Sharky's NFL play of the week

[Exoter175]

People, I am not 'hating' on Brady at all. He is one of the greatest QB's to play the game, without question. The discussions that I was referring to were post game discussions comparing superbowl performances by QB's. First I think it is horrible to look at TD passes when one guy played 6 games while the other played 4.

And I am just saying if it wasn't for what may go down as a the worst play call in superbowl history, Brady is 3-3 in superbowls coming off 3 straight losses and undoubtedly would not have been MVP. His superbowl historical status changed on a dime on a play that he had nothing to do with.

If its horrible to look at TD passes, which is a pretty good indicator of a QB being responsible for his teams' success, in which Brady is paramount to all, then why look at super bowl records when Joe had one of the absolute best defenses in the league? On top of that, Bradshaw, whom you mentioned, had the steel curtain. The arguably best defense in the history of the NFL is the reason Bradshaw is 4-0 in super bowls, not the other way around.

Even if Carrol and company call the right call and 'win' the game, how do you NOT give Brady the MVP for his efforts? He threw 4 touchdown passes in the superbowl, after having essentially cemented the Seahawks win after that second pick, only to COME BACK and put his team into a position to win long after the Seahawks had shut down the patriot run game.

The guy threw 50 passes, which puts him in the top "couple" for most passes attempted in a super bowl; Threw 4 touchdowns, also top "couple" for most passing TD's in a super bowl; Completed 37 of his passes, also top "couple" in a super bowl. What more do you want? Are you really going to give a guy who theoretically would have put up a 20/105/2ish statline the MVP over a 37/50 320+ 4/2 statline? I don't think so.

And how are you going to call 3-3 in super bowls "mediocre"? Getting to the super bowl is a FEAT in and of itself, just ask the THOUSANDS of QB's to play this game at the professional level who have never seen a Championship (of which Brady has seen more than just about anyone) let alone a super bowl.

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.

Truth.

Well it was only 3rd down because the Pats defender reached his hand out as he went down and tripped the SEA receiver in a blatant PI that wasn't called. It is one thing to get feet tangled up and entirely another thing to dive at the guys feet and swipe his foot to the inside because he has you beat for a TD. The refs let him get away with it.


Anyone that thinks Brady is better than Montana didn't see them both play.

After screwing up so bad with 2 interceptions and having trouble holding onto a fully inflated football on other plays causing passes to go into the turf Brady had 1 great quarter that got them the lead. That is just ridiculous to me. Why are so many so enamored with the QB that they are blind to the rest of the game?

You want to talk about blatant calls that weren't called? How about the roughing the kicker call that didn't get called, and instead was called "running into the kicker" which was a 5 yard penalty on 4th and 6, which should have been an automatic 1st down and 15 yards, putting New England into striking distance, only to have Seattle go fly down the field.

Also, saw Montana play, in person, pretty sure you COULD NOT say that.

As far as Brady goes, he put the team on his BACK to get them back into the game. His team didn't "bail" him out at all. You can't even call that pick at the goal line a "bail out" since he had come from 10 points down to put them into the lead by 4.

Perhaps it is you (not even perhaps, absolutely certain) that is the "blind" one.

Point was to comeback after the 2nd interception that put the Pats down 24-14 showed resolve of the greats.

The play regarded as the worst call in history was by the Coach who was already being touted as one of the greastest in history with anticipation of back to back Super Bowl wins.

The "call" I question was a TO by Pats with 2.52 to play to run Garret for 2 yards. Keep the clock running and the Pats are in complete control with 2nd and goal inside 2 minutes....with the greatest QB in history. lol

The storyline is a rookie from West Alabama made two great plays in the final 3 of the game. One seemed to spell disaster, the other will go down as a defining Super moment.

Ehh, that timeout was a necessity more than anything. Gotta get your guys straight with composure, and it did just 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.

