Tom Brady has been dubbed the greatest quarterback ever by many people.
This is how the article begins. Nothing screams "vague evidence of proof ahead" than the citation of "people's" opinion in the opening sentence of a persuasive article.
Most believe that he is at least in the top five in NFL history.
"Most people" believe this. So far we are disproving the beliefs of "many people" and "most" people. I look forward to see what "quite a few" people believe. No really, go ahead and cite "people's opinion" as a way to disprove this belief when this group of people couldn't seem more vague. I am not sure most people believe Tom Brady is one of the top five quarterbacks in NFL history.
He has six Pro Bowl appearances and was voted the NFL MVP twice. Tom Brady holds numerous Patriot team records, as well as NFL records.
Plus he's a pussy because his hair used to be long because he married a model but he cut his hair probably because she told him to which she also made him move to Los Angeles and this causes him not to focus on football and that's why he'll never be a part of the New England community.
Brady is also the most overrated quarterback to play the game.
We all know which quarterback is the most overrated is purely an opinion. We also all know that Brett Favre is the most overrated quarterback in NFL history.
Tom Brady is simply a system quarterback.
As I have stated before, nearly every quarterback is a system quarterback in some way. If the Bengals asked Andy Dalton to run the Saints offense I am not sure he could do it. The same thing goes for Mark Sanchez. Could he run the Chargers offense? Possibly not. Smart offensive coordinators and coaches model the system on the strengths of their quarterback. The fact the Patriots system works so well is a testament to the system and to how well Tom Brady runs the system. The bottom line is Tom Brady isn't by any measure the most overrated quarterback in NFL history.
That is how Belichick built his team. Any decent quarterback can step into the Patriots' system and succeed.
This is absolutely false. Any decent quarterback can not step into the Patriots' system and succeed. I know there aren't too many examples of this with the Patriots, but Matt Cassel's success with the Patriots is the only justification and evidence given for statements like this one. Cassel was in the Patriots system for three years before he started one game for the Patriots and so he didn't just "step into" their system. Any decent quarterback could be in an offensive system for three years and then do a good job as the starter for a year, which is what happened with Cassel.
In 2008, Brady was injured and Cassel, a quarterback who had not completed a pass since high school, stepped in to take over.
I find it incredibly difficult to trust a person's point of view when they play so loosely with facts and refuse to do research. Matt Cassel hadn't started a game since high school, but he had completed a pass since high school. He had completed 23 passes in the NFL when he took over the Patriots starting job in 2008. So let's the facts correct and then I can believe your point of view. Typical Bleacher Report crap.
He's acting like Cassel was brought in off the street while working as a mechanic to lead the Patriots offense. Cassel is a decent quarterback and he had learned the Patriots offense over the previous three years before he was a starter in 2008. I had shown in the previous post the difference in Brady's numbers in the Patriots offense and Cassel's numbers in the Patriots offense. Here they are again:
Cassel 2008- 3693 yards, 63.4 completion rate, 89.4 passer rating, 21 touchdowns
Brady 2007- 4806 yards, 68.9 completion rate, 117.2 passer rating, 50 touchdowns
Brady 2009- 4398 yards, 65.7 completion rate, 96.2 passer rating, 28 touchdowns
Brady 2010- 3900 yards, 65.9 completion rate, 111.0 passer rating, 36 touchdowns
So while Cassel succeeded, Brady is very obviously a better quarterback in the Patriots system than Matt Cassel was. Why is Brady better in the system? Because he's a much better quarterback. This is the part many of the "Brady is overrated" crowd miss. Sure, Cassel had a good season in the Patriots offense, but he wasn't on pace with Brady's numbers in that offense. Brady performed better in the Patriots' offense, but the insane "Brady is the most overrated quarterback in NFL history" crowd (which numbers probably one person), ignores this and wants to pretend both quarterbacks performed on a similar level.
Cassel finished in the top-10 in passing touchdowns, completion percentage and passer rating. Since joining the Chiefs in 2009, Cassel has yet to match the overall production he showed in New England.
