355 replies to this topic

[Hendu's Gait]

Does it matter what Gisele thinks? It was said right after a crushing loss in response to a remark by a Dennis & Callahan fan. Yes, she should have said nothing. But sometimes things are a bit messier than the ideal. She's not on the field, so I really don't care.

But she's the only one who spends as much time with Tom as the players and coaches. If she is somehow negatively affecting Tom's on-field performance, that's not a good thing. One thing is clear, causation or not, (yes, likely NOT) the Pats had a better track record with Bridget.

Edited by Hendu's Gait, 06 February 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[CaptainLaddie]

But she's the only one who spends as much time with Tom as the players and coaches. If she is somehow negatively affecting Tom's on-field performance, that's not a good thing. One thing is clear, causation or not, (yes, likely NOT) the Pats had a better track record with Bridget.

Likely not?

[bosox4283]

Yeah that's a really dumb thing for her to say

She's a supermodel. I would have been surprised if she had said something smart.

[ragnarok725]

The conversation about Brady in the wake of this SB will be a big reminder to us all of how stupid the narrativization is on both sides of glory.

Seriously, if any number of teeny tiny things happen a different way, Brady is the best that ever played the game. He's the best QB to ever play. If the ball to Welker is on his shoulder, two inches the other way, if he doesn't have to turn so much, then they win the game. Hell, even if he plays the exact same game and any number of things just bounce the other way. Any of the three fumbles. If Gronkowski has just enough spring to get up and knock the ball away from Blackburn, then Brady is the best QB to ever play the game.

Instead, this thread gets bumped.

Sadly, it means we should never have lauded him as we did in the first place. He's not the savior we think of him as if any number of things don't happen on the other end as well.

If we're looking to evaluate the player fairly, he's been a big part of bringing the team to 5 SBs in 11 years. If we want to make individuals ultimately responsible for all the random elements inherent in the results of just a few games we really badly care about, then the story of Brady has changed a lot today.

[Three10toLeft]

I think some people are making two different arguments based on perspective in this thread.

Some people, myself included, are blaming Brady slightly because we look at him as one of, if not, the greatest quarterbacks to play the game. Therefore, when we see him consistently have mental breakdowns throughout critical games, we assume something is completely wrong with him.

This game was sobering to me in the way I think about Brady. He's one of the greatest, but definitely not the greatest. He needs a lot more help then the front office has afforded him. If you take away his lone threat on offense, you are left with a really good slot receiver, and a bunch of has beens who play extremely well in this system, but probably wouldn't be see much time on the field anywhere else. (Excluding Hernandez)

His starting running back is best suited in a change of pace role. Not your leading carrier.

This guy needs more weapons... In particular, he needs a RB that can come in and sustain a drive from him.

Edited by Three10toLeft, 06 February 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[phragle]

Yeah that's a really dumb thing for her to say

You don't hang out with many models do you?

[CaptainLaddie]

You don't hang out with many models do you?

Not these days.

[phragle]

Not these days.

I have a friend for you to meet. She's half black with red hair.

[soxin6]

I think some people are making two different arguments based on perspective in this thread.

Some people, myself included, are blaming Brady slightly because we look at him as one of, if not, the greatest quarterbacks to play the game. Therefore, when we see him consistently have mental breakdowns throughout critical games, we assume something is completely wrong with him.

This game was sobering to me in the way I think about Brady. He's one of the greatest, but definitely not the greatest. He needs a lot more help then the front office has afforded him. If you take away his lone threat on offense, you are left with a really good slot receiver, and a bunch of has beens who play extremely well in this system, but probably wouldn't be see much time on the field anywhere else. (Excluding Hernandez)

His starting running back is best suited in a change of pace role. Not your leading carrier.

This guy needs more weapons... In particular, he needs a RB that can come in and sustain a drive from him.

Please tell me which of the great quarterbacks were able to do it all on their own? Brady has much less talent around him on offense than Eli had let alone greats like Montana. Brady isn't perfect but he is clearly the greatest Patriots QB ever and has brought 3 SB championships to a team that I was convinced would never be able to win one.

