the best team that year? You didn't answer that.


They were the "best team" that year. They were just simply out-played on one given Sunday by another great team. I don't understand why we can't talk about sports that way. The result was also the product of a few lucky plays. Kinda like New Orlean's success on the on-side kick last year.

An onside kick is greatly dependent upon the bounce and the kicker cannot control that. He can influence it by kicking it a certain way but the fact is that an oddly shaped ball will take unpredictable bounces. The bounce gave them a chance and they capitalized. The result could have been different simply off the bounce of the football. Or maybe the other individual on the Colts team makes the play.

The fact is that football is played in one-game series. That means that you get one chance. It's nice, it's fun, but it certainly doesn't mean that the other team is better. It could. Often it does. But that's why basketball and baseball have 7-game series. It greatly decreases the odds of the inferior team winning over the course of the series. They may win the first game, but the better team will adjust/get off their slump/etc. Even that doesn't always happen (Look at the Giants this year!)

[David Morris]

Okay, I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but at least one set are wrong- 2009. If by "2009" you mean the Pro Bowl which took place in '09 (after the '08 season), the Patriots had 2 players selected to the Pro Bowl- Wes Welker (as a reserve) and Stephen Gostkowski. If by "2009" you mean the Pro Bowl which took place after the '09 season (in '10), which I assume is the case since you said Brady played, then the Pats had 4 selections- Brady, Welker, Wilfork, and Mankins. Maybe you're counting alternates and additions to the roster made due to injury or withdrawal, I don't know, but you're giving higher numbers than I can find.

This is the website (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/) I have been using to find most of the stats.


there were 25 on the roster at the start of the season (See here)
23 Remain, and there are 5 rookies starting on defense alone- not 2 on the entire team. Based on the Yahoo depth chart, there are up to 7 rookies who start (depending on formation of the first offensive play), and that's not getting into 2nd year players.

How many rookies and 2nd year players are on the roster doesn't mean a whole lot...who starts and has significant playing time is what counts. Last year the COLTS had 29 rookies and second year players, but far be it from anyone on here to give them credit for anything (by the way, they went to the Super Bowl). I based rookie and second year starters from the depth chart provided by the team website, thought that would be accurate. If a rookie starts the first defensive play of the game but only plays 20% of the game, I guess they technically count as a starter, but I would hope we would both agree that it would be more significant if he played at least half the game.

[David Morris]

there were 25 on the roster at the start of the season (See here (http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/columns/story?columnist=reiss_mike&id=5441174))
23 Remain (http://www.theday.com/article/20101102/SPORT14/311029849/1044), and there are 5 rookies starting on defense alone- not 2 on the entire team. Based on the Yahoo depth chart, there are up to 7 rookies who start (depending on formation of the first offensive play), and that's not getting into 2nd year players.

So with 29 rookies and second year players in the 2009 season, were the COLTS in rebuilding mode last year, in your opinion?

[Shea Zellweger]

No, San Diego should not be on that list. If the first 7 were to be difficult, what about the 2nd half of the schedule?
Really? San Diego away has always been a hard game. I don't think anybody expected the Chargers to do as poorly as they have this season, but for sure it was expected that they would give the Pats a hard time in that game. Jeremy is talking about pre-season expectations, and you're answering him with hindsight observations.





Yes, I am. With the 2007 season, I was asking why, if BB had better talent, they weren't the best team that year? You didn't answer that.

They WERE the best team that year. I was rooting against them every game from week 7 on, and was convinced that if any of the NFC East playoff teams that year could get to the super Bowl, they had the tools to take the Patriots down, but there is no way I'd ever say they weren't the best team of the year.



So what do you base it on? Do you rank every team in order of Super Bowl wins and appearances, and whoever has the most is the best team of the decade? What criteria do you base it on?

The Patriots have the 2nd most regular season wins in the last 11 years. They have the most playoff wins, Super Bowl wins, and Super Bowl appearances. Yes, the Colts have 3 more regular season wins, but I'm pretty sure the Patriots more than make up for that in the post season. I'll back you all the way on Peyton Manning, but when it comes to the Colts as a whole... not so much.

[David Morris]

They were the "best team" that year. They were just simply out-played on one given Sunday by another great team. I don't understand why we can't talk about sports that way. The result was also the product of a few lucky plays. Kinda like New Orlean's success on the on-side kick last year.

An onside kick is greatly dependent upon the bounce and the kicker cannot control that. He can influence it by kicking it a certain way but the fact is that an oddly shaped ball will take unpredictable bounces. The bounce gave them a chance and they capitalized. The result could have been different simply off the bounce of the football. Or maybe the other individual on the Colts team makes the play.

The fact is that football is played in one-game series. That means that you get one chance. It's nice, it's fun, but it certainly doesn't mean that the other team is better. It could. Often it does. But that's why basketball and baseball have 7-game series. It greatly decreases the odds of the inferior team winning over the course of the series. They may win the first game, but the better team will adjust/get off their slump/etc. Even that doesn't always happen (Look at the Giants this year!)

You tell me. I think the Colts have been (arguably) the best team of the decade. They didn't miss the playoffs at all, had the most regular season wins, won a super bowl, and didn't have to cheat (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677) to do it.

[Shea Zellweger]

So with 29 rookies and second year players in the 2009 season, were the COLTS in rebuilding mode last year, in your opinion?

logically, yes, they should have been considered as such, and nobody was expecting them to win their first 14 games. No need to capitalize the whole thing, try as you may, I shan't bow down to the pentagrammaton.

[David Morris]

Really? San Diego away has always been a hard game. I don't think anybody expected the Chargers to do as poorly as they have this season, but for sure it was expected that they would give the Pats a hard time in that game. Jeremy is talking about pre-season expectations, and you're answering him with hindsight observations.