Matt Cassel was Top 10 in the NFL in passing touchdowns and passer rating in 2010. So for this arbitrary criteria on what makes him a great quarterback, he was close to producing like he did in 2008 with the Patriots. Sure, he didn't hit the level of 2008, but there were some statistics that were better in 2010 than 2008, like touchdown to interception ratio.
One of the most debated topics in recent memory is about Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Everyone wants to know which quarterback is better. The 2011 season answers this question without a doubt.
Not without a doubt. What has been answered without a doubt is that Curtis Painter isn't an NFL quarterback and the Colts have big defensive problems. Peyton Manning didn't play defense for the Colts as much as I can recall. So while Manning's worth to the Colts has been proven, I think the overall talent level on the Colts isn't very good in 2011. This isn't even what this article is supposed to be about. This isn't supposed to be a Manning v. Brady argument, but a discussion on why Brady is the most overrated quarterback in NFL history. If Brady is the most overrated quarterback in NFL history because he isn't as valuable to his team as Peyton Manning is, then many of the NFL's quarterbacks are overrated as well.
When the Patriots have not had Brady, their record is 11-5. However, the Colts are 0-9 without Manning. It is obvious that Manning is more important to his team.
It is also obvious the backup quarterback for each team had different skill levels when taking over for the starting quarterback.
If Manning went to the Seahawks, Dolphins, Redskins or any other team with a bad quarterback situation, he could carry them too. Manning instantly makes a team much better. Brady just doesn't seem to have that trait.
The Patriots in the ten years Tom Brady has been the full-time starter: Four Super Bowl appearances, three Super Bowl wins, eight playoff appearances, and 116 wins.
The Patriots in the ten seasons before Brady was the full-time starter: One Super Bowl, zero Super Bowl wins, four playoff appearances, and 71 wins.
I'm not sure how anyone can say Brady doesn't make the Patriots instantly better by being the quarterback.
Brady could not be put on any team and lead them to success.
This pure speculation that has no factual backing.
Brady did win three Super Bowls, but the last one was in 2004, seven years ago.
Panic in the streets of Foxboro! It's been seven whole years since the Patriots won a Super Bowl? Break up the team, fire Belichick, and hang Robert Kraft in effigy!
Since the Patriots' last Super Bowl victory, Brady is 5-5 in the playoffs.
Let's cherry pick stats to deceive our audience into believing Brady is overrated! Brady is 14-5 overall in the playoffs. Brady is 5-5 in the playoffs since 2004, but this throws out the 9-0 record from 2001-2004. And since the author wanted to bring up Peyton Manning (and this is part of the deception to make Brady look worse than he is), let's see what his record in the playoffs may be.
Peyton Manning is 2-3 in the playoffs since his last Super Bowl victory and is 9-10 overall in the playoffs. Nothing like cherry picking stats and then having them come back to bite you in your ass. I guess Peyton Manning should be used in the same terms that Brady is, as a choker and system quarterback, since he has a losing record since his last Super Bowl victory.
The Patriots have won a lot of regular season games, but they have also been horrible in the playoffs, especially recently.
"Especially" recently? You mean "only" recently. The Patriots didn't lose a playoff game in the 2000's until 2005.
Brady's last playoff win was in 2007.
If you notice, the author is only talking about Brady being overrated in the context of the postseason. This is because Tom Brady has a 29-11 record since 2007. I could count 2007 and that would put it at 45-11 as his record. My point is a quarterback isn't overrated based solely on his postseason record since football is a team game.
Alas, the author is not satisfied with making factually incorrect and misleading statements about the Patriots so he expands his reach in making factually incorrect statements to making these statements about entire divisions in the AFC.
So, why are the Patriots, and Brady, so "good" in the regular season? They play in the AFC East, which, until recently, was one of the weakest divisions in football.
