so the woulda-coulda-shoulda is allowed when talking about if this or that happens we are in the superbowl... but responding to someone with what ifs based on their claim he didnt hold us back isnt ok? nice double standar. to not acknowledge mark held us back is crazy. to say we didnt make the playoffs in spite of him is crazy throwing 5 picks ina 3 point game isnt helping your team win
i dont know, brady has looked good regardless of recievers. and he has had some awful recievers manning has looked good regardless of line, and he has had some awful lines Aaron rodgers has had some awful offensive lines, and has made some decent WRs look like elite ones.
You're still at this? Just stop already. You hate the guy. Duly noted. No reason to derail the thread. _
Occasionally either of those QBs has had "marginally elite" talent, but never BOTH the OL AND the WRs. And, really, you can't even name the "awful" WRs or OL, can you?
I don't believe that that is what he wants - every Coach wants a Brady or a Rodgers or a Manning in their prime - but he is realistic to know that you have be very, very luck and have the stars align for that to happen and this is, after all, the Jets, the most unlucky franchise in the NFL (aside from the Browns) and so he is just being realistic and trying to keep the fans interested and invested - he knows without a franchise QB you are not going to have long term success.
brady had reche caldwell, doug gabriel, chad jackson, and jabar gafney, thats not "marginally elite" thats like "worst in the league and makes what the jets had last year look good"
Wow, had to dig that up from...when? 2006. And, guess what? They didn't win anything that year. And Brady had a 87.9 QB rating when he averages 95.9 rating. So, it actually does matter what level of talent surrounds a QB. Cause, yeah, a QB without receivers is like a lit match without a bowl. Some people will go to the depths of stupidity to TRY to prove a point with superficial and easily debunked bullshit. Oh, and fuck you very much for making me have to dig through NE PATs history and Brady statistics to gather the evidence. Tom Brady has played for exactly ONE team. He's had the continuity of 14 years of, for the overwhelming majority of those years, one of the best OLs in football, many of the top receivers (WRs, TEs) in the NFL. He got to sit behind a good QB and play for a team that had just been to a SB when he took over. The Patriots offense--talent and continuity--supported his growth and maturity. At some point, Tom Brady grew into the Franchise and HOF QB he is now. But he didn't do it with a crappy OL and shitty receivers, that's for certain.
Just googled Eli Manning. In 2007, he won the super bowl. Had a regular season rating of 73.9... Geno's 2014 regular season rating was 77.5 Geno had a 6.88 passing average vs a 6.31, 59.7% completion percentage vs 56.1 Bowles might be on to something.
I totally agree regarding NE's OL, but not its WRs. Brady had Randy Moss for 4 seasons? IMO, that is the only topflight outside WR he has had. In the slot he's had two very productive receivers in Wes Welker and Julian Edelman. That's it as far as I can remember. He's had a lot of stiffs like Tiquan Underwood, Deion Branch and Chad Johnson that he made better. He's had RBs that could catch out of the backfield, and excellent TEs. What other great WRs have I forgotten?
So, Grontkowski isn't "top flight" receiver (he's a TE who splits out wide, so please spare me the "he's not a WR..." argument?! Welker?! Hernandez wasn't?! I'm not suggesting that he hasn't made them better. I'm suggesting that the units--OL, receivers--performed at a top-flight level and that they need to for the QB to be able to. "He's had a lot of stiffs like Tiquan Underwood, Deion Branch and Chad Johnson that he made better..." NONE of these guys have a SB ring, do they? Moreover, it's the OL that's really the most important unit. If they perform well, they mask a whole lot of mediocre...
Why the snippy tone? Pull your head out of your ass and read more carefully. I agreed with you on the OL. I even pointed out in my response that Brady had had excellent RBs, slot receivers and TEs at which to pass the ball.While TEs are "receivers," I was just responding to the WR portion of the receivers since that's what most people think about when one speaks of receivers. I even admitted that I might have forgotten some better WRs that he's had to throw to. You need to take a qualude, dude and relax. You're wound way too tight.
Sorry for the snippy tone. But I think that his receivers HAVE BEEN elite. Do I think that every one of them he's ever played with is elite? Of course not. But someone mentioned some JAG as proof when that JAG was on the Pats all of ONE season and the Pats didn't win anything during that season. I apologize for the snippy tone.
No problem, man. It's all good. Thanks for your apology. We're good. He definitely has had some good "targets" or receivers at which to throw the ball. What has been amazing to me is that the Pats have been so successful without excellent WRs, with the exception of the 4 years that Randy Moss was there. They've shown that you don't have to have stud WRs to win, and that great TEs a great slot receiver and RBs who can catch the ball can get it done.
I think Grontkowski qualifies as an elite receiver. He may be technically a TE, but he commands a double-team or at least an elite (sizeable) CB, as did Hernandez. Welker was elite. Edelman, not as much, but pretty good when you have Grontkowski too.
Yep, I agree. That's where you have to tip your hat to Belicheat. He found an unorthodox way to be successful and win.
LOL! I understand completely. I despise his cheating ass, but I still have to acknowledge that he's a damned good HC.
With all the nick picking and criticism Mariotta and Winston have been getting on this board I guess we will get exactly what many have been clamoring for : a nonelite QB
were his numbers down? yes. but lets not pretend like he didnt still have an excellent season: 62% completions 3600 yards 24 TD 12 INT. its not like he became ineffective. i wouldnt say they "won nothing" they went 12-4, wont the division, won 2 playoff games, got to the AFC championship game and lost by 4 points to the eventually superbowl champs (they lost 38-34, defense couldnt hold a big lead). so spare me with the lecture. the pats had horrible WR's that year yet they still went 12-2, still made the AFC championship game(and nearly won it) and brady still had very good numbers. you swap brady with sanchez or geno smith and that team would have won 5 games.
again it is a a pretty enormous stretch to say the pats "didnt win anything" in 2006. -they won the division -they won a playoff game in the wildcard round -they wont a playoff game in the divisional round -they had a late lead in the AFC championship game, losing 38-34 in indy where the defense was pretty bad did we "not win anything in" '09 and '10? they didnt make the superbowl. they didnt 2 years ago either. theyhave had a great 15 year run, but even then they missed the SB 9 or 10 times.