[drleather2001]

I think some people are making the two different arguments based on perspective in this thread.

Some people, myself included, are blaming Brady slightly because we look at him as one of, if not, the greatest quarterbacks to play the game. Therefore, when we see him consistently have mental breakdowns throughout critical games, we assume something is completely wrong with him.

This game was sobering to me in the way I think about Brady. He's one of the greatest, but definitely not the greatest. He needs a lot more help then the front office has afforded him. If you take away his lone threat on offense, you are left with a really good slot receiver, and a bunch of has beens who play extremely well in this system, but probably wouldn't be see much time on the field anywhere else. (Excluding Hernandez)

His starting running back is best suited in a change of pace role. Not your leading carrier.

This guy needs more weapons... In particular, he needs a RB that can come in and sustain a drive from him.

But I think some of us are arguing that viewpoints like this one place Brady in an impossible situation. You're saying he's not the greatest, thus he needs more help. Others here (myself included) are saying that other 'greater' QBs had a lot more help than Brady has had over the past couple of years (since 2007, anyway), so it's completely unfair to judge SB Wins/Losses in a vacuum.

Montana had a great supporting cast.
Bradshaw had a sick defense.
Young Brady had a very good defense and a solid to spectacular running game.

Blaming Brady for not being awesome enough to win all the time is akin, in my mind, to blaming a great starting pitcher for losing games 3-2 in the World Series, and comparing him negatively to pitchers who win 7-3. It's like the old "Winning is the only stat that counts!" saw, which is fine from a holistic point of view but not when comparing individual performances.

Edited by drleather2001, 06 February 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[CyYoungSchilling]

Why is it ridiculous? Tom needs to know the rules and not even let that safety be a possibility. The D made a stop then had to get right back on the field. The TOP in the first half was pathetic. The underthrow to Gronk was pathetic. Like I said, Tom is very good, but an all-time great finds a way to put points on the board in the final 26 minutes. Tom couldn't do it.

So let's see...
10 seasons as a starter, 5 Super Bowl appearances, 3 championships, 2 Super Bowl MVP's, 2 regular season MVP's, best winning percentage of any QB in NFL history, tied with Montana for the most wins all-time in playoffs (with 1 less loss), an undefeated regular season, NFL single season TD record, career 96.5 QB Rating, 300 TD's to 115 INT's, 63.8% completions, 7.5 YPA. But he's only very good and not an all-time great because Marbleheader has a random ass rule that an all-time great finds a way to put points on the board in the final 26 minutes of 1 singular game.

Way to embarrass yourself.

Edited by CyYoungSchilling, 06 February 2012 - 11:22 AM.

[Clears Cleaver]

I have no rooting interest in this (Dollphins fan) but the Pats offense has turned into the old style run-and-shoot where no pass goes more than 10-15 yards. The WRs on the Pats suck (Welker is not an outside the #s WR, he is a slot guy) and they cannot throw the ball down the field. brady was 0-5 with an INT on passes that went more than 20 yards. I suspect this is as much him never throwing to poor WRs and same WRs never getting open.

This has to change. In fact, with TWO TEs who require 3 defenders to cover them (or more), having a speedy WR on the outside should result in wide open deep outs and posts. I am not a Brady apologist by any means, but not sure this is all on him.

[BigSoxFan]

I have no rooting interest in this (Dollphins fan) but the Pats offense has turned into the old style run-and-shoot where no pass goes more than 10-15 yards. The WRs on the Pats suck (Welker is not an outside the #s WR, he is a slot guy) and they cannot throw the ball down the field. brady was 0-5 with an INT on passes that went more than 20 yards. I suspect this is as much him never throwing to poor WRs and same WRs never getting open.

This has to change. In fact, with TWO TEs who require 3 defenders to cover them (or more), having a speedy WR on the outside should result in wide open deep outs and posts. I am not a Brady apologist by any means, but not sure this is all on him.

I agree with this. With this offense, the Patriots either need a more dynamic running game or a more dangerous vertical threat.