Fine, let's play this game. How weak has the AFC East been since 2001? Let's look at teams out of the conference who made the playoffs from this "weak" division (in parenthesis) and their record (We will learn in a minute the author means "recently" to mean "this year" so I will feel free to include every year since 2001 since "recently" has such a narrow span of time it encompasses apparently):
2001 (3): Miami Dolphins 11-5, New England Patriots 11-5, New York Jets 10-6
2002: (1): New York Jets 9-7
2003 (1): New England Patriots 14-2
2004 (2): New England Patriots 14-2, New York Jets 10-6
2005 (1): New England Patriots 10-6
2006 (2): New England Patriots 12-4, New York Jets 10-6
2007 (1): New England Patriots 16-0
2008 (1): Miami Dolphins 11-5
2009 (2): New England Patriots 10-6, New York Jets 9-7
2010 (2): New England Patriots 14-2, New York Jets 11-5
Look at it this way...over the last ten years there were 60 playoff spots available in the AFC. Teams from AFC East took up 16 of the 60 spots, or 26.6% of the playoff spots. BUT, each division winner gets an automatic spot in the playoffs, so the real question of the AFC East's strength could be what percentage of Wild Card teams came from that division.
Over the last 10 years there were 20 Wild Card spots open. AFC East teams took 6 of those 20 Wild Card spots. That's 30% of the Wild Card spots taken up by AFC East teams. I'm not sure this makes the AFC East one of the weakest divisions since teams from that division get more than their share of the AFC Wild Card spots.
This year is the first season in a long time that there is good competition in the AFC East and the Patriots are obviously struggling, with Brady leading the way.
This is the first time in "a long time" there has been good competition in the AFC East, unless you want to count the Dolphins winning the division in 2008, the Jets being 1 game behind the Patriots in the standings for the division lead in 2009, or the Jets two AFC Championship Game appearances over the last two years. Why include those though when it ruins part of your argument?
Brady has already thrown 10 interceptions this year and looks confused in pressure situations
Thanks Gregg Easterbrook. We appreciate you telling us how Tom Brady looks in pressure situations.
It is simple. Brady is struggling because the Patriots are struggling.
If only fact backed up this fictional assertion. As I was writing this, Tom Brady was on pace to break Dan Marino's single season passing yards record and had the following passing statistics:
66.0% completion rate, 2703 yards, 20 touchdowns, 10 interceptions, and a 100.0 QB rating. Also the Patriots are 5-3, which I would hardly classify as struggling. Tom Brady isn't struggling in the least, but good try in making it seem like he is by cherry picking his interceptions statistic and giving no information on his other statistics. Unfortunately, some people do research when they read a column and the research shows you are off base in your contention Brady is struggling this year.
Did anyone notice how great the Patriots' back-up quarterbacks were in the preseason?
Let's remember it was the preseason and doesn't really matter. Let's look at how great the Patriots backup quarterback (Brian Hoyer) was during the 2011 preseason since the author provides no statistical backing other than to say, "Hey remember how the Patriots backup quarterbacks looked in the preseason?" and then hoped to God no one does any research to back up his claim.
Brian Hoyer (4 games): 59.5% completion rate, 296 yards, 1 touchdown, 0 interceptions, 89.0 QB rating.
Tom Brady (3 games): 56.0% completion rate, 379 yards, 3 touchdowns, 1 interception, 92.0 QB rating.
Naturally, this automatically means Hoyer could do the same things in the regular season that Tom Brady does. Let's ignore the fact Brady stepped his play up in the regular season, which I am sure Brian Hoyer would have done also. So Hoyer looked good in the preseason. Not as good as Brady looked, but good. This still doesn't mean his statistics would translate to the regular season.
It may have been against second- and third-team defenses, but the Patriots' system made Ryan Mallett look like a Pro Bowler.
A Pro Bowler? Really? Ladies and gentlemen, here are the new Pro Bowl standard numbers for a quarterback. That new standard is Ryan Mallett, and these are his Pro Bowl statistics:
Ryan Mallett (4 games): 57.1 completion rate, 357 yards, 1 touchdown, 1 interception, 72.0 QB rating.
