Sharky's NFL play of the week

[Exoter175]

Well the NFL acted on the other way the Pats were skating around the rules. Pete Carroll asked the NFL what they were going to do to notify the defense as is required of who is eligible and who is not when their number is different than their designation on that play. The Pats beat the Ravens only by using this deception of notifying the refs so late they can't notify the defense as is the intent of notifying the refs. Both the refs and the defense need to know when someone's number does not correlate to their eligibility as a receiver on any given play. On the game winning drive the Pats used this way to skate the intent of the rules to get a cheap TD. Te first thing Carroll did after the Pats beat the Colts was to ask the league what they intend to do to notify the defense as the rules require if the Pats try to play fast and loose with the rules as is their MO since before Brady wore the uniform. The league was already prepared to deal with this and made the first post season change to the procedures I can remember. This is unprecedented. Usually something like this is dealt with in the off season but the league felt that the Pats were intentionally violating the intent of the rule to gain an advantage in both post season games this year that that the rules did not intend to be attainable. Anyway the NFL told Carroll the refs would use hand signals so the Pats couldn't cheat the intent of the rules. If the Pats wouldn't have been able to do that at all in the post season they wouldn't have made it to the AFC Championship game and the league knows it. For this reason they broke all league protocol and made the change during the post season.

http://www.seahhawks.com/videos-phot...-42ff-985a-2b0

What is it with the Pats and trying to gain an unfair advantage by breaking the rules either literally or the intent of the rules. You have to go back to before Brady played a game with the Pats to find a game that isn't tainted by a cheating controversy. What kind of an example is this setting for our kids? What am I supposed to say? Well yeah, they cheated against the Ravens and that is the only reason they played in the AFC Championship and they cheated i that game and got caught but they still get to play in the SB. Only in football is such a horrible example set for our youth.

I never thought football would ever be obsolete even when many have predicted its demise due to many issues we are all familiar with but this getting rewarded for cheating is one thing I can see that will allow all the other things that the league is being called out on actually destroy the league. God help us. I love this game and thought the nature of it being the only true team sport that each team is only as good as its weakest link not carried by a superstar would make it stand the test of time through all controversy. But now that the league has lost its integrity I don't see the unique nature of football keeping it from the end so many have predicted.

Dude, what is with your Tom Brady hate all of a sudden? Earlier in the year you didn't speak about him with such disdain. Now you're acting like it is HE who is the bad guy here. He's only the best QB to ever play the game, and we knew this long before the first game of the season. Now, its set in stone. And you want to blame him for shit that doesn't even make a difference like under inflated balls in the first half, and a team doing what they SHOULD to win, like with the substitutions?

Fuck, Philadelphia is FAR MORE "fast and loose" with the substitutions "issue" than any other team in the NFL, far more than the patriots, and you aren't *****ing about them. Beyond that, they didn't BREAK a rule, they didn't play "fast and loose" with them, they certainly didn't fluctuate in a "grey area" by any means, shit like this has been done for DECADES by some of the best coaches to ever coach the game. Its what separates a guy like Bill Bellicheat from a guy like Romeo Crennel. Not calling that timeout when Seattle was facing a 2nd and goal or 1st and goal attempt, letting the clock run down right before that interception was BRILLIANCE at its best, he absolutely forced Seattle, Pete Carrol, and Russel Wilson to BEAT them where Seattle had beaten everyone before. He turned up the pressure and sat it right on the arm of Russel Wilson, who went for what should have been a "pitch and catch" touchdown with 20 seconds left, and turned out to be an interception because the Patriots secondary OWNED Russel on those short routes even before the game started. They KNEW what to look for from the Seahawks offense on 2nd and goal pressure situations and exploited the FUCK out of that one to win it.

And here you are whining about it, to no surprise.

Unbelievable! The game is lost on a stupid play. Carroll calls it a miraculous play to intercept. What was really a miracle is that New England got one more chance to intercept, which was about their only hope. And what is mind boggling is not giving the ball to their best player who makes 5 yards even on a broken play. What ever happened to jumping over the pile, or a running play with Lynch and Russell as weapons? Unreal!

The fellow next to me said well before the end of the game, when the Pats took possession losing 24-21, that the Patriots would score a touchdown and win the game They got the touchdown, but it wasn't over yet. Then when the Seahawks got the ball back with 2:02 on the clock he told me the Patriots would intercept. Right again, but who'd a thought it would happen on the goal line?

The Patriots, who had been preparing for that for two weeks now.

Spoiler Alert, there was a LOT of Chiefs VS. Super Bowl Opponent studied this week on both sides. Do yourselves a favor and go watch the Chiefs vs. Seattle game again, watch how many times Russel Wilson in a "pressure situation" throws from 2nd/3rd and goal even from a few yards out.

PS, the "Miracle" was that Kearse. Seattle didn't "lose" the game, the Patriots won it by putting in a LOT of film time and finding the weakness of Russel Wilson and Pete Carrol's conservative goal line play calling in "pressure time".