[Three10toLeft]

But I think some of us are arguing that viewpoints like this one place Brady in an impossible situation. You're saying he's not the greatest, thus he needs more help. Others here (myself included) are saying that other 'greater' QBs had a lot more help than Brady has had over the past couple of years (since 2007, anyway), so it's completely unfair to judge SB Wins/Losses in a vacuum.

Montana had a great supporting cast.
Bradshaw had a sick defense.
Young Brady had a very good defense and a solid to spectacular running game.

Blaming Brady for not being awesome enough to win all the time is akin, in my mind, to blaming a great starting pitcher for losing games 3-2 in the World Series, and comparing him negatively to pitchers who win 7-3. It's like the old "Winning is the only stat that counts!" saw, which is fine from a holistic point of view but not when comparing individual performances.

I agree.

I think part of it is the child-like idolization that I myself, and others, have for Tom Brady. It's one thing to have a great player on your favorite team, and recognize his greatness. It's another to have a great player on your favorite team, recognize his greatness, while also seeing him lead you to multiple championships. He becomes super human at that point. This is a snap back to reality, because as stupid and outlandish as it sounds, you just expect him to get it done on the field, no matter what. And when that doesn't happen, you feel like something is wrong with him. Leading many to put this game on his shoulders as the reason we lost.

Last night I expected Brady to cement his legacy as the greatest QB of all time. Maybe I wished for it more than I actually expected it. That's why watching him have just a 'good' game instead of an all time great game makes it hurt that much more.

I think having Gronkowski play like he did this year masked a lot of short comings on this offense. And when he was ineffective last night, it really showed what Brady would have had to work with this year, if it had not been for him. Their is only so much dinking and dunking you can do in the passing game, the Pats couldn't stretch the field much this year with Gronk. And relied a lot on YAC. Without Gronk it became a dink and dunk fest last night. You're not going to win many super bowl's when you rely on a short passing game, with most of your receivers unable to provide much separation from their defenders to provide the YAC needed to move the ball.

[ngruz25]

Last night I groused about how the offense, for as great as it is, can't really move the ball 80 yards with 2 minutes to play in the 4th quarter. Bongorific responded with this sage post, which really sums it up perfectly:

It's just very hard to have no weaknesses. The NFL Is really even right now. That's what makes it frustrating. In another era BB and Brady win 6+. Now it's really impressive to win 3/5.

The offense is awesome at what it does. They run a lot of high-percentage plays that move the chains, eat up yards, get the defenders' heads spinning, and put points on the board. They do this through really smart play-calling, personnel mismatches, receivers that can get to open space, RB's who can get positive yardage often, a good OL, and a QB that is an all-time great at reading defenses. It's a fantastic offense. The statistics don't lie.

But it's not really a quick-striking offense. They're not a BIG PLAY passing offense in the New Orleans Saints mold. They don't have a RB that you can count on to break off big 30 yard runs, or WR's that will burn cornerbacks for huge gains. Their big play threats are tight ends.

But getting to Bongorific's point, you can't have everything in this league. The outside WR's they've brought in have been largely ineffective, so it's not like they aren't trying (okay, Dez Bryant hurts a little). It's still a really effective offense. They still score a bunch of points, and they still control the ball really well. Those two tight ends are really good. And those offenses with the deep threats and dynamic running backs? Well, they didn't make the Super Bowl. They might not make it next year. There's a ton of parity in the NFL, and we have to accept that. We can't have everything. So what if the offense is a little less effective when the defense knows they have to pass the ball to pick up yardage, they're still quite awesome for the rest of the game.

You know what really killed the offense last night? Basically only playing three quarters. And field position. They just didn't have the time to put up a ton of points.

Edited by ngruz25, 06 February 2012 - 11:59 AM.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

You know what really killed the offense last night? Basically only playing three quarters. And field position. They just didn't have the time to put up a ton of points.

These points deserve a lot more emphasis in the post-mortem. We only had eight real drives (before the last minute prayer drive), which is very low. We also started three of those drives inside our ten yard line and never started in better field position than our 29. When you have fewer drives per team, the luck/random component of football increases and the importance of a couple plays becomes magnified.