It seems Pro Bowl standards have slipped somewhat. I am sure in the author's head this was a really, really great preseason performance though.
I am sure that Mallet or Brian Hoyer could come in and do just as well as Brady is this year.
Your sense of surety on this doesn't serve as proof your statement is true. I'd love to live in a world where everything I said or believed magically ends up being true, but that's not how things are.
Brady is in the top three for most statistical categories, but he just cannot seem to win the big games,
He led the Patriots to the Super Bowl in 2007. Also, this statement doesn't mean much just by being stated nor does it prove Brady is the most overrated quarterback in the history of the NFL. Brady has won three Super Bowls and I am pretty sure those are big games.
Since the author seems intent on comparing Manning to Brady, let's remember Manning hasn't exactly won the big games in his career either.
Manning has done more with less in Indianapolis for years.
I am not sure how a person could argue this successfully. For the majority of his career, Peyton Manning has had two Hall of Fame receivers (Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne) and a borderline Hall of Fame tight end (Dallas Clark). Manning has had these receivers for most of his time in Indianapolis, as well as a high quality running back in Edgerrin James.
Only since 2007 has Brady had receivers that could be considered on par with the players Manning has had for the majority of his career. Even then, Brady now only has had two potential elite receivers on his team during his Patriots career. I don't know how a person can argue that Manning did more with less.
If he is healthy and playing for the Patriots right now, then they are probably a 7-1 or 8-0 team. That is what a guy like Manning does for your team.
Again, this is pure speculation that has no factual backing other than the author's opinion that he is attempting to pass off as a fact.
Brady, on the other hand, can only be as good as the people around him.
Which explains perfectly why he won three Super Bowls during a time when he only had one 1000 yard receiver? This explains why Wes Welker and Randy Moss were both better receivers when Brady was throwing them the ball?
He cannot make every player better than they are like Manning can.
Wes Welker argues otherwise.
Randy Moss pre-Patriots and Randy Moss post-Patriots also argues otherwise. It sure seems Brady made both of these guys better.
That is what makes Brady overrated. He gets too much credit for the Patriots' success.
He's the quarterback for the most successful team over the last decade. These types of players tend to get a lot of credit for the team's success. Part of the reason Brady gets so much credit is that he, along with Kevin Faulk and Matt Light, has been the player who has been on the Patriots roster every single year during their great run. I know others talk about the greatness of Bill Belichick, but as smart as Belichick is, he can't win games without players executing his game plan.
So if Brady is overrated because he has been at the helm of the Patriots run then does that mean Joe Montana was overrated by not winning a Super Bowl without Bill Walsh and Jerry Rice on his team? Shouldn't the quarterback of a very successful team get credit for the Patriots success when that success has been sustained through the personnel changes that have taken place over the last decade?
This year, Brady has led the Patriots to a 5-3 record, but they seem to be falling apart after a 5-1 start.
Panic! They've lost two games in a row!
They have lost two straight games to teams that bullied the Patriots around.
The Patriots weren't bullied to where they were never in either game. The Patriots were in both games and had a chance to win the Giants game if the defense had made a stop at the end of the game. Tom Brady didn't lose that game, the Patriots' defense did.
It'd be interesting to see what Brady could do in Miami, Seattle or Washington.
It would be interesting to see what Peyton Manning could do in Miami, Seattle or Washington. There isn't a Reggie Wayne or Marvin Harrison on those rosters.
Probably just as well as the current starters.
This is idiocy. Plain and simple. Tom Brady is a better quarterback than John Beck, Tarvaris Jackson/Charlie Whitehurst, and Matt Moore ever could be. Anyone who suggests Brady is on par with those quarterbacks simply has a bias against Tom Brady or can't handle reality. This is a stupid statement to make.