Well, half the season is over. Why address pre-season expectations?

[David Morris]

logically, yes, they should have been considered as such, and nobody was expecting them to win their first 14 games. No need to capitalize the whole thing, try as you may, I shan't bow down to the pentagrammaton.

The COLTS will be in a rebuilding year the day Peyton leaves.

And I had to dictionary the pentagrammaton word.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Yes, the Colts have 3 more regular season wins, but I'm pretty sure the Patriots more than make up for that in the post season.

Actually, it's 2 more regular season wins (what does that even MEAN?). Overall, it's 132-53 (Pats) and 129-55 (Colts). But the most telling numbers are 3-1 and 1-1, no explanation needed.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Well, half the season is over. Why address pre-season expectations?

YOU were the one that used the word "surprise". How else can we define surprise?

[Shea Zellweger]

Well, half the season is over. Why address pre-season expectations?

Have you not been keeping track of the conversation? This whole side track began with the statement that nobody expected the Patriots to be 6-1, to which you said you would have been surprised if they were .500 (not sure how one does that after 7 games). That's a conversation about pre-season expectations. You can't just revise your historical opinions and act like people saw this coming at the beginning of the season, that's not how it works, and that's not what Jeremy's talking about. He's talking about his pre-season expectations, and how the Patriots have exceeded them, and it's only logical to answer in kind.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

...and didn't have to cheat (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677) to do it.

Well that took you longer than I expected.
:horse:

[Benjamin Burch]

You tell me. I think the Colts have been (arguably) the best team of the decade. They didn't miss the playoffs at all, had the most regular season wins, won a super bowl, and didn't have to cheat (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677) to do it.

The total success of the Patriots is more than the Colts. Period. In every way. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise. In fact, the Patriots only missed the playoffs 2 seasons in that time-frame.

2002 - 9-7 missed playoffs on a tie-breaker
2008 - 11-5 Missed the playoffs on a tie-breaker

Both of those seasons easily could have gone another way which would have led to them making the playoffs. Not to mention, 11-5 was accomplished with a QB who had never started a game in his life - at any level of football. You can't tell me that with Brady they couldn't have easily gone 12-4 and made the playoffs... changing both their regular season wins, total wins, playoff appearances, and overall winning percentage over the course of the decade...

I simply don't think there is an argument to be made.

[David Morris]

Actually, it's 2 more regular season wins (what does that even MEAN?). Overall, it's 132-53 (Pats) and 129-55 (Colts). But the most telling numbers are 3-1 and 1-1, no explanation needed.

In some ways the colts have been the more consistent team, having never missed the playoffs. When the Patriots won, they did so in dominating fashion. I would agree...I will take 10 more losses and 2 more super bowl wins. I doubt BB and Brady meet over coffee and lament the fact that the Colts have 2 or 3 more regular season wins. They just sit and laugh.

[Benjamin Burch]

David,

Believe you me.... I'm a Dolphins fan. No matter how much you may hate the Patriots as a Colts fan, it doesn't even begin to lick the shoes of my hatred for them.

Dolphins fans really only care about 4 games a year...

A 4-12 season where we sweep the Jets and Pats is a more successful season than a Super Bowl loss where we beat the Pats and Jets 3-1 throughout the season. The only thing that makes up for a single loss to either of those teams is a Super Bowl victory. Anything else is a complete failure.

[David Morris]

YOU were the one that used the word "surprise". How else can we define surprise?


Have you not been keeping track of the conversation? This whole side track began with the statement that nobody expected the Patriots to be 6-1, to which you said you would have been surprised if they were .500 (not sure how one does that after 7 games). That's a conversation about pre-season expectations. You can't just revise your historical opinions and act like people saw this coming at the beginning of the season, that's not how it works, and that's not what Jeremy's talking about. He's talking about his pre-season expectations, and how the Patriots have exceeded them, and it's only logical to answer in kind.

At the beginning of the season, here were my expectations. The Jets will choke, the Dolphins will be a .500 team, and the Patriots will win the division. Won't even bother mentioning the Bills. I don't care what some "expert" said with his pre-season expectations. I am not surprised the Patriots are 6-1. I would be if they were 1-6.

And Shea, I said I would be surprised if they were playing .500 ball. You are getting to technical, talking as if I don't even possess mediocre math skills. Playing .500 ball in my mind is a team that has some talent, but doesn't win close games. Teams "playing .500 ball" are teams like the Bears, Texans, and Cardinals. They win some, they lose some, and they aren't going anywhere into the post season. I realize after playing 7 games, you can't be a .500 team.

[David Morris]

Well that took you longer than I expected.
:horse:

May be beating a dead horse, but you can't argue the truth on that.

[Shea Zellweger]

And Shea, I said I would be surprised if they were playing .500 ball. You are getting to technical, talking as if I don't even possess mediocre math skills. Playing .500 ball in my mind is a team that has some talent, but doesn't win close games. Teams "playing .500 ball" are teams like the Bears, Texans, and Cardinals. They win some, they lose some, and they aren't going anywhere into the post season. I realize after playing 7 games, you can't be a .500 team.

okay, I was not attempting to insult you, it was just an oddity that occurred to me as I was writing the post.

You may not care about what the experts said, but I happened to agree with most of them that the Patriots had just as much of a shot at 7-9 as they did at 11-5. Even if you thought the Pats would win the division, can you honestly say you thought they'd be doing THIS well- even better than the Colts?