Edited by Morgan's Magic Snowplow, 06 February 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[Harry Hooper]

You know what really killed the offense last night? Basically only playing three quarters. And field position. They just didn't have the time to put up a ton of points.

Exactly, the Giants dominated the LOS on both sides of the ball in the 4th. An extra-elusive Brady in the 4th masked how poorly his O-line played that quarter in front of him, and Wilfork & Co. couldn't even sniff Eli.

[Marbleheader]

But he's only very good and not an all-time great because Marbleheader has a random ass rule that an all-time great finds a way to put points on the board in the final 26 minutes of 1 singular game.

So, we just ignore his performances in the past 5 postseasons. Got it. From where he started, he was on track to be one of the top 2 or 3 QB's all time. He's not there, and his performances in the playoffs are a huge reason why. He couldn't put up more than 3 point-scoring drives in either of the past two Super Bowls. That matters to his legacy.

[kneemoe]

Exactly, the Giants dominated the LOS on both sides of the ball in the 4th. An extra-elusive Brady in the 4th masked how poorly his O-line played that quarter in front of him, and Wilfork & Co. couldn't even sniff Eli.

I think the point was more that the Pats didn't have a chance to do s--t in the 1st quarter, though I may be mistaken.

[Al Zarilla]

For once, somebody says what she or he is really thinking, but I wonder if she'd like to have it back.

[ngruz25]

I think the point was more that the Pats didn't have a chance to do s--t in the 1st quarter, though I may be mistaken.

That's the point I was making, though there wasn't much going in in the 4th either. The offense didn't have a real drive until there were 4 minutes left in the first quarter. I thought the offense was pretty awesome last night. They had one three and out, but other than that they drove the ball effectively. They put together some long drives that ate up a bunch of yards. The problem is, so did the Giants. It was an incredibly "fast" game where every possession mattered enormously.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

So, we just ignore his performances in the past 5 postseasons. Got it. From where he started, he was on track to be one of the top 2 or 3 QB's all time. He's not there, and his performances in the playoffs are a huge reason why. He couldn't put up more than 3 point-scoring drives in either of the past two Super Bowls. That matters to his legacy.

I think this is all kinds of wrong. Tom Brady is one of the top 2 or 3 QBs of all time. No question about it in my mind really.

This game was about him moving into the number 1 spot ahead of Joe Montana. A win would have probably justified it. If he's lucky enough to reach another Superbowl, he needs to win in order to even begin having that conversation again.

[Pedro's Complaint]

These points deserve a lot more emphasis in the post-mortem. We only had eight real drives (before the last minute prayer drive), which is very low. We also started three of those drives inside our ten yard line and never started in better field position than our 29. When you have fewer drives per team, the luck/random component of football increases and the importance of a couple plays becomes magnified.

Agreed. The Giants only had eight real drives, but their field position was much better. Forcing three fumbles and getting zero turnovers was just killer.

[Marbleheader]

I think this is all kinds of wrong. Tom Brady is one of the top 2 or 3 QBs of all time. No question about it in my mind really.

This game was about him moving into the number 1 spot ahead of Joe Montana. A win would have probably justified it. If he's lucky enough to reach another Superbowl, he needs to win in order to even begin having that conversation again.

We're essentially saying the same thing, but I'm all kinds of wrong. I see. You can argue that he's top 3 now, but it's certainly debateable. Adding a 4th Super Bowl and some stronger postseason performances, and there's little room for debate.

[Shelterdog]

I think this is all kinds of wrong. Tom Brady is one of the top 2 or 3 QBs of all time. No question about it in my mind really.

Maybe not in your mind but a lot of people would say Montana, Peyton, Marino, Favre, Unitas, and Graham are better.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

We're essentially saying the same thing, but I'm all kinds of wrong. I see. You can argue that he's top 3 now, but it's certainly debateable. Adding a 4th Super Bowl and some stronger postseason performances, and there's little room for debate.

How are we "essentially saying the same thing"? You said,

From where he started, he was on track to be one of the top 2 or 3 QB's all time. He's not there, and his performances in the playoffs are a huge reason why.