Actually, what this article really is would be an attempt to increase pageviews and write something "controversial" in an effort to get people to read what the author has written. There's no such thing as bad attention, even when the bad attention is on a poorly written and researched article a high school freshman would be embarrassed to write. If the author wanted attention, well then mission accomplished.
26 comments:
Cassel led the Patriots to an 11-5 record and was a top-10 quarterback in 2008.
In the 2007 season, the Patriots were 1st in passing, 13th in rushing.
In the 2008 season, the Patriots were 12th in passing, 6th in rushing.
The point is that with Brady out, the Patriots ran the ball more, roughly 4-5 times a game more. That's indicative of a shift in personnel at QB.
The 2011 season answers this question without a doubt.
The Patriots are Super Bowl contenders and Manning is injured?
It is obvious that Manning is more important to his team.
Here's what interesting: Manning can be more important to his team than Brady, but Brady can still be the better QB!
Indy has no running game or defense. In 2008, NE had both, so Cassell had a lot of help. In 2011, Indy has neither.
So yes, Peyton is probably more valuable to the Colts than Brady is to the Patriots, but how does that make Brady overrated or even worse than Peyton?
Brady did win three Super Bowls, but the last one was in 2004, seven years ago.
First, it was the 2004 season, the SB was played in 2005.
Also, when was Peyton's only SB? The 2006 season...
Since the Patriots' last Super Bowl victory, Brady is 5-5 in the playoffs.
And Tim Tebow is 5-1 as a starting QB and he's not a very good QB. You can't use W/L to justify how good an individual player is.
Also, what's their record with someone other than Brady in the playoffs since 2004? 0-0.
Brady's last playoff win was in 2007.
Mark Sanchez's last playoff win was in 2010! He's much better than Brady.
It is simple. Brady is struggling because the Patriots are struggling.
The Patriots are the second best passing offense in the NFL. The fuck is with this "struggling" horseshit?
They average over 30 points a game and are 8-3. How would any QB make this team any better?
In their 3 losses, they've scored 31 points, 17 points and 24 points. First one is on the defense, the second is against Pitt, so really can't blame them for only 17 points. The last one is the Giants game where the defense let Eli bend them over in the fourth.
So... how exactly would any QB make this team better.
Ultimately it comes down to this every QB is a system QB.
Look at Montana, Elway, Manning(s), etc. they do well when the offense is geared towards what they do well. Why should Brady be held to a different standard than anyone else simply because he fits the system that NE runs well?
Sure, the coaching staff gets credit as well, but seriously, Wes Welker is probably the best receiver Brady has had and if you think there are many QBs in the league who can average 30 points a game with that, I'd laugh.
Of course since then they now sit at 8-3 with the 2nd seed. Falling apart indeed
I am very surprised that no one is really going after Polian for not having a competent back up. If it were the Patriots there would be allot of mocking "Some Genius" Since it isn't Belichick not a peep. Also Manning is in no way the difference between 0-11 and 8-3. With Manning Indy might me 500 or a little above. That team has some major issues
Rich, those people who think Cassel is the proof Brady is overrated don't see that. They are incapable of seeing the Pats relied more on the running game with Cassel. They are also incapable of seeing how the offense performed with Brady and with Cassel at the helm. Brady clearly was a better QB.
Part of the problem is the reliance on the comparison to Manning, coupled with the comparison of how NE did with Cassel as the QB. The fact Bill Polian hasn't put a decent backup QB on the roster doesn't mean Brady is overrated, nor does the idea the Pats didn't completely fall apart without Brady as the QB.
Sanchez has made 2 AFC Championship games since Brady last won a playoff game. Who is the better QB? Clearly Sanchez.
It is completely stupid to believe the Pats offense is struggling. This was written about two weeks ago and at the time the Pats still weren't struggling. They had lost two games, which isn't defined as "struggling."
The main problem is there are so many faulty assumptions that aren't proven. First, that NE was as good of an offense with Cassel at the helm. Second, a direct comparison of Brady to Manning is a good comparison to determine Brady's overall worth. Third, that NE is struggling now. Fourth, many of the same criticisms about Brady not winning a playoff game can also go for Manning.