The game was literally WON by Bill Bellicheat who took the "obvious run" out of Pete Carrol's play calling when he refused to take a timeout when there was over a minute left from a "goal to go" setting. It was by far the gutsiest "no call" there might ever have been in sports, but it forced Pete to throw the ball, and the patriots knew there were three routes to cover in that situation, and that Russel wouldn't even TRY to run the ball unless they covered played 8 yards off the line of scrimmage. What did New England do? Covered all three routes, kept 5 guys on the line of scrimmage, 1 guy covering the RB flat route, and 5 guys stacked nearly on the goal line to cover the "Fade" and "Slant" routes. Seattle actually used a double slant play here with a RB Flat route, every single guy was covered and both slant routes had an inside defender ready to jump it. It was the most beautiful defensive play call I've seen in a LONG time, it was as if they had anticipated the EXACT play that Seattle was going to call, and nailed it. Also, if you guys watch carefully, there were two illegal pick calls that didn't go called on Seattle Receivers who were "upfield blocking" while the ball was in the air. Looks like Baldwin and Kearse I believe.

Well said Aslan. The Pats won the game but they didn't win the game the Seahawks lost it. Seattle had a timeout left and could run the ball at least 2 maybe 3 plays. It was a done deal. I can't believe they made Brady MVP after throwing 2 interceptions!! I guess nobody else played a good game for the Pats so they gave it to Brady by default.

The only way the Seahawks "lost" the game is by not doing their homework on the Patriots who are by far the most "Reactive" team when it comes to game planning in the NFL. The Seahawks, by the way, would have ran out of time had they ran it and not scored and not called the timeout. The play clock is 40 seconds long and they snapped it inside of that. Sure, they could have ran it then called a timeout, but if they had not converted to a touchdown on that run, called a timeout, then not converted on another run, they'd have ran out of time, again. Furthermore, if they had ran the ball that snap, and scored, they'd have left New England with about 20 seconds on the clock, a time out, and Tom Brady at QB to drive the team down the field for a long field goal try. Pete knew he'd have to save that timeout to "ice" the kicker if it came down to it, so he chose to throw the ball, like he often does in high pressure situations from goal to go situations like this. Only problem was, the Patriots were the most prepared team on the field today.

And you're right, why would they give the MVP to a guy who threw the ball 50 fucking times, for 4 touchdowns and 328 yards. Because that's been done so many times in the history of the NFL. (Hint, I'm oozing sarcasm at this point)

In the history of the Super Bowl there have now been 50 MVP's, 27 of those MVP awards were to QB's, where did you think it would go with an award history like that?

[Blitzkrieg]

My pick lost on SEA +2 when the stupid play call caused an interception instead of getting the inevitable TD on the ground.

This seasons playoffs has been characterized by remarkable comebacks, odd referee calls, and situations which seemed like a clear win for a team, only to change near the end of the game.

[Blitzkrieg]

Unbelievable! The game is lost on a stupid play. Carroll calls it a miraculous play to intercept. What was really a miracle is that New England got one more chance to intercept, which was about their only hope. And what is mind boggling is not giving the ball to their best player who makes 5 yards even on a broken play. What ever happened to jumping over the pile, or a running play with Lynch and Russell as weapons? Unreal!

The fellow next to me said well before the end of the game, when the Pats took possession losing 24-21, that the Patriots would score a touchdown and win the game They got the touchdown, but it wasn't over yet. Then when the Seahawks got the ball back with 2:02 on the clock he told me the Patriots would intercept. Right again, but who'd a thought it would happen on the goal line?

If Wilson wanted to win the game bad enough then he should have took off running instead of passing toward the goal line and did an Elway helicopter spin near the endzone.

[Exoter175]

Tom Brady IS one of the best QB's to ever play the game. No doubt about that. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

I, myself have a little bit of a problem with the commentators that I have watched on several of the post game shows elevating him to Montana, Bradshaw status. First Brady is 4-2 while the other two, I believe were 4-0. So a comparison of most superbowl TD passes is apples to oranges when comparing a guy who played in 4 games to a guy who played in 6 games. Is that fair.

The other thing I have a bit of a problem with is that Brady's fate turned on a dime on that one play, which he had absolutely nothing to do with. He was standing on the sidelines cheerleading. If Seattle runs the ball in from the half yard line, Brady isn't MVP. He is a very mediocre 3-3 in superbowls, with 3 straight superbowl losses. Still a great QB. Still one of the best. First ballot Hall of famer. But mediocre in superbowls. His fate and status changed on a dime while standing on the sidelines. I guess that's fate or destiny or something.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, lets slow that down a little KJ. First of all, "GOAT" is not something that defined by super bowls only, and Terry Bradshaw isn't even NEAR the top of the GOAT list, he isn't even an "honorable mention". With a career QB rating of 75.6, and a TD/INT ratio of 212/210 you just don't fit in.

Second of all, you can't be "Mediocre" in super bowls if you're the all time leader in super bowl TD passes, but I digress.