I said he was unarguably a top 2 or 3 QB.

Again...you say "he isn't a top 2-3 QB". I say "He is a top 2-3 QB". Not just are we not "Saying the same thing", we're saying completely opposite things.

[BucketOBalls]

Maybe not in your mind but a lot of people would say Montana, Peyton, Marino, Favre, Unitas, and Graham are better.

The only way Favre is better is in durability and the ability to throw picks. IT's hard to compare across time periods though. We may need to recalibrate things. In Montana's time the Pats would have been able retained Asante (Seymour also) and probably would have spent for a decent WR.

The reason Brady has struggled recently is that fact that they keep running into top 3 defenses. Think about it. Baltimore, Jets, Giants, Steelers. Basically, the best defensive teams every year. Seems to be all they meet these days. They need to figure out a way to beat those types of teams. (I think the TE's were a part of that, and ti worked, but having Gronk limited was huge).

Edited by BucketOBalls, 06 February 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[TomRicardo]

It is really hard to fault Brady with the drops especially when the WRs on the other side were making circus catches all game. I am sorry Brady was the better QB yesterday.

[ngruz25]

It is really hard to fault Brady with the drops especially when the WRs on the other side were making circus catches all game. I am sorry Brady was the better QB yesterday.

It's amazing that there was not a single catch by the Patriots yesterday that made me say "nice catch!" The Gronk one probably comes closest, but that was firmly in his hands. The Giants had several. I'm not sure if that says more about the quality of the quarterbacking, the quality of the catching, or the play designs.

[Tony C]

Welker made a phenomenal catch on a 3 and 10, but was only for 9 yards.

Style points 10, though.

[Ed Hillel]

Give me a break, Brady played a VERY good game yesterday. He started with the ball on his 10 half the time an his players made some mistakes on important plays. If Welker catches that he is the greatest of all-time and 3-time SB MVP. Now it's his fault? Whatever.

[Marbleheader]

How are we "essentially saying the same thing"? You said,



I said he was unarguably a top 2 or 3 QB.

Again...you say "he isn't a top 2-3 QB". I say "He is a top 2-3 QB". Not just are we not "Saying the same thing", we're saying completely opposite things.

A win would have moved him into a more elite place in the game. Whether it's #1 or #3 is semantics. Is it that hard to figure out? Jesus Christ.

[Reverend]

As per what ragnarock and MMSP said, if the difference between being MVP and goat is the bounce on a punt, then there is something wrong with the mode of analysis.

[lexrageorge]

So, we just ignore his performances in the past 5 postseasons. Got it. From where he started, he was on track to be one of the top 2 or 3 QB's all time. He's not there, and his performances in the playoffs are a huge reason why. He couldn't put up more than 3 point-scoring drives in either of the past two Super Bowls. That matters to his legacy.

I'm not sure who you were putting into Top 2 or 3 QB's of all time, but taking a closer look at some of the more recent QB's whom some have put into that category:

Elway: 7-8 in his 1st 15 playoff games, and QB ratings of 83.6, 36.8, and 19.4 in his first 3 Super Bowls. Even in that final 7-0 playoff stretch, he passed for >225 yards once. Of course, his legacy is helped by saving his best for his final game, for which he deserves credit.

Marino: 8-10 career record in the playoffs with a 77.1 QB rating (compared with Brady's 87.6). Yes, his team's weren't always good enough, but that's the point a lot of the Brady defenders (myself included) are trying to make.

Montana: If you're saying that Brady isn't Montana, I won't argue that point. But there's only one Montana, and even he had 3 straight playoff losses (QB ratings of 65.6, 34.2 and 42) with 0 TD's, 4 INT's, and was 3-3 in his final 6 playoff games.

Brett Favre: An example of what good marketing can do for you. Similar playoff stats to Brady; actually slightly worse, and only 1 ring, and that was due to big assists from both Desmond Howard and Bill Parcells.

Peyton Manning: Arguing Brady vs. Manning (Peyton) can quickly turn into an Orr vs. Gretzky type argument. But their playoff records and stats are quite similar l if you care to look that up.