I am not a Brady fan, but he isn't overrated. You are right, to an extent every QB is a system QB.
Murray, it's the end of days for the Pats. They are only 8-3.
I wrote something or will post something soon where I mention some disdain for Bill Polian and how I believe he is a bit overrated. It may have been in MMQB last week. The simple conclusion I can draw is Polian got a HoF QB and didn't build the team around him. I am actually amazed Manning has done as well as he has with the players around him...at least based on this year. Polian seems to be a bit overrated as a talent evaluator, but another part of the problem is the Colts are so offensively top-heavy they don't have the cap room to go out and get a moderately priced vet to back up Manning. They just hoped he didn't get injured.
I think the Colts inability to find a quality QB shows the true side of Polian's evaluation abilities. It would be a different story if Orlovsky/Painter/Collins were rookies and being relied upon. Rookies aren't always expected to start at QB, but Painter has been in the offense for quite a few years and Orlovsky and Collins are both veterans. So we don't have a KC situation here where rookies or inexperienced players are backing up Cassel. Painter is a veteran. If he clearly couldn't be the backup then why was he still the backup? Did he show things in practice he hasn't shown in games?
There is some talent on Indy, but I really think this year shows how Manning is the glue that holds the Colts together. You don't hear Gregg Easterbrook talking about undrafted, lowly drafted or unwanted free agents with the Colts this year because they don't have Manning to make them look good. There is some talent on the Colts roster, but to have the team fall apart like this is indicative Manning's injury isn't the only problem with the team.
I just know some media halfwit is going to cast an MVP vote for Manning.
Peter King isn't that stupid. I can't help but wonder who it will be. Do you like an Indy writer would do it? I say "yes."
fantastic breakdown.
if anything, Cassel is the system QB and benefited from great coaching, a great defense, and a great run game in 2008. to me, it shows me more about the coaching and the organization of Colts vs. Patriots, seeing the Pats without Brady go 11-5 and the Colts without Manning completely fall apart.
FJ, thanks. I would agree with you on that. He is the one we have proof has thrived in the Pats system, but hasn't quite reached that consistent height in a different system.
In regard to the comparison of the Colts and Pats organizations I think it says a lot about the quality of the backup quarterbacks and coaching as well. Of course, this is ignored so the idea Brady is overrated can be focused upon wrongly. Who cares if we have proof the Colts team and coaching isn't up to par with the Pats? Tom Brady is overrated because the organization didn't fall apart without him.
Again, Joe Montana. The 49ers thrived without him. Does that mean he was a system quarterback?
That's trash cause manning had one of the top wide receiving cores in the history of the league just cause his coach six doesn't mean Brady is overrated by comparison. Complete bs.
Billy, it is complete B.S.
Manning has had Wayne, Harrison, and Clark to through to. That's three Hall of Fame-type receivers that he's had to throw to. Brady has had Moss and Welker, at least since 2007. Still, I think we can all agree Manning has had more offensive weapons around him in the past. It all is about Matt Cassel. Because he played well people think Brady is overrated.
Your comparison of Manning in Brady is so biased. To say Manning had to Pro Bowl Reciever is stupid. Marvin Harrison's first pro bowl was in 1999 which was Peyton's sophmore year. On top of that Harrison's first thousand yard year was in 1999. So to say Peyton had two pro bowlers is garbage. That would be like me saying that Brady is good because Wes Welker is a pro bowler. I say that Tom Brady is overrated because he gets a bunch of people that were stars before him
Tom Brady-Randy Moss, Chad Ochocinco, Corey Dillon, and Kevin Faulk.
Peyton Manning-No One. He developed with his people, he was not handed stars.
I am not saying Tom Brady is not a good quarterback do not get me wrong, I am simply saying that there should be no one comparing Tom Brady to Peyton Manning.
Tom Brady has also bennefitted from good defenses which Peyton has not had. (I think Peyton had a top ten defense once or twice.)