Tom Brady has 4x SB Rings, 3x SB MVP's, just like Montana. He has 2 more Pro Bowls, same number of NFL MVP titles, 2 less AP-All Pro teams (First and Second teams counted), 2 more conference championship victories, 1 more NFL Offensive player of the year title.

Brady has More Records, More Yards, More Touchdowns, More Completions, More Attempts, Higher Completion Percentage, Higher QB Rating, and he's done it all in 15 years, vs. Montana's 16 years.

Don't get me wrong here, I love Joe, he played for my team and I can honestly say I've had dinner with him and he's probably the coolest, most laid back and relaxed guys I've ever met, despite his high profile, but Brady has put together the most impressive career of any QB to have ever played the game. Not just in Statistics, but in accomplishments and accolades. He isn't like Peyton or Brees or Marino where you can confine their "Brilliance" to one or two areas, Brady's career is the most well rounded, complete career of any QB to ever play this game, and I'm fairly confident there will NEVER be another to come as close to him again.

He played his ass off in this game, and put up a stellar performance that only fools like T3 would try to discount, but sure, you are right. Seattle had a chance to beat them at the end of that game, and they simply got out-coached when Bellicheat didn't call that timeout on 2nd down like just about any other coach in the history of the NFL would have called. Then again, guys like Terry Bradshaw like you had mentioned, even Troy Aikman all rose to fame on the backs of their teammates and put together otherwise "mediocre" careers. Nobody in their right mind in would ever think a career ~75 rating passer would be 4-0 in super bowls like Bradshaw, but when you have the leagues best defense bar none year after year, things like that happen.

Bottom line, we had a wonderful super bowl this year, cementing Tom Brady as the greatest QB of all time with no real valid arguments against that, and despite EVERYONE writing off the Patriots after their blowout loss to the Chiefs this year on prime time television, they came back to win, and stuck together through some bullshit controversy about ball pressure, to beat the reigning champion seahawks. That's the stuff of legends, and not just the one about the GOAT QB on the sidelines.

My pick lost on SEA +2 when the stupid play call caused an interception instead of getting the inevitable TD on the ground. But that actually was best for my bets. As I said earlier I got NE +1 ATS and teased NE and the Pro Bowl under in another bet before I analyzed the game fully seeing value in NE +1 and it is a good teaser number. And you also know my pick was to be teased as it was crappy odds +2. I would have teased +1.5 anyway so the crappy odds didn't matter but got NE winning by 8 as a push instead of a loss if I stupidly teased the +1.5 instead of the +2. Well I decided to tease the over to close the open ended teaser which is usually my preference for Over/Under bets.

My picks went 0-1 this weak but my bets went 3-0. Like I keep saying many can handicap but most don't know how to bet. After busting my small annual sports betting BR for the first time ever because my picks went from great in previous years to a coin flip I learned about MOV frequencies and all the subtle parts of successful betting and I had a great year betting wit a record about the same as last years. If only I had learned the same before that but I didn't bet on many games then either so I guess it wasn't much of a difference from what it could have been. The math of betting smart is pretty easy. It revolves around MOV frequencies and the fact that the number line is not incrementally linear. Certain lines are just great as teasers and others are not good as teasers. Teasers erase the odds so you can bet crappy odds lines that are great teaser numbers and get an extra point or 2 in the final line of your teased bet.

Well its been fun this year. it's too bad we lost Sharky and many others that contributed for so long for the last 5'ish years to this annual thread. Lesson learned at least to this half of the issue. Perhaps that example of the other party I warned about bannings, like I have done to so many, understands it was not a threat but a warning about where these things head and the action the host must take to deal wit issues that drive people from the site even people that have annually had a thread they loved until trolling ruined it. Sorry about my part in that to everyone, especially Sharky. I did put the other party on ignore per Sharky's request but since Sharky left I am guessing the other party is still up to what others found so repugnant. It is a shame.

There you go making more comments directed at me, knowing full well you clicked the "view post" option to read my commentary, and then making a "nose in the air" comment attempting to belittle and berate me.


Let me make this clear, T3. You are a conspiracy theorist, fair weather fan, who knows absolutely NOTHING about the game of football. You never played it, you don't know the ins and outs of the systems, and your analysis is a joke. Your insight, however, is far worse. Trying to put statistics behind the "Deflategate" theory, despite overwhelming evidence refuting your claim. Trying to put statistics together to "prove" your 50/50 play split theory, after I eviscerated your "belief" behind the Ravens' losses being because they "abandoned" the run, when they didn't.

I realize you're upset because I absolutely crushed your "credibility" with the "alphabet soup" rating system you used earlier this season, and Sharky supported me in that suggested, long after your advice had lost a forum member some money, to which I had warned and constantly brought to light, despite your incessant windbag ramblings totalling 14 billion characters of hot air and bullshit, but at the end of the day your insight sucks. You look at box score "data" and determine everything on that alone. That, T3, is why you have no credibility here. That, is why your analysis is garbage, and now you've been reaching for months to make points to "refute" me, so much so, that you sound like a full blown conspiracy theorist nerd whose only "goal" in life is to be the "best" at the internet.