[Steven Martinez]

First of Hoodie is an excellent coach. His first Super Bowl victory should have never happened as I believe the Pats were not ready to win it all that year but BB really coached them up and got them to believe that a back up QB could take them to a title. The two back to back titles were a result of good coaching and good talent development which is a mixture of coaching and front office abilities. The years where the Pats did not make it to the Super Bowl were probably more a reflection of a distracted team. Belichick was having an affair and then went through a divorce while Brady had his off field issues. Of course they lost their coordinators to coaching gigs and their talent alone could not push them to the promised land. This year they are winning because they are a team again. Brady does not look good by any stretch and I think his heart is not in it. However, he has enough talent to take a good team all the way, especially with their defense playing well. The issue for them, is how the playoff match ups work. I think that the current crop of excellent NFL coaches (or coaching staffs) is down to one hand. To me it looks like all we have is the Pats, Steelers, Saints (so many injuries) and Peyton Manning (I have to believe right now that I could put up numbers as a walk on with his help) as the sure things and possibly the Jets, Giants, Titans and Ravens but their teams play too inconsistent for me to crown their coaching as solid.

As far as Moss, Denver and Miami would easily snatch up Moss just to prevent other teams in their division from getting better. He will not clear waivers IMO.

[David Morris]

okay, I was not attempting to insult you, it was just an oddity that occurred to me as I was writing the post.

You may not care about what the experts said, but I happened to agree with most of them that the Patriots had just as much of a shot at 7-9 as they did at 11-5. Even if you thought the Pats would win the division, can you honestly say you thought they'd be doing THIS well- even better than the Colts?

I am not trying to come across as a prophet, I just felt the Patriots were good enough to win the division. I thought the Patriots would be 6-1 or 5-2 at this point, however, I don't think they will get to the end of the season without 4-6 losses. Did I think they would do better than the Colts? No. I thought we would be 6-1, at a minimum, and didn't think undefeated would be as difficult up to this point. IMO, the Colts, Patriots, Steelers and Packers from the NFC look like the favorites for winning it all this year.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

May be beating a dead horse, but you can't argue the truth on that.

Not any more than we can that Peyton Manning has been called for intentional grounding before.

[Steven Martinez]

okay, I was not attempting to insult you, it was just an oddity that occurred to me as I was writing the post.

You may not care about what the experts said, but I happened to agree with most of them that the Patriots had just as much of a shot at 7-9 as they did at 11-5. Even if you thought the Pats would win the division, can you honestly say you thought they'd be doing THIS well- even better than the Colts?

Well the good news for the Pats is that they have avoided injury. The Colts have already lost two key people for the year in Bob Sanders and Dallas Clark. Then add to the fact that Garcon, Gonzalez, Addai and Collie have all missed games this year. That's a lot of injuries. Also the records for the Pats opponents is 21-29 or .420 winning % while the Colts opponents have a record of 24-21 or a .533 winning % so I think the Colts are really playing well considering their opponents' strength and their own injuries.

[David Morris]

Well the good news for the Pats is that they have avoided injury. The Colts have already lost two key people for the year in Bob Sanders and Dallas Clark. Then add to the fact that Garcon, Gonzalez, Addai and Collie have all missed games this year. That's a lot of injuries. Also the records for the Pats opponents is 21-29 or .420 winning % while the Colts opponents have a record of 24-21 or a .533 winning % so I think the Colts are really playing well considering their opponents' strength and their own injuries.

This will haunt the Colts come playoff time. Dallas is a nightmare for defensive coordinators, and I don't think the Colts missed him as much last night as they will the rest of the season. Looking at the strength of schedule, I think the Pats and Colts have similar strength of schedules left. Either way, one of these 2 or the Steelers will win it all.

[Benjamin Burch]

And the Dolphins are still a season or two away from being up there with the Jets, Packers, Steelers, and Colts.

I find this statement confusing. Given that...

(a) The Dolphins beat the Packers (while the Jets lost to them...)
(b) The Dolphins came down to the last possession, in the red zone, against the Jets.
(c) The Dolphins came down to a blown call against the Steelers which, if the Refs had gotten right, they would have beaten the Steelers
(d) The Dolphins have only lost 3 games and when they got their 3rd loss, each was to one of these top teams and each were 5-1.

One is forced to wonder, if the Dolphins are not up there, who is?

[Benjamin Burch]

FWIW: I think a lot of the Vikings Bashing is a little over the top. Certainly they are not as good as some thought they were coming into this season (and I am included among these).

However, the teams they have lost to are all very, very good teams who are serious contenders right now and top-teams (except maybe the Dolphins).

- Saints
- Patriots
- Jets
- Packers
- Dolphins

That's a difficult schedule to say the least.

[David Morris]

I find this statement confusing. Given that...

(a) The Dolphins beat the Packers (while the Jets lost to them...)
(b) The Dolphins came down to the last possession, in the red zone, against the Jets.
(c) The Dolphins came down to a blown call against the Steelers which, if the Refs had gotten right, they would have beaten the Steelers
(d) The Dolphins have only lost 3 games and when they got their 3rd loss, each was to one of these top teams and each were 5-1.

One is forced to wonder, if the Dolphins are not up there, who is?

Who is up there? AFC: Pats, Colts, Steelers NFC: Packers, Saints (If one of these 5 teams do not win the Super Bowl, PM me and I will send you a $25 gift card to your favorite restaurant).

I understand your feelings for the Dolphins. However, with points B & C, those are the games you have to win.

[Benjamin Burch]

Who is up there? AFC: Pats, Colts, Steelers NFC: Packers, Saints (If one of these 5 teams do not win the Super Bowl, PM me and I will send you a $25 gift card to your favorite restaurant).

I understand your feelings for the Dolphins. However, with points B & C, those are the games you have to win.

We did win (c). We were robbed. And we will beat the Jets next time...