I won't look up Eli, because it will make my head hurt right now. But, to be fair to him, he's still in his prime for a few more years, so it's too early to "close the book" on him. Same with Drew Brees and Aaron Rogers. Also, my apologies to the great ones that came before Montana; too hard to compare against eras.

So, maybe Brady ain't Montana, but he's still pretty damn good. I'm still not sure why we're always so quick to say his legacy is "taking a hit". Certainly shouldn't take any more of a hit than Peyton.

[Paul M]

Brady played well for large portions of the game but while it was less consistent than in 2008 that first play pass rush by Tuck led to 2 points and that's on Brady. I don't it's a coincidence Brady is 2-4 in his last 6 post-season games and 5 of those have come since his injury. He made good, short quick throws but he also was off the mark on anything over 15 yards and was tentative early. His place in history is not damaged much because of these last 5 years but one more title and he's maybe the greatest. Now, I think he's ONE of the best. I think they have 3 more years to win one and I really think they have to get him a running back, as a team that runs the ball with Woodhead to win the game is lacking something, imo.

[Jack Sox]

Football analysis never ceases to amaze me with its laziness. One Asante Samuel dropped INT and one Welker dropped pass all but means Brady is a 5 time champ.

Instead, those two plays didn't happen which somehow equates to the guy no longer being able to win the big game.

[Al Zarilla]

It's amazing that there was not a single catch by the Patriots yesterday that made me say "nice catch!" The Gronk one probably comes closest, but that was firmly in his hands. The Giants had several. I'm not sure if that says more about the quality of the quarterbacking, the quality of the catching, or the play designs.

Also, we hear that Gronk has really huge hands, which, along with his extra height, must allow him to catch some balls even a Hernandez wouldn't. Gronk being limited (regardless of what he said otherwise) was really big. But yeah, those GD Giants receivers play like they have stickum on their hands like Biletnikoff used to get away with.

[jsinger121]

Football analysis never ceases to amaze me with its laziness. One Asante Samuel dropped INT and one Welker dropped pass all but means Brady is a 5 time champ.

Instead, those two plays didn't happen which somehow equates to the guy no longer being able to win the big game.

You could throw a defensive choke job in 2006 in there as well from 6 rings.

[Bongorific]

The magic seemed like it was right there on the last drive. Unlike the 3 bombs in '07, there were several legitimate chances last night. Brady and Branch missed a huge play on first down by one step. Brady was under pressure and threw a bit early. If he let that play develop for a split second longer, the safety doesn't get a hand on it, Branch catches it in stride and probably makes it to the Giants' 45-40, where the other safety was. The Hernandez drop was a perfect throw. Couldn't do much on the sack on 3rd down as the line completely broke down. The 4th down play was incredible. Brady out moved JPP and found Branch to get a first and stop the clock. The game should have ended right there if not for such an amazing effort. Before the hail mary he took two shots to Hernandez and Branch. Seemed like both were well thrown. I wish there was more time to see better replays. I don't expect a call in that situation, but Hernandez might have been interfered with at the 1. It's hard to tell if he trips or is pushed. I think the Branch non-catch on the sidelines would have held up if it was called a catch at first. Without the super slow-mo it's hard to tell when the ball hits his hands, but it looks like he may have just had it. If any of those break that extra inch the Pats way, Brady is lauded again for his late game heroics.

[Marbleheader]

Football analysis never ceases to amaze me with its laziness. One Asante Samuel dropped INT and one Welker dropped pass all but means Brady is a 5 time champ.

Instead, those two plays didn't happen which somehow equates to the guy no longer being able to win the big game.

Aside from the bottom of the 10th inning the Red Sox had a pretty good Game 6 in 1986. The Pats made the play when it mattered when they won their Super Bowls. When you're talking about greatness, the results matter in all sports. Brady got a ton of credit for how he handled the final drive in XXXVI, and he deserved it. He had the ball with 4 minutes to go and the lead. He didn't get it done this time.