T3, I respect your sense for numbers, and Blackjack is most certainly "right up your alley", but Football is not. There is no "hard data" to count on with human error involved in a sport played by humans. At the end of the day the one thing that sticks out to me in this thread is your incessant posting about ME. First of all, I'll warn YOU again, not to threaten actions you have no authority to "put into action". Second of all, Sharky didn't leave because of me, I guarantee that. Sharky left, in large part, due to our arguments of me trying to explain to you (like a child) how football worked, and you being the mad mathematician who was too weak and frail to play the sport, refused sound advice for your own "calculations". You just can't do that. Eventually Sharky probably gave up reading our novels because he had likely already dismissed your credibility with sports due to your alphabet soup letter grading you did, in which he absolutely slammed you on, and likely stopped reading my responses to you because I had to go out of my way to teach a child how to crawl, walk, and talk the game of football.

After a while it becomes cumbersome, T3, but right now you're starting to come off more and more like a psychotic lunatic with how much you love to tell everyone you've "ignored" me, but then make obvious posts like this one directed at my rebuttals to your nonsense. All one has to do is go to my footwear thread to read you replying to my thread, but instead I am on your "ignore" list, and you continue to find a way to tell everyone in every post you make.

What you don't understand right now, T3, is that nobody gives a fuck. Nobody cares, nobody is going to "follow you" into ignoring my posts. My posts are honest, truthful, blunt of course, but insightful and with passion. Your posts are full of high horsed, windbag, pompousness and most people just skip right over them in fear of a rebuttal from you reaching the 100,000 character mark.

Do me a favor T3, we'll call it a dare, rather. I dare you not to make a post for the rest of the year, without having to TELL people outright that you're ignoring me, while simultaneously responding to my posts.

Do that and I'll grant your wish.

[Exoter175]

This seasons playoffs has been characterized by remarkable comebacks, odd referee calls, and situations which seemed like a clear win for a team, only to change near the end of the game.

Like the road the Seahawks took to get into the Super Bowl in the first place, and that Green Bay game, my god.

If Wilson wanted to win the game bad enough then he should have took off running instead of passing toward the goal line and did an Elway helicopter spin near the endzone.

Wilson had nowhere to run, he had 5 defenders at the line of scrimmage, 1 in the flat, and 5 on the goal line, he'd have been stopped without a doubt.

[moo321]

Brady is the best of all time, but I wouldn't hate on anyone who said Montana is better.

Bradshaw isn't in the discussion. His numbers don't merit it.

No question, Montana won a lot. But look at his teams. He had pro-bowlers/hall of famers at every offensive skill position. He had a defense.

[Aslan]

Dude, what is with your Tom Brady hate all of a sudden? Earlier in the year you didn't speak about him with such disdain. Now you're acting like it is HE who is the bad guy here. He's only the best QB to ever play the game, and we knew this long before the first game of the season. Now, its set in stone. And you want to blame him for shit that doesn't even make a difference like under inflated balls in the first half, and a team doing what they SHOULD to win, like with the substitutions?

Fuck, Philadelphia is FAR MORE "fast and loose" with the substitutions "issue" than any other team in the NFL, far more than the patriots, and you aren't *****ing about them. Beyond that, they didn't BREAK a rule, they didn't play "fast and loose" with them, they certainly didn't fluctuate in a "grey area" by any means, shit like this has been done for DECADES by some of the best coaches to ever coach the game. Its what separates a guy like Bill Bellicheat from a guy like Romeo Crennel. Not calling that timeout when Seattle was facing a 2nd and goal or 1st and goal attempt, letting the clock run down right before that interception was BRILLIANCE at its best, he absolutely forced Seattle, Pete Carrol, and Russel Wilson to BEAT them where Seattle had beaten everyone before. He turned up the pressure and sat it right on the arm of Russel Wilson, who went for what should have been a "pitch and catch" touchdown with 20 seconds left, and turned out to be an interception because the Patriots secondary OWNED Russel on those short routes even before the game started. They KNEW what to look for from the Seahawks offense on 2nd and goal pressure situations and exploited the FUCK out of that one to win it.

And here you are whining about it, to no surprise.



The Patriots, who had been preparing for that for two weeks now.

Spoiler Alert, there was a LOT of Chiefs VS. Super Bowl Opponent studied this week on both sides. Do yourselves a favor and go watch the Chiefs vs. Seattle game again, watch how many times Russel Wilson in a "pressure situation" throws from 2nd/3rd and goal even from a few yards out.

PS, the "Miracle" was that Kearse. Seattle didn't "lose" the game, the Patriots won it by putting in a LOT of film time and finding the weakness of Russel Wilson and Pete Carrol's conservative goal line play calling in "pressure time".