[Benjamin Burch]

Who is up there? AFC: Pats, Colts, Steelers NFC: Packers, Saints (If one of these 5 teams do not win the Super Bowl, PM me and I will send you a $25 gift card to your favorite restaurant).

I understand your feelings for the Dolphins. However, with points B & C, those are the games you have to win.

Oh, and just for the record... so everyone can see it, that would be:

Susan Feneger's STREET in Los Angeles, California.

[Shea Zellweger]

Who is up there? AFC: Pats, Colts, Steelers NFC: Packers, Saints (If one of these 5 teams do not win the Super Bowl, PM me and I will send you a $25 gift card to your favorite restaurant).

I understand your feelings for the Dolphins. However, with points B & C, those are the games you have to win.

so the Dolphins are responsible for the Refs blowing a call? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Yeah, this sort of thing happens in the NFL, and a loss is a loss, but I don't think the phins should necessarily be blamed for an officiating mistake.

[David Morris]

so the Dolphins are responsible for the Refs blowing a call? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Yeah, this sort of thing happens in the NFL, and a loss is a loss, but I don't think the phins should necessarily be blamed for an officiating mistake.

2 Things:

1. I don't see where I said, "the Dolphins are responsible for the Refs blowing a call." I am not blaming the Dolphins for anything. However, as you said, a loss is a loss. Chances are it wasn't that one play that cost them the victory. I was watching the game, and cry against it all you want, the refs ruled it correctly. In that game, the Dolphins had two turnovers and 3 penalties, and those don't help your cause.

2. Can you recall one thing we have ever agreed on?

[David Morris]

Oh, and just for the record... so everyone can see it, that would be:

Susan Feneger's STREET in Los Angeles, California.

Ok, you might need to pick something I can get from here.

[Benjamin Burch]

2 Things:

1. I don't see where I said, "the Dolphins are responsible for the Refs blowing a call." I am not blaming the Dolphins for anything. However, as you said, a loss is a loss. Chances are it wasn't that one play that cost them the victory. I was watching the game, and cry against it all you want, the refs ruled it correctly. In that game, the Dolphins had two turnovers and 3 penalties, and those don't help your cause.

2. Can you recall one thing we have ever agreed on?

Technically they did not get the call right.

First of all, they got the call wrong (they called it a touchdown when it was a fumble)...

Secondly, they made the wrong call on the field since the instruction is to let a play like that continue and not blow it dead since it's easier to overturn that way...

Because they made the wrong call on two counts (as shown above) they were handcuffed to where the "right call" on the replay still did not right the outcome. If the refs get that call right, the game is over. Period.

[David Morris]

Technically they did not get the call right.

First of all, they got the call wrong (they called it a touchdown when it was a fumble)...

Secondly, they made the wrong call on the field since the instruction is to let a play like that continue and not blow it dead since it's easier to overturn that way...

Because they made the wrong call on two counts (as shown above) they were handcuffed to where the "right call" on the replay still did not right the outcome. If the refs get that call right, the game is over. Period.

An inadvertent whistle is part of the game. I'm sure the play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP-upsdyupM) happening in real time wasn't as easy to make out as we would like to think it was. It was a matter of inches in a highly competitive football game. While watching the game, and even right now, I am 99% convinced that the Dolphins recovered it in the endzone, but we have seen before that who comes up holding the ball like the head of a wild animal isn't always the one who actually recovered it. The video, sad to say for Dolphins fans, is inconclusive. Period. The Dolphins still had a chance to get the ball in field goal range with plenty of time, and they were picked off. Get that field goal and this conversation isn't in the thread.

[Benjamin Burch]

An inadvertent whistle is part of the game. I'm sure the play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP-upsdyupM) happening in real time wasn't as easy to make out as we would like to think it was. It was a matter of inches in a highly competitive football game. While watching the game, and even right now, I am 99% convinced that the Dolphins recovered it in the endzone, but we have seen before that who comes up holding the ball like the head of a wild animal isn't always the one who actually recovered it. The video, sad to say for Dolphins fans, is inconclusive. Period. The Dolphins still had a chance to get the ball in field goal range with plenty of time, and they were picked off. Get that field goal and this conversation isn't in the thread.

The point is that they went against instructions to not blow such a play dead. It was only blown dead after the ball popped out. Not before. If that were the case, I'd have more sympathy.

They made the "right call" on the replay, but there should have never been a replay, unless it was Pittsburgh challenging, hoping for a TD.

[David Morris]

The point is that they went against instructions to not blow such a play dead. It was only blown dead after the ball popped out. Not before. If that were the case, I'd have more sympathy.

They made the "right call" on the replay, but there should have never been a replay, unless it was Pittsburgh challenging, hoping for a TD.

I understand your point. My point is that I'm sure the HL believed he had crossed the goal line, which is why he didn't go against any instructions, he did what he thought was right at the moment.

[Steven Martinez]

Ben, I will begin to take the Dolphins seriously as soon as a they win a home game.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, I will begin to take the Dolphins seriously as soon as a they win a home game.

Now that's the first legit point I've seen made in regards to the Dolphins. But hey, they are beating teams on the road! That could be good if they can sneak into the playoffs.

[Steven Martinez]

Now that's the first legit point I've seen made in regards to the Dolphins. But hey, they are beating teams on the road! That could be good if they can sneak into the playoffs.

Except when you only beat Buffalo by 5. If 3 of your 4 wins are against bottom feeder teams, it is not a good sign.

[Shea Zellweger]

2 Things:

1. I don't see where I said, "the Dolphins are responsible for the Refs blowing a call." I am not blaming the Dolphins for anything. However, as you said, a loss is a loss. Chances are it wasn't that one play that cost them the victory. I was watching the game, and cry against it all you want, the refs ruled it correctly. In that game, the Dolphins had two turnovers and 3 penalties, and those don't help your cause.