Conference championships:

2012: 57.5 Passer Rating
2008: 66.4
2007: 79.5

Super Bowls:
2012: 91.5
2008: 82.5

Divisional
2011: 89.0
2010: 49.1

In Super Bowls 38 and 39, his passer rating was over 100. Since then, his only games with a passer rating over 95 came against Denver this year, Jacksonville in 2008, Jets in 2007, Jacksonville in 2006. That's one really good game in the first round in those 4 years. To their credit they beat the teams they were supposed to beat and he did well. In between, he had 2 duds in the first round in the previous 2 years. It's not a stretch to say Tom has not played his best football when the stakes got higher since 2005. If Brady played his best football in those Super Bowls, it wouldn't have come down to a one posession game at the end where those 2 plays could be the difference between victory and defeat. 14 points and 17 points from those two offenses in 2008 and 2012 is, at best, disappointing.

[jsinger121]

He has no played his best football but he also doesn't have the high end defense he had in 2001, 2003 and 2004 to make key stops and force turnovers at a high rate. He has a ton on his shoulders. It would be nice if the defense can get some high end play makers to compensate for Brady to ease his job a bit.

[Mike in CT]

Regardless of how good Brady is any longer, why don't the Patriots make his life a little easier by trying to develop a running game that is more than a gimmick in between 5 straight passing plays?

How can you criticize a guy when elite opposing teams tell their ends to tee off every play, and their safeties to sit back and don't bother with the run?

The Patriots need to get back to some conventional football and help their QB out a little more.

[Super Nomario]

Regardless of how good Brady is any longer, why don't the Patriots make his life a little easier by trying to develop a running game that is more than a gimmick in between 5 straight passing plays?

How can you criticize a guy when elite opposing teams tell their ends to tee off every play, and their safeties to sit back and don't bother with the run?

The Patriots need to get back to some conventional football and help their QB out a little more.

What do you mean by this? The Pats used two high draft picks on RBs last year. They made their G one of the highest-paid interior linemen in the league. They used their first pick on OL help, and one of their big free-agent acquisitions (Waters) was for the O-line. Over the past two years they've shifted from a 3WR / 1 TE / 1 HB look to a 2 WR / 2 TE / 1 HB look that gives them more running ability. What do you want them to do exactly?

[Jack Sox]

Aside from the bottom of the 10th inning the Red Sox had a pretty good Game 6 in 1986. The Pats made the play when it mattered when they won their Super Bowls. When you're talking about greatness, the results matter in all sports. Brady got a ton of credit for how he handled the final drive in XXXVI, and he deserved it. He had the ball with 4 minutes to go and the lead. He didn't get it done this time.

Conference championships:

2012: 57.5 Passer Rating
2008: 66.4
2007: 79.5

Super Bowls:
2012: 91.5
2008: 82.5

Divisional
2011: 89.0
2010: 49.1

In Super Bowls 38 and 39, his passer rating was over 100. Since then, his only games with a passer rating over 95 came against Denver this year, Jacksonville in 2008, Jets in 2007, Jacksonville in 2006. That's one really good game in the first round in those 4 years. To their credit they beat the teams they were supposed to beat and he did well. In between, he had 2 duds in the first round in the previous 2 years. It's not a stretch to say Tom has not played his best football when the stakes got higher since 2005. If Brady played his best football in those Super Bowls, it wouldn't have come down to a one posession game at the end where those 2 plays could be the difference between victory and defeat. 14 points and 17 points from those two offenses in 2008 and 2012 is, at best, disappointing.

Not that you're wrong with anything here, but the reality remains that I can still point to two immense swing plays that could have rendered those otherwise disappointing offensive performances moot. Then boom, suddenly Brady's legacy is the best of all time. Obviously, Samuel and Welker dropped two balls that they managed to get both of their hands on and the rest is now history.

I guess I'm almost preemptively objecting to the lazy narratives that are going to surround Brady from this day forward. Look, I don't think Brady played very well in SB 42, but he did engineer a touchdown scoring drive to give the team the lead with little time left on the clock (a similar position he put the team in during SB 39 - only real difference being, Harrison held on to the opposing QB's errant pass, while Samuel did not). Meanwhile, I counted 4 legitimate dropped balls last night (there could have been more, I don't fully remember) from Pats receivers that if the catch had been made bumps Brady's completion percentage up above 75%. All they really needed was the Welker drop to be a completion and Brady's likely a 4 time champ and 3 time SB MVP. It didn't break that way and suddenly the guy's legacy is entirely different. It's a shame.