The game was literally WON by Bill Bellicheat who took the "obvious run" out of Pete Carrol's play calling when he refused to take a timeout when there was over a minute left from a "goal to go" setting. It was by far the gutsiest "no call" there might ever have been in sports, but it forced Pete to throw the ball, and the patriots knew there were three routes to cover in that situation, and that Russel wouldn't even TRY to run the ball unless they covered played 8 yards off the line of scrimmage. What did New England do? Covered all three routes, kept 5 guys on the line of scrimmage, 1 guy covering the RB flat route, and 5 guys stacked nearly on the goal line to cover the "Fade" and "Slant" routes. Seattle actually used a double slant play here with a RB Flat route, every single guy was covered and both slant routes had an inside defender ready to jump it. It was the most beautiful defensive play call I've seen in a LONG time, it was as if they had anticipated the EXACT play that Seattle was going to call, and nailed it. Also, if you guys watch carefully, there were two illegal pick calls that didn't go called on Seattle Receivers who were "upfield blocking" while the ball was in the air. Looks like Baldwin and Kearse I believe.



The only way the Seahawks "lost" the game is by not doing their homework on the Patriots who are by far the most "Reactive" team when it comes to game planning in the NFL. The Seahawks, by the way, would have ran out of time had they ran it and not scored and not called the timeout. The play clock is 40 seconds long and they snapped it inside of that. Sure, they could have ran it then called a timeout, but if they had not converted to a touchdown on that run, called a timeout, then not converted on another run, they'd have ran out of time, again. Furthermore, if they had ran the ball that snap, and scored, they'd have left New England with about 20 seconds on the clock, a time out, and Tom Brady at QB to drive the team down the field for a long field goal try. Pete knew he'd have to save that timeout to "ice" the kicker if it came down to it, so he chose to throw the ball, like he often does in high pressure situations from goal to go situations like this. Only problem was, the Patriots were the most prepared team on the field today.

And you're right, why would they give the MVP to a guy who threw the ball 50 fucking times, for 4 touchdowns and 328 yards. Because that's been done so many times in the history of the NFL. (Hint, I'm oozing sarcasm at this point)

In the history of the Super Bowl there have now been 50 MVP's, 27 of those MVP awards were to QB's, where did you think it would go with an award history like that?

It is true that Belichick and company did their homework and that experience was the key that led them to victory over a younger, faster, and perhaps more talented team (the latter of course is arguable). The fact of the matter is, NE could be as prepared for it as they wanted, but unless Pete Carroll called the same stupid play he had been known to call in the past, as you point out, NE would have gone down in defeat. The Hawks had NOTHING to lose by letting Lynch run. That man could get one yard running backwards, undoubtedly their best player, and perhaps the best player on the field. To me, Lynch was a sure thing in three downs, along with the threat of Russell himself running it, whereas it is always difficult to put it in the air on the one yard line. Whether Seattle had done this 10 time before or not, it was still a boneheaded play IMHO.

And for Carroll to call it a "miracle interception" shows his blind spot to this weakness and inexperience on his part compared to Belichick. He over-thought the play, thinking he had to do something special to beat NE when Lynch was all the special he ever needed. Not to take anything away from the Pats and Belichick, it was first the Hawks mistake, and secondly the Pat's experience that lost/won the game.

Even the fact that Carroll did not know that he had a penchant for passing under pressure near the goal line, indicates his own weakness, for if he really wanted to "fool" the Pats, he would have tried something different. I know I am repeating myself, but it comes from someone who was pulling for the Pats from the opening kickoff, and was rooting for them even when I thought they had lost the game down 10, and sitting next to a guy that kept rubbing it in throughout the game. As smart as Belichick is, he could not "make" Carroll call a pass play. That is and will always be a mistake made by Pete Carroll who alone should get the MVP award on behalf of New England. LOL Sorry to bump heads, my friend. And this is not to take anything away from Brady-- he is a great quarterback.

[Aslan]

Tom Brady IS one of the best QB's to ever play the game. No doubt about that. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

I, myself have a little bit of a problem with the commentators that I have watched on several of the post game shows elevating him to Montana, Bradshaw status. First Brady is 4-2 while the other two, I believe were 4-0. So a comparison of most superbowl TD passes is apples to oranges when comparing a guy who played in 4 games to a guy who played in 6 games. Is that fair.

The other thing I have a bit of a problem with is that Brady's fate turned on a dime on that one play, which he had absolutely nothing to do with. He was standing on the sidelines cheerleading. If Seattle runs the ball in from the half yard line, Brady isn't MVP. He is a very mediocre 3-3 in superbowls, with 3 straight superbowl losses. Still a great QB. Still one of the best. First ballot Hall of famer. But mediocre in superbowls. His fate and status changed on a dime while standing on the sidelines. I guess that's fate or destiny or something.

Variance?

[Aslan]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, lets slow that down a little KJ. First of all, "GOAT" is not something that defined by super bowls only, and Terry Bradshaw isn't even NEAR the top of the GOAT list, he isn't even an "honorable mention". With a career QB rating of 75.6, and a TD/INT ratio of 212/210 you just don't fit in.