You said "those are the games you have to win," which sounds an awful lot like it's the Dolphin's fault they lost. Since they ultimately lost on a blown call, that makes the blown call their fault. Sure, you could argue there were other points in the game where the Dolphins should've executed, but there are always those points in every game. Ultimately, one blown call cost the Dolphins a game which they otherwise would have won.



2. Can you recall one thing we have ever agreed on?

Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady.

[Shea Zellweger]

Except when you only beat Buffalo by 5. If 3 of your 4 wins are against bottom feeder teams, it is not a good sign.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap?gid=20101024033
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap?gid=20101031012

5 points ain't that bad.

The Dolphins haven't played any mediocre teams. The 3 teams they've lost to are a combined 16-5, representing the best record in the NFL and 2 teams tied for 2nd best. They look like a .500 team right now- they beat the bottom feaders, and lose to the overlords. But they also knocked off the Packers (5-3), and were a technicality away from a (home) win against the Steelers (5-2), which says to me that they've got the stuff, they just haven't figured out how to use it yet.

[Steven Martinez]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap?gid=20101024033
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap?gid=20101031012

5 points ain't that bad.

The Dolphins haven't played any mediocre teams. The 3 teams they've lost to are a combined 16-5, representing the best record in the NFL and 2 teams tied for 2nd best. They look like a .500 team right now- they beat the bottom feaders, and lose to the overlords. But they also knocked off the Packers (5-3), and were a technicality away from a (home) win against the Steelers (5-2), which says to me that they've got the stuff, they just haven't figured out how to use it yet.

The AFC is so much better then the NFC so the 5-3 Packers would be a 3-5 team in the AFC. The point is, in the NFL you have to win at home and play .500 on the road to make the playoffs. Going 4-0 on the Road against the easier part of your schedule is not cutting it. As far as the Pittsburgh, you cannot go against the Will of God and you just have to accept the fact that God ordained that Pittsburgh should win that game. In other words... get over it. It is better to be lucky then good and good teams create luck.

[John Brickley]

The Patriots, in the last 10 years, have had superior special team, GREAT defenses, and incredible offensive lines, and a pretty good QB.

Pretty good QB? Are you kidding? The NFL does not seem to agree with you, on their ranking of the top 50 players of all time they ranked Brady ahead of both Dan Marino and John Elway, so unless you are ready to declare them only good then I think your statement is a gross overstatement. Far from being pretty good in Brady and Manning we have the privilege of watching 2 of the 3 greatest QB's of all time (Joe being the third, and no not Namath or Theisman), I just am not yet sure which one will be number 1 (Montanna still is number 1 in my book).


You tell me. I think the Colts have been (arguably) the best team of the decade. They didn't miss the playoffs at all, had the most regular season wins, won a super bowl, and didn't have to cheat (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677) to do it.

Honestly Dave we are all homers for our team but really some semblance of objectivity would probably help the credibility of your posts. If you want to offer a competitor to the Pats as the team of the decade then I think the Steelers have as much or more of an argument than the Colts.

[David Morris]

Pretty good QB? Are you kidding? The NFL does not seem to agree with you, on their ranking of the top 50 players of all time they ranked Brady ahead of both Dan Marino and John Elway, so unless you are ready to declare them only good then I think your statement is a gross overstatement. Far from being pretty good in Brady and Manning we have the privilege of watching 2 of the 3 greatest QB's of all time (Joe being the third, and no not Namath or Theisman), I just am not yet sure which one will be number 1 (Montanna still is number 1 in my book).

John, here is why I think Tom Brady is a pretty good QB. I think you could put Peyton Manning on any team in the NFL, and they would quickly become either contenders, or at a minimum, a wild card team. I don't think that would happen with Brady. Look what happened when Tom Brady went down, Matt Cassel came in and had a pretty good year. If pretty good becomes great because you have won some super bowls, then Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are greater than Dan Marino.

I am sorry I don't adopt the NFL's list of who they think the greatest players are. I am at a disadvantage because I didn't really ever see Montana play except on Tecmo Bowl (he was a beast). With Tom Brady, he was an average QB in two Super Bowl victories, and in one Super Bowl had a monster game. They won because of a stellar defense and a great kick at the end of one game. So no, I am not kidding you.


Honestly Dave we are all homers for our team but really some semblance of objectivity would probably help the credibility of your posts. If you want to offer a competitor to the Pats as the team of the decade then I think the Steelers have as much or more of an argument than the Colts.

Again, aside from one more Super Bowl victory, what else are you basing this on?

And how are my posts not credible? I state my opinion and back it up with some facts that support it. Where am I wrong?

[John Brickley]

John, here is why I think Tom Brady is a pretty good QB. I think you could put Peyton Manning on any team in the NFL, and they would quickly become either contenders, or at a minimum, a wild card team. I don't think that would happen with Brady. Look what happened when Tom Brady went down, Matt Cassel came in and had a pretty good year. If pretty good becomes great because you have won some super bowls, then Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are greater than Dan Marino.

I am sorry I don't adopt the NFL's list of who they think the greatest players are. I am at a disadvantage because I didn't really ever see Montana play except on Tecmo Bowl (he was a beast). With Tom Brady, he was an average QB in two Super Bowl victories, and in one Super Bowl had a monster game. They won because of a stellar defense and a great kick at the end of one game. So no, I am not kidding you.



Again, aside from one more Super Bowl victory, what else are you basing this on?

And how are my posts not credible? I state my opinion and back it up with some facts that support it. Where am I wrong?