Tom Brady is a great quarterback but he does not deserve as much credit as he gets. He is better then Cassel but he is no Manning. He is more like an Eli Manning or Ben Rothlesberger, Im sure I spelled that wrong. Manning, and Brees instantly make any team better. Lets hope Peyton goes to the Jets. There he will have two proven recievers in Santonio Holmes, and Plexico Burress, a decent defense and running game. Then we will see Manning in dominant fashion. All I am saying is that Peyton, and Brees make pro bowlers, and Brady recieves them.
Nice I just read this. Check out I blogged on the same thing a couple months ago.
http://bayaniflores.blogspot.com/2011/11/overrated-tom-brady-and-giselle.html
People also seem to forget the TEAM the AMAZING DEFENSE that Tom Brady played with when he won those super bowls not to mention a hall of fame KICKER in Vinny. Not to mention a great defensive coordinator in Romeo Crennel and a great offensive mind like Josh Mcdaniels. He played with incredible talent and that's why he won those super bowls...I mean think about it he got to play with arguable the greatest wide receiver if not the second best in Randy Moss. OVERRATED!!!!
Great point about Matt Cassel. If he could take that team to 11-5, and by the way that was a season where they could've made the postseason had it not been for an abnormally high set of season wins for other teams. OVERRATED!!!
Anon, Josh McDaniels wasn't an offensive genius when the Pats won their Super Bowls. He was a DEF coaching assistant and QB coach in 2004. So it wasn't his genius that helped the Patriots win Super Bowls.
The Pats defense was 24th in yards allowed in 2001, 23rd, in 2002, and 9th in 2004. So for a great defense they sure gave up a lot of yardage. I wouldn't by any stretch call the Pats defense amazing, but actual statistics are no match for capitalized adjectives. I'd love to hear about the amazing talent on those 3 Super Bowl teams b/c the roster doesn't bear this out. So wouldn't Manning be overrated? He's played nearly his entire career with a HoF center, 2 WRs, a DE and a TE. That counts for nothing?
I just don't think Brady is overrated. I'm not going to argue the Pats don't have a good team around Brady, but the Patriots were clearly not as good of a team in 2008 without Brady. They still should have made the playoffs, but they played better as a team with Brady as the QB. The record and Brady's statistics bear this out. He's not overrated.
You said that all QB's are system QB's. But some are more system than others.
The main examples of that are none other than Tom Brady and Joe Montana.
I am not saying that they are bad QB's, but they are overrated in the relation to the credit that they get.
In contrast, you have someone like Elway, who led three Denver teams to SB's in the 80's despite having average weapons and playing in an antiquated system.
I know that you say that there isn't any proof that Brady and Montana couldn't do good in any other system, but when I see them, I think that it is a safe bet that they wouldn't have had the same success if they were drafted by another team.
sptrfn, I can see why you would say Montana/Brady are system QB's and are probably more overrated than others. Brady still isn't the most overrated QB in history. If you want to argue along those lines then Montana could be seen as that guy since Steve Young won a Super Bowl just a few years a/f Montana did in San Fran with the 49ers. Montana did have success in KC as well, though they were running a version of the West Coast offense as well.
I understand your feeling when you see them that they wouldn't do as well in another system, but it is still a feeling you have. I guess we'll never know, unless Brady leaves NE. There is certainly a combination of a great QB with a great coach in both Brady and Montana's situations.
It is a hard point to argue on who is the most overrated and who isn't...I don't think Brady is the most overrated QB though.
Ben, I did read the article from October 2011 about Brady being a system QB. It did talk about the different systems that Tom played in. However, I don't think that it is the system that is in question, but the style. Brady needs everything to be pristine and orderly. He doesn't do nearly as well when things break down.
I would like to see Big Ben play in that New England offense behind that line. He would put up as good, if not better numbers.