Second of all, you can't be "Mediocre" in super bowls if you're the all time leader in super bowl TD passes, but I digress.

Tom Brady has 4x SB Rings, 3x SB MVP's, just like Montana. He has 2 more Pro Bowls, same number of NFL MVP titles, 2 less AP-All Pro teams (First and Second teams counted), 2 more conference championship victories, 1 more NFL Offensive player of the year title.

Brady has More Records, More Yards, More Touchdowns, More Completions, More Attempts, Higher Completion Percentage, Higher QB Rating, and he's done it all in 15 years, vs. Montana's 16 years.

Don't get me wrong here, I love Joe, he played for my team and I can honestly say I've had dinner with him and he's probably the coolest, most laid back and relaxed guys I've ever met, despite his high profile, but Brady has put together the most impressive career of any QB to have ever played the game. Not just in Statistics, but in accomplishments and accolades. He isn't like Peyton or Brees or Marino where you can confine their "Brilliance" to one or two areas, Brady's career is the most well rounded, complete career of any QB to ever play this game, and I'm fairly confident there will NEVER be another to come as close to him again.

He played his ass off in this game, and put up a stellar performance that only fools like T3 would try to discount, but sure, you are right. Seattle had a chance to beat them at the end of that game, and they simply got out-coached when Bellicheat didn't call that timeout on 2nd down like just about any other coach in the history of the NFL would have called. Then again, guys like Terry Bradshaw like you had mentioned, even Troy Aikman all rose to fame on the backs of their teammates and put together otherwise "mediocre" careers. Nobody in their right mind in would ever think a career ~75 rating passer would be 4-0 in super bowls like Bradshaw, but when you have the leagues best defense bar none year after year, things like that happen.

Bottom line, we had a wonderful super bowl this year, cementing Tom Brady as the greatest QB of all time with no real valid arguments against that, and despite EVERYONE writing off the Patriots after their blowout loss to the Chiefs this year on prime time television, they came back to win, and stuck together through some bullshit controversy about ball pressure, to beat the reigning champion seahawks. That's the stuff of legends, and not just the one about the GOAT QB on the sidelines.



There you go making more comments directed at me, knowing full well you clicked the "view post" option to read my commentary, and then making a "nose in the air" comment attempting to belittle and berate me.


Let me make this clear, T3. You are a conspiracy theorist, fair weather fan, who knows absolutely NOTHING about the game of football. You never played it, you don't know the ins and outs of the systems, and your analysis is a joke. Your insight, however, is far worse. Trying to put statistics behind the "Deflategate" theory, despite overwhelming evidence refuting your claim. Trying to put statistics together to "prove" your 50/50 play split theory, after I eviscerated your "belief" behind the Ravens' losses being because they "abandoned" the run, when they didn't.

I realize you're upset because I absolutely crushed your "credibility" with the "alphabet soup" rating system you used earlier this season, and Sharky supported me in that suggested, long after your advice had lost a forum member some money, to which I had warned and constantly brought to light, despite your incessant windbag ramblings totalling 14 billion characters of hot air and bullshit, but at the end of the day your insight sucks. You look at box score "data" and determine everything on that alone. That, T3, is why you have no credibility here. That, is why your analysis is garbage, and now you've been reaching for months to make points to "refute" me, so much so, that you sound like a full blown conspiracy theorist nerd whose only "goal" in life is to be the "best" at the internet.


T3, I respect your sense for numbers, and Blackjack is most certainly "right up your alley", but Football is not. There is no "hard data" to count on with human error involved in a sport played by humans. At the end of the day the one thing that sticks out to me in this thread is your incessant posting about ME. First of all, I'll warn YOU again, not to threaten actions you have no authority to "put into action". Second of all, Sharky didn't leave because of me, I guarantee that. Sharky left, in large part, due to our arguments of me trying to explain to you (like a child) how football worked, and you being the mad mathematician who was too weak and frail to play the sport, refused sound advice for your own "calculations". You just can't do that. Eventually Sharky probably gave up reading our novels because he had likely already dismissed your credibility with sports due to your alphabet soup letter grading you did, in which he absolutely slammed you on, and likely stopped reading my responses to you because I had to go out of my way to teach a child how to crawl, walk, and talk the game of football.

After a while it becomes cumbersome, T3, but right now you're starting to come off more and more like a psychotic lunatic with how much you love to tell everyone you've "ignored" me, but then make obvious posts like this one directed at my rebuttals to your nonsense. All one has to do is go to my footwear thread to read you replying to my thread, but instead I am on your "ignore" list, and you continue to find a way to tell everyone in every post you make.

What you don't understand right now, T3, is that nobody gives a fuck. Nobody cares, nobody is going to "follow you" into ignoring my posts. My posts are honest, truthful, blunt of course, but insightful and with passion. Your posts are full of high horsed, windbag, pompousness and most people just skip right over them in fear of a rebuttal from you reaching the 100,000 character mark.