I think the argument for the Pats being the clear team of the decade (and not the Colts) has been amply made already in this post and I do not see the need to rehash that, which is what I would be doing if I offered my reasons. In relation to the credibility problems with your posts, what I am responding to is what I see as a lack of objectivity. You seem to have a need to tear down the accomplishments of Brady and the Patriots so as to bolster the accomplishments of Manning and the Colts. I don't see anyone else here doing that, even those like Ben who admit that they hate the Pats as much or more than you do. That diminishes the credibility of your posts in my opinion.

I mean I have been very clear that I think Brady is one of and possibly will be the best quarterback of all time, but I do not attempt to diminish Manning's accomplishments to do that (nor do I call him pretty good, even though he has struggled at times in big game situations) and I freely admit that he also is one of the best of all time and might possibly clearly surpass Brady. So I feel no need to diminish what the others have done so as to build up my team. But all your posts in one way or another have attempted to do that, in spite of virtually everyone on this thread telling you that you are off base on this. So that is what I mean.

[Benjamin Burch]

Pretty good QB? The NFL does not seem to agree with you, on their ranking of the top 50 players of all time they ranked Brady ahead of both Dan Marino and John Elway,

This may be the single most absurd thing I've ever seen/heard in my life.

[David Morris]

I think the argument for the Pats being the clear team of the decade (and not the Colts) has been amply made already in this post and I do not see the need to rehash that, which is what I would be doing if I offered my reasons.

And this is where we disagree. I think arguments could be made that the Steelers, Colts, and Pats are the team of the decade, but you say it is "clear." Do a Google search of "NFL team of the decade." And every article is going to list 3 teams: Steelers, Colts, and Pats. Yes, the Pats come out on top in just about every article, but that fact that an argument could be made for the Colts and Steelers doesn't mean it is a clear cut choice.

And what accomplishments have I tried to diminish?

[Benjamin Burch]

And this is where we disagree. I think arguments could be made that the Steelers, Colts, and Pats are the team of the decade, but you say it is "clear." Do a Google search of "NFL team of the decade." And every article is going to list 3 teams: Steelers, Colts, and Pats. Yes, the Pats come out on top in just about every article, but that fact that an argument could be made for the Colts and Steelers doesn't mean it is a clear cut choice.

And what accomplishments have I tried to diminish?

The only people that I have seen make the argument for the Colts are Colts fans. I think if Colts and Patriots fans were left out of the discussion it would be a borderline unanimous decision for the Pats.

[Shea Zellweger]

The only people that I have seen make the argument for the Colts are Colts fans. I think if Colts and Patriots fans were left out of the discussion it would be a borderline unanimous decision for the Pats.

we may have to exclude some of the more delusional Steeler fans as well.

Nobody talks about the NFC team of the decade- I guess the Eagles can rest on those laurels :)

[Steven Martinez]

This may be the single most absurd thing I've ever seen/heard in my life.

How can you say that when you are the host of the theology forum?

[Benjamin Burch]

How can you say that when you are the host of the theology forum?

Because nothing that has ever been said in the Theology forum is nearly as absurd as the idea that Brady could be a top 3 QB of all time. My sides hurt. I haven't stopped laughing since I read it! I am still in disbelief, hours later.

[John Brickley]

This may be the single most absurd thing I've ever seen/heard in my life.

Ben,

I thought it was strange that they listed Brady ahead of Marino and Elway as well. I think it is far too soon to judge either Brady's or Manning's place in history. Having said that I do think that they (along with Joe Montana) will be considered to be the top 3 quarterbacks of all time when all is said and done, but not lets not enshrine them yet.

[John Brickley]

Because nothing that has ever been said in the Theology forum is nearly as absurd as the idea that Brady could be a top 3 QB of all time. My sides hurt. I haven't stopped laughing since I read it! I am still in disbelief, hours later.

Now you are making my sides hurt with laughter Ben. How is it that you could not include him in that discussion?

[Steven Martinez]

we may have to exclude some of the more delusional Steeler fans as well.

Nobody talks about the NFC team of the decade- I guess the Eagles can rest on those laurels :)

The Eagles would qualify if team of the decade was based on the worst clock management.

Seriously though, the problem with team of the Decade in the NFL is that no one has truly dominated the championships of the decade. The Pats have come the closest with winning three and having four appearances, but they also missed the playoffs twice. The Steelers have two championships but also missed the Playoffs after each of their Super Bowl runs. It is not like the NBA where the Lakers are clearly the team of the decade in the fact that between 2000-2010 they went to 7 out of 11 NBA Finals winning 5 of them. I think the edge goes to the Pats due to championships but I think it is safe to say that the top three teams in the NFL the last decade have been the Pats, Colts and Steelers and that all three of these teams were built around the same philosophy of building the team around the draft rather than free agency and letting players leave the organization if they became too big for the team. Also these teams have solid coaching staffs where ownership works with the coaches and gives their coaches the benefit of the doubt and job security in order for them to build a team identity. As far as the wins and loses, those be the breaks of the game. I think any real football person could tell you that sometimes it is a lucky break here or a lucky break there that decides individual games. Football is really a crazy game when you consider that you only play one game to decide the champion. One blown coverage can make or break an entire season.

[Shea Zellweger]

Now you are making my sides hurt with laughter Ben. How is it that you could not include him in that discussion?

perhaps because there are three retired Quarterbacks who stand above him, and he and Manning are fighting for 4th :). Sorry, but I would not place him above Marino, Montana, or Elway, and there are some days where I still struggle with the idea that he belongs above Favre.

[Benjamin Burch]

The Eagles would qualify if team of the decade was based on the worst clock management.