Sptrfn, I can agree with that, no problem there. I think Manning and Brady do better with a pristine pocket. There aren't many QB's that like the pocket to break down or are able to move around the pocket and make something out of nothing.
I'd be interested to see Roethlisberger play behind the line too. Possible stupid question...but do you think he plays better with that chaos to where he may not play as better behind a pristine line? It sounds stupid, but I felt the need to ask it.
I think that Big Ben would play even better behind NE's line. A great line is a QB's best friend.
You are probably right. A great line is a QB's best friend. It may take Roethlisberger a few games to get over the shock of not having to run for his life on 5-10 snaps per game though!
Yards mean nothing look at there points per game on defense they where top five every year Brady went 10-6 in 2009 one win less than cassel Brady is the most boring qb ever to watch dink and dunk small ball king
Watch some tom Brady highlights boring dink and dunk small ball bubble screen check down perfect pocket sissy
Anon, two very persuasive, yet terribly punctuated points you have made there.
Maybe you should look up the defense. The Pats defense was 24th in yards given up and 6th in points given up per game in 2001. In 2003 they were 7th in yards given up and in 2004 they were 9th. That's not a Top 5.
Besides, Cassel was the same dink and dunk passer you accuse Brady of being. He averaged 7 yards per attempt in 2008 while Brady hasn't had a full season where he averaged less than 7.8 yards per attempt since 2006. So basically I looked it up and you are wrong.
How has "Mr. Clutch" fared since the Patriots got caught cheating?
Here's a year by year breakdown:
2006
Throws 2 INT's in 13-27 loss Jake Plummer led Broncos
2007
Manages to beat San Diego while throwing 3 INT's luckily the 4th one bounced off the defenders chest
Chokes away a 21-3 lead to the Colts. Propelling Manning to his first Superbowl.
2008
Humongous favorites over the Giants. Going for the perfect season and and leading the best offense ever. Pulls probably the biggest choke job in NFL history and loses 17-14
2010
Big Home Favorite vs Ravens and lose 33-14 to a second year Joe Flacco
2011
Big Home Favorites vs Jets and lose 28-21 to Mark Sanchez
2012
Poor performance vs the Ravens and should have lost but got bailed out several times. If you watched the game you don't need me to elaborate.
Favorites to the Giants and lose 21-17
Yesterday
Big Home Favorites to the Ravens and lose 28-13
Brady and the Patriots have been Huge playoff favorites in many games these past 8 years because he has been unbelievable in meaningless regular season games. Often blowing out teams and perennially putting up some of the best offensive regular season statistics. However, when it comes to the big playoff games Brady shrinks. Those monstrous offensive performances disappear.
http://bayaniflores.blogspot.com/2011/11/overrated-tom-brady-and-giselle.html
Bayani, to say Tom Brady is overrated or even the most overrated quarterback ever then you would have to use more than just his playoff statistics and results. It's a fallacy to just use the playoffs and claim, "Well, Tom Brady is overrated" because it ignores his regular season record.
I don't see how anyone can look at Brady's regular season statistics and say he is overrated.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm
You can't just call the regular season games "meaningless" because it fits your argument. Fine, Brady shrinks in big games, but he is better than nearly all quarterbacks in the regular season. This makes him not overrated because whether you like it or not the regular season record shows Brady is better than nearly all other quarterbacks.
So do you think other quarterbacks and NFL teams are not trying as hard in the regular season because they are meaningless games? That's ridiculous to just ignore his regular season statistics because the games are meaningless. By this measure any player who doesn't play well in the postseason over his career is overrated.
Not to mention, while you have cherry-picked the losses for the Patriots in the postseason why are you ignoring the fact since Brady won his last Super Bowl in 2004 he has led the Patriots to two Super Bowls and has won more playoff games than he has lost.
I see where you are coming from in terms of postseason performances, but you just can't discount his regular season performances because it doesn't fit the point you want to prove. The fact Brady is better in these meaningless regular season games than nearly any other quarterback in the same meaningless regular season games means Brady isn't overrated.
Post a Comment