Do me a favor T3, we'll call it a dare, rather. I dare you not to make a post for the rest of the year, without having to TELL people outright that you're ignoring me, while simultaneously responding to my posts.

Do that and I'll grant your wish.

As a novice in analyzing football, having watched both Montana and Brady play, I like Joe. Maybe it was my age at the time I was blessed to watch Montana, or maybe it was an overblown mystique about the man, but I liked the way the wheels turned in that man's head and his body movements to go along with it. I remember him in more trouble than Brady ever was on Sunday, and if there was one thing you could count on with Montana, it is that he would find away to snatch victory from the hands of defeat, for want of a better way to describe it. To me, he was the consummate magician. He was the man you could always count on to come through one way or the other, and it always seemed to be on his terms, not the whims of fate or good fortune. Call me biased. I am.

[Aslan]

If NE folded up the tents when down 24-14 you could say his Super Bowl record was mediocre. Seems like he made some timely passes in that 4th q. The fact Brady put them back in the lead with 2.01 to play is actually quite spectacular. It was a fate type of catch (certainly not a great pass) that put Seattle on the 6 in the first place. If Pats would've waited to score after the 2 minute warning, they could have ran more time off the clock or forced Seattle to burn a timeout. Then it's unlikely Seattle would've ever been in a position to win period.

Are you saying the Pats could have played the clock better? Then you are blaming them for putting the game in jeopardy despite the champion caliber comeback staged by Brady? I don't remember the time management at the 2-minute warning, but if the Pats could have run down more clock, I agree they certainly should have.

I have to agree with both you and KJ. Brady, despite two picks, played like a champion, but his fate did turn on a Seattle mistake, even though the opportunity for Seattle to score did turn on a "lucky" catch, not to downplay the heads up play to keep the ball in play by the receiver. To even "go" to 6 super bowls is an incredible achievement, win or lose, and Brady's lifetime stats speak for themselves. But unless I am subject to selective memory, I don't remember a Montana SB victory that was decided by such a fortuitous event, albeit well prepared for as Exoter has pointed out, where sure defeat was otherwise all but guaranteed. While Brady did a stupendous job bringing back the Patriots, he did not win the game-- Seattle lost it. But as Moo points out, just look at the team supporting Montana's sucess compared to the Patriots. In the final analysis, I guess it's always apples and oranges when trying to compare champion quarterbacks, although I believe supporting cast had less to do with Brady and Montana's success than Bradshaw's. Put Elway in there, too, for sure.

[Aslan]

The point was why Brady was a cheerleader on the sidelines in the first place...because he'd done his job too well? I mean what else was he expected to do? A timeout at 2.52 with 1st and goal. Followed by a 2 yard run forced the 2nd and goal play before the 2 minute warning. Perhaps this play was to set up the play for the TD before the 2 minute warning. Better clock management should have put them at 2nd and goal going into the 2 minute warning. As a result, this put more pressure on the Pats defense. I don't don't see how one could pin it on Brady if they would've lost. As for MVP...no question. Can you imagine their odds of a comeback down 24-14 without him? Two interceptions...against the leagues premier defense and defending Super Bowl Champion is worth forgiving...especially considering he lead the comeback. Suggesting he should have a 3-3 record and mediocre is ludicrous.

The comeback was very similar to Joe Montana's 1989 Super Bowl. Cincy was considered the better team going in. Both QBs lead teams to 14 points in the 4th qtr. A big difference was clock management. 38 seconds rolled off the clock when the 49ers reached the Cincys 18. Thus Cincy only had .26 to try to get within field goal range.

I'm a big Elway and Montana fan but give Brady his just rewards.

Agree.

Had the Pats lost, I think KJ had a point-- he may have been considered "mediocre among champions" in one sense, with a record of 3-3 against others with records of 4-0, but still, just getting to 6 SBs is a champion feat in the first place, and winning 3 of them demonstrates you've got what it takes I think mediocre was an unfortunate choice of terms, as I don't think it was meant the way you may have taken it. Also, who plays at peak that many years to be able to boast 6 SBs. Now that's longevity and that's anything but mediocrity!

[Aslan]

I am not sure what you guys that say Brady has done it with a bunch of nobodies are talking about. Brady is on a great team and has been his entire career. What makes a great team? Well that is what makes football the best sport around. It isn't about having a superstar. It is about all the pieces doing their part to make the best complete entity. If you have a team built around a great bend but don't break defense your QB better not be a superstar looking for glory. The best QB for this team to be its strongest is a ball control QB that gets first downs without turning the ball over. Ideally a high completion percentage to eat clock and never throwing a pass that could be intercepted. This QB should be able to perform a game winning drive if the situation calls for it but if the team does its job he won't ever need to show he can.