Seriously though, the problem with team of the Decade in the NFL is that no one has truly dominated the championships of the decade. The Pats have come the closest with winning three and having four appearances, but they also missed the playoffs twice. The Steelers have two championships but also missed the Playoffs after each of their Super Bowl runs. It is not like the NBA where the Lakers are clearly the team of the decade in the fact that between 2000-2010 they went to 7 out of 11 NBA Finals winning 5 of them. I think the edge goes to the Pats due to championships but I think it is safe to say that the top three teams in the NFL the last decade have been the Pats, Colts and Steelers and that all three of these teams were built around the same philosophy of building the team around the draft rather than free agency and letting players leave the organization if they became too big for the team. Also these teams have solid coaching staffs where ownership works with the coaches and gives their coaches the benefit of the doubt and job security in order for them to build a team identity. As far as the wins and loses, those be the breaks of the game. I think any real football person could tell you that sometimes it is a lucky break here or a lucky break there that decides individual games. Football is really a crazy game when you consider that you only play one game to decide the champion. One blown coverage can make or break an entire season.

The Lakers are the cheaters of the decade. The Miami Heat are clearly the team of the NBA HISTORY. All years. All decades. Period. Just give it up on your Lakers.

[Benjamin Burch]

Now you are making my sides hurt with laughter Ben. How is it that you could not include him in that discussion?

My question would be how could one even begin to include him? Again... the onus is not on the one trying to disprove. You (or whoever) must actually present a case for why he should even be considered. I don't think it's possible and I reject team accomplishments as being determining in regards to individual ranking/value (aka - Championships).

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I don't think it's possible and I reject team accomplishments as being determining (aka - Championships).

At the risk of being you, I submit my own hyperbole:
Rejecting any and all team accomplishments as criteria for playing a team sport is THE most absurd thing said yet in this thread.

I don't mind if you downgrade them, but you have to include them. And your in-objectivity in trying to push Marino as far up the list as you can is showing. :-)

[Benjamin Burch]

At the risk of being you, I submit my own hyperbole:
Rejecting any and all team accomplishments as criteria for playing a team sport is THE most absurd thing said yet in this thread.
:tongue:

I suggest that we have spoken quite meaningless about championships in regards to individuals. Would Manning have won those championships if he was playing for New England instead? Who knows.

All we can know is that:

- The Patriots won them
- Brady was the Quarterback
- It is relatively easy to demonstrate that Manning is a more talented QB


But none of that means that either (a) Manning would have won those championships or (b) that Brady was a key to those championships. So, the fact is that New England could have (not saying would have) won with a different quarterback and Manning could have (not saying would have) lost those championships with those New England teams.

The fact is that Brady was on a team that had a chance and he did his job within those gams. Congratulations. However, his being in a position to do so has little to do with his being a "better" quarterback than "the other guy" but yet we consistently try to speak as though it does. I suggest that our attempts have sounded rather silly and have been quite meaningless.

[Benjamin Burch]

:tongue:

I suggest that we have spoken quite meaningless about championships in regards to individuals. Would Manning have won those championships if he was playing for New England instead? Who knows.

All we can know is that:

- The Patriots won them
- Brady was the Quarterback
- It is relatively easy to demonstrate that Manning is a more talented QB


But none of that means that either (a) Manning would have won those championships or (b) that Brady was a key to those championships. So, the fact is that New England could have (not saying would have) won with a different quarterback and Manning could have (not saying would have) lost those championships with those New England teams.

The fact is that Brady was on a team that had a chance and he did his job within those gams. Congratulations. However, his being in a position to do so has little to do with his being a "better" quarterback than "the other guy" but yet we consistently try to speak as though it does. I suggest that our attempts have sounded rather silly and have been quite meaningless.


Might I also suggest that we only use the "championship" argument with players and/or positions that we think it is helpful with. This, to me, only goes to show even more how meaningless and silly this whole project is.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Might I also suggest that we only use the "championship" argument with players and/or positions that we think it is helpful with. This, to me, only goes to show even more how meaningless and silly this whole project is.

But we're only talking about one position...? QB

You'll notice that you rarely, if ever, see people arguing about "greatest NFL player of all-time."

[Benjamin Burch]

But we're only talking about one position...? QB

You'll notice that you rarely, if ever, see people arguing about "greatest NFL player of all-time."

My point is that we don't determine who the greatest Linebacker of all time is based upon championships. We don't do it for safeties, or for Cornerbacks. We don't even do it for running backs. In all reality, we only do it for Quarterbacks... and typically only when the guy we want to argue for possesses them.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

My point is that we don't determine who the greatest Linebacker of all time is based upon championships. We don't do it for safeties, or for Cornerbacks. We don't even do it for running backs. In all reality, we only do it for Quarterbacks... and typically only when the guy we want to argue for possesses them.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but there's an obvious difference between QB and the rest of the offense. The guy must be a leader, and the greatest determination of success in a leader (in quantifiable situations) is results (winning). Leadership implies that people are following, and in football, this means "team." Team success is obviously denoted by winning. So it's a no-brainer for me: team accomplishments absolutely figure in to any "Great QB" conversation. I'm fine with someone saying that it's not the #1 factor, but you can't eliminate it completely (unless you're pulling for Dan Marino, of course).

As for individual accomplishments, Brady has them, not the career totals of Favre or Marino, and not some of the individual ones that Manning has, but he has them (and some of them over all three of those others). And the ability early on in his career (and it could be coming back as of late) to manufacture drives in crucial pressure situations to do enough to help his team win is of note.

(By the way, I'm not arguing that he's #1 here, just that he is indeed in the conversation.)

[Benjamin Burch]

At the risk of being you, I submit my own hyperbole:
Rejecting any and all team accomplishments as criteria for playing a team sport is THE most absurd thing said yet in this thread.