Edited by Jack Sox, 06 February 2012 - 04:46 PM.

[Norm Siebern]

Regardless of how good Brady is any longer, why don't the Patriots make his life a little easier by trying to develop a running game that is more than a gimmick in between 5 straight passing plays?

How can you criticize a guy when elite opposing teams tell their ends to tee off every play, and their safeties to sit back and don't bother with the run?

The Patriots need to get back to some conventional football and help their QB out a little more.

Amen

Football analysis never ceases to amaze me with its laziness. One Asante Samuel dropped INT and one Welker dropped pass all but means Brady is a 5 time champ.

Instead, those two plays didn't happen which somehow equates to the guy no longer being able to win the big game.

A-FUCKING MEN

[Pumpsie]

Football analysis never ceases to amaze me with its laziness. One Asante Samuel dropped INT and one Welker dropped pass all but means Brady is a 5 time champ.

Instead, those two plays didn't happen which somehow equates to the guy no longer being able to win the big game.

And we have bingo! The intellectual level of sportswriters, in general, is abysmally low. Their so-called "arguments" pinball from prejudice to bias to laziness. This is certainly the case with the post-SB writing I've seen so far with few exceptions. It's sad when knowledgeable fans pick up the mantras. The game was exceptionally close for much of the day and one play either way affected the outcome, and yet some are willing to go from "greatest of all-time" to "choker" based on the outcome of a single play. If Manningham doesn't make his great catch or Welker makes his (which he himself admits he makes a thousand times in a row) we're all genuflecting at the altar of Tom Brady. It's ridiculously stupid either way.

[lexrageorge]

Aside from the bottom of the 10th inning the Red Sox had a pretty good Game 6 in 1986. The Pats made the play when it mattered when they won their Super Bowls. When you're talking about greatness, the results matter in all sports. Brady got a ton of credit for how he handled the final drive in XXXVI, and he deserved it. He had the ball with 4 minutes to go and the lead. He didn't get it done this time.

Conference championships:

2012: 57.5 Passer Rating
2008: 66.4
2007: 79.5

Super Bowls:
2012: 91.5
2008: 82.5

Divisional
2011: 89.0
2010: 49.1

In Super Bowls 38 and 39, his passer rating was over 100. Since then, his only games with a passer rating over 95 came against Denver this year, Jacksonville in 2008, Jets in 2007, Jacksonville in 2006. That's one really good game in the first round in those 4 years. To their credit they beat the teams they were supposed to beat and he did well. In between, he had 2 duds in the first round in the previous 2 years. It's not a stretch to say Tom has not played his best football when the stakes got higher since 2005. If Brady played his best football in those Super Bowls, it wouldn't have come down to a one posession game at the end where those 2 plays could be the difference between victory and defeat. 14 points and 17 points from those two offenses in 2008 and 2012 is, at best, disappointing.

Cherry picking alert!! Cherry picking alert!!

[Pumpsie]

It is really hard to fault Brady with the drops especially when the WRs on the other side were making circus catches all game. I am sorry Brady was the better QB yesterday.

I think this is spot on. Eli's wide receivers were, as usual for them, spectacular. They've been making these catches all season long. Our wide receivers don't even seem to be on the field most of the time, so cloaked as they are by opponents. You have all those passes caught instead of dropped and the Pats win and Brady's the MVP. It's as simple as that. And that would have been accomplished without Gronkowski, the #1 target and weapon and his offensive line having a very tough day keeping the Giants off their quarterback, especially in the 4th quarter. Tom Brady was the Pats MVP yesterday. No one else came close.

Edited by Pumpsie, 06 February 2012 - 04:56 PM.

[Zomp]

Brady made 2 questionable decisions that were terrible. Eli played flawless. To say Brady was the better QB is nuts.

[Jack Sox]

Who said Brady was better?