Now if your team is built around big offensive performances your defense needs to make the other team use up valuable time while protecting against big plays and only tighten up when the field gets short and holding the other team to a field goal at best. The big offense should have such a big lead that the defense gives up lots of ground and have stats that are not impressive but keep the other team from scoring fast enough to catch up. Just because the defense gives up lots of yards in an effort to eat clock doesn't mean they can't make a big stop. They need to make sure the other team doesn't get fast points. That is their contribution to the best team effort. Brady is on such a team and the defense has always been good but has gotten better. The stats are misleading because the defense being successful at what is asked of them is eating clock and keeping the other team to few points for all their easy yards. The big O is going to put up points and can drive down the length of the field. They don't need it to be a punting field position battle. But if the other team shuts down the big O the defense should be able to step up and play like a frugal defense of the former type team described.

This is the type of team the Pats have had for almost Brady's entire career. Joe had his favorite receiver or two so their stats made them look great. Brady spreads the ball around so his receivers stats are not as impressive. When I watch the Patriots I see a whole team of great players. You have a guy that power runs right through some of the better defenses. You have a couple guys that after they catch the ball they look like a greased jackrabbit as player after player miss tackles. You have great return guys that could break a TD on any kick. Brady never holds the ball for long but how many times is he sacked? And how bad does he look on the rare times he gets hit? Then you look at the other side of the ball. How long was Wilson in the pocket looking for an open man? The coverage was top notch. No weakness there. Even the big plays Wilson made deep the coverage was there but Wilson is just that accurate deep. Sometimes the reception was made deep in tight double coverage. The only play any of the Pats looked bad was the wide open TD throw short in the end zone where Revis left his area of the field wide open. He may be the best D-back on the Pats but he made the biggest mistake on the Pats defense that day.

Even in years where the injuries mounted the Pats just kept having the depth at every position impress with no weakness to exploit for the other team. And I hear this Brady has no supporting cast. This is what ticks me off about Brady. He is a top QB but he has been lucky to play on a great team. He gets all the credit and doesn't deserve it. Without such a strong team and organization around him for literally his entire career nobody would think much of him. Even the coaching staff necessary to keep such a TEAM together deserve tons of credit especially in the salary cap era. Brady just got lucky where he ended up and on a TEAM that won 3 quick SB titles with him as QB. Brady deserves as much credit as everybody else on such a strong team. But he gets way too much credit. To hear some of you talk it is like you just watch the QB. You don't notice all the other parts and game plans that go into winning. The Pats team is a beautiful example of a balanced Big O team. No QB looks good with no time to throw. Since Brady can't throw middle to deep well he never holds the ball for long. That makes the O-line have an easier job. The team is geared to play toward each players strengths and away from their weaknesses. That is more credit to the coaches for not forcing the team to play a style that would expose weaknesses and not maximize strengths because that is what the coaches like.

Is it Brady's fault I dislike the credit he gets? Of course not it is those that laud all this praise on Brady but fail to recognize all the talent on the field with him. I am just not going to give Brady huge praise that doesn't fit reality. He is a great fit for the Pats and the coaches do a great job of fielding a team that makes Brady look so great to the less discerning eye. Glory hogs that didn't truly earn it just piss me off. I can see all the talent on any team even if most can't spot it and only see the glory positions.

I hear it on every local teams radio station when I am on the road in the spring. The team usually has a good enough QB to get the job done but the trouble with their team is usually the O-line or the defense or the lack of decent receivers to throw to and all I hear from the fans is all we need is a great QB. We will never win the SB with this bum. Well you get that great QB and you will never win the SB. You will not have the money left to fix all the other problems that are actually keeping this QB from getting a chance to show what he can do. That elite QB isn't going to look any better without fixing the parts of the team he needs to be successful. Well Brady hasn't had those problems but on rare occasions and he didn't get it done for the portion of those seasons he was missing key supporting cast members. I just think Brady has been given way too much credit in his career. He is a great QB but has done everything while being on a great team. He screwed up the teams chances in this SB and only through the efforts of the rest of the team did the team have a chance to win.


They almost lost but for an extremely bad play call by Carroll and a great read and execution by Butler to make the interception. I can understand running one pass play on 2nd or 3rd down but to line up in the shotgun with nobody in the backfield. That is just stupid. To throw the ball in the middle of traffic is also stupid. Run a play action to Lynch and a pass away from the deception that can only be caught by the receiver. Anyway that is the way I see the SB. Brady played great for some of the game and made mistakes a great QB should not make in a game of this magnitude. The Pats defense kept the game in reach and it is the Pats defense that won the game. Yet Brady gets all the glory.

I take it you believe the supporting cast of Brady is equal to that of Bradshaw and Montana. Fair enough. As I recall the Hawks pretty much shut down the run and Brady's passing ability saved the day in more than one instance. The MVP was Lynch but they didn't let him win the game for them, so the honors go to Brady, the leader of the winning team who staged/led the amazing comeback that put the Pats in a position to win.

[Bodarc]

Pete Carroll should have been voted the Patriots MVP. Take any of these QB's and put them as the New Orleans Saints QB in the 1970's and see how many of them are still walking after the game, much less winning Super Bowls and setting records. So how do you evaluate the 'best QB'?