I don't mind if you downgrade them, but you have to include them. And your in-objectivity in trying to push Marino as far up the list as you can is showing. :-)

I would gladly include them. However, I would want to view it in terms of their individual performance in the games that they performed in. That is a much better criteria for judging even how much they may have or may not have had to do with the Championship. Also, the play of the opposing defense, and their defense needs to be included. The fact of "having a championship" greatly begins to lose value with every minute that you talk about it and in every way that it gets analyzed.

Or big plays and momentum builders that were built by the coaching staff and other players be it on defense or offense ("The Catch" in 2007).

Again, I just think the value begins to be greatly diminished compared to the place that we traditionally put it in the conversation.

[Benjamin Burch]

Okay, I see what you're saying, but there's an obvious difference between QB and the rest of the offense. The guy must be a leader, and the greatest determination of success in a leader (in quantifiable situations) is results (winning). Leadership implies that people are following, and in football, this means "team." Team success is obviously denoted by winning. So it's a no-brainer for me: team accomplishments absolutely figure in to any "Great QB" conversation. I'm fine with someone saying that it's not the #1 factor, but you can't eliminate it completely (unless you're pulling for Dan Marino, of course).


Again, though, my struggle with all of this is that it assumes that

(a) a QB is always a leader and
(b) that if the QB is a leader then it should translate to winning...

But we both know that often Defenses and Defensive players are the "leaders" and that the offense's job is merely to not screw up. We also know that great QBs who are amazing leaders can be beat in Championship games (especially 1-game formats) by other teams who have miserable QBs because of the play of the opposing Defense or lack of play by their own defense.

Again... I think the more the conversation progresses, the more the logic breaks down and any value becomes very, very small.

[Benjamin Burch]

Again, though, my struggle with all of this is that it assumes that

(a) a QB is always a leader and
(b) that if the QB is a leader then it should translate to winning...

But we both know that often Defenses and Defensive players are the "leaders" and that the offense's job is merely to not screw up. We also know that great QBs who are amazing leaders can be beat in Championship games (especially 1-game formats) by other teams who have miserable QBs because of the play of the opposing Defense or lack of play by their own defense.

Again... I think the more the conversation progresses, the more the logic breaks down and any value becomes very, very small.

Once we add in the old adage of "Defense wins championships"... the role of the QB in the victory becomes even less determinative.

[Benjamin Burch]

As for individual accomplishments, Brady has them, not the career totals of Favre or Marino, and not some of the individual ones that Manning has, but he has them

Nor the totals from individual seasons that plenty of other QBs have.

The thing he does have is TD/INT ratio and QB rating but I would submit that this is actually largely a product of the change in the way the game is played and the rules. This explains why the overall TD/INT ratio among top-level QBs and QB Ratings has been drastically higher in the past decade than ever before in NFL history. Just look at Favre last season...

[Benjamin Burch]

And your in-objectivity in trying to push Marino as far up the list as you can is showing. :-)

Actually, I'm already inclined to give Manning the #1 spot. But, I simply don't think Brady is in the conversation. That conversation involves 4 names:

- Manning
- Marino
- Montana
- Elway

Besides, the criteria I'm rejecting here will actually solidify Wade as the 2nd best SG to ever play basketball (ahead of Kobe) by the time he's done... So I have something to lose in this rejection as well.

[Steven Martinez]

Lets look at some per game stats for 3 NFL QBs:

QB#1: 1.74 TD/Game - 59.4 Comp % - 7.3 Y/A - 86.4 QB Rating - 253.6 Y/G - 5.0 TD % - 3.0 INT %
QB#2: 1.74 TD/Game - 63.4 Comp % - 7.3 Y/A - 93.5 QB Rating - 238.6 Y/G - 5.3 TD % - 2.3 INT %
QB#3: 1.91 TD/Game - 64.8 Comp % - 7.7 Y/A - 95.5 QB Rating - 262.9 Y/G - 5.6 TD % - 2.7 INT %

QB#1: Dan Marino
QB#2: Tom Brady
QB#3: Peyton Manning

Well I think that the Best QB ever argument starts and ends with Peyton Manning. As a Steeler fan I can honestly look at the objective stats and make this conclusion. Also when you factor things like SNL appearances, commercial work, there is really no debate. Right now, I would have to put Marino slightly ahead of Brady at this point. Brady has the advantage in the stats but when you factor in the Isotoner glove commercials and the appearance in Ace Ventura, Marino pulls even with Brady. However we must factor in negative points for Tom Brady's hair and the fact that Justin Bieber talked smack about it.
Playing "What if?" If Hoodie actually coached the Colts with the team they had in the early to mid 2000's (With Marvin Harrison and a healthy Edge James) they would have had back to back perfect seasons. With Belichick's defensive mind with Peyton's offensive genius and abilities it would have been unstoppable.

[Steven Martinez]

Actually, I'm already inclined to give Manning the #1 spot. But, I simply don't think Brady is in the conversation. That conversation involves 4 names:

- Manning
- Marino
- Montana
- Elway

Besides, the criteria I'm rejecting here will actually solidify Wade as the 2nd best SG to ever play basketball (ahead of Kobe) by the time he's done... So I have something to lose in this rejection as well.

D-Wade will forever be known as LeBron's sidekick and being in Charles Barkley's Five.

[Benjamin Burch]

D-Wade will forever be known as LeBron's sidekick and being in Charles Barkley's Five.

What is with the double-talk? I thought it was LeBron who came here to be Wade's side-kick?

[Jim Poteet]

Besides, the criteria I'm rejecting here will actually solidify Wade as the 2nd best SG to ever play basketball (ahead of Kobe) by the time he's done... So I have something to lose in this rejection as well.

What in the world are you talking about?

[Benjamin Burch]

What in the world are you talking about?

(in most people's minds)....

by the time Wade is done his stats and career achievements will both be better than Kobe. There is very little doubt about it.