I think you're giving Pete too much credit for that bad call. Here's the thing. You have a timeout left with 1:02ish on the clock from a 2nd and goal scenario. You absolutely "HAVE" to save that timeout if you're Pete because you need it if you fail to convert for a TD, and if for some miraculous reason, you end up with a botched snap that Russel can't escape from. Further, and most importantly, I CANNOT stress it enough how important that "no call" by Bellicheat was. ANY coach in this league calls that timeout with 1:02 left "knowing" Pete is about to go Goaline formation and run Lynch right up the middle for the touchdown so you need to keep as much time on the clock as possible. Only problem is, Bellicheat called Pete's bluff, and put the pressure on Pete and Russel to "WIN" the game. 40 seconds is not a long time to get your guys ready for the next play in the last minute of the super bowl, and worse, you know they were relaying in two plays at the time for Russel to audible into or out of, and on top of that, if you watch the last snap of the game, they take a LONG time to get that play off. IIRC it was snapped around the :30-:25 mark, milking almost all of the play clock. Up until :25 or :15 (don't remember) the coaches are able to relay information to Russel's "com" about the situation. If you watched the huddle, they used EVERY second of that "com" time to get them into the right play.

Here's where Pete and Bill differ, Bill would have relayed in "the next call" on 1st down to Tom, and they'd have ran Blount with the play clock still at or around :20-:25. Seattle didn't do this, as they weren't prepared and clearly expecting Bill Bellicheat to call that timeout. Bill didn't, Pete and Russel folded under pressure, despite calling the "right" passing play, but the Patriots were absolutely prepared for that EXACT play having watched the Kansas City game from week 10 or 11 this year.

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.

Be biased all you want, I surely am. I've seen BOTH QB's in person on game day and they are completely different QB's. Montana made magic happen, that's for sure, but there's never been a QB in this league more determined, more fired up "to win" than Brady in or out of the Post season. That guy is a consummate professional and an absolute "gamer" of a field general back there. His mere presence concerns even the best defenses. The problem is, because of Brady's lack of support on Defense year in and year out, he's always been put into that situation to win a game from behind, which is why he's so far up the charts in league history, Montana at least had a solid defense everywhere he played, I mean, the guy had the Niners defense in their prime with a PLETHORA of supporting offensive cast mates, and then went to KC where he had arguably the best pass rush defense, ever, with a top 5 secondary to boot. Not to take anything away from Joe, because honestly I think he's probably the most calm, collected, and "cool" guy to ever take a snap at QB at any level of football, ever.

... and now, back to our regularly-scheduled deflate-gate programming:

In case details matter to you before solidifying an opinion ... new reports state that only 1 of 12 game balls were deflated by 2 psi; many were just a few ticks below minimum. It would really be good if the NFL releases some facts, at least the pressure readings, even before the full report.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/new-report-says-only-one-patriots-football-was-seriously-deflated-165514858.html

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000466783/article/more-details-on-the-investigation-of-patriots-deflated-footballs

Don't tell T3.

I remember Joe had this one receiver that was pretty good. Jerry Rice! Yet Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Roger Craig, even Tom Rathman got their fair share of touches. The years of John Madden and Pat Summerball says "just so many weapons" in reference to the 49ers. They could play a little defense too. Led by this guy named Lott. Dean. Hicks and Wright. They'd pick apart defenses with this short passing game - The West Coast offense. Imagine Peyton's Dad on those Steelers dynasty teams? Terry Bradshaw didn't evenstart the first 6 games during the teams first Super Bowl year.

Not to mention, Joe had arguably the greatest coach of all time, and as much as I love Bellicheat and what he's done, I think Brady's done more for his career than bellicheat for Brady's.

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.

Here's the thing with that. The MVP wasn't Lynch. Nobody had performed "better" than Brady that day, except maybe Bellicheat's "no call" of a timeout to win them the game on the next play. Putting up a 20/100/2 statline or close to it isn't "MVP" material when the opposing teams' QB puts up the numbers Brady did to keep them in the game. Certainly, though, I wouldn't have been surprised if Lynch would have received the MVP award if they had won, as its very common to award the "most productive" player from the winning team, though it isn't an "absolute".

But up until that point, there was no doubt Brady had the MVP with honorable mentions to Lynch and Sherman who played "typical" games.

[Exoter175]

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'?

Stats, awards, accolades, how else?

I mean, really. Nobody in the NFL has more records, more awards, and more accolades than Tom Brady. And he's done it all with one less year under his belt than Montana, his only "real" competition for that spot.

[Bodarc]

So if he happened to play for the Oakland Raiders this year, you think he'd still be getting all of those records, awards and accolades?

[Exoter175]

So if he happened to play for the Oakland Raiders this year, you think he'd still be getting all of those records, awards and accolades?

That's highly subjective, considering the Raiders wouldn't have been churning through coaches and QB's for the last decade like t hey have been in search of a "tom brady" they'd have been able to build a team like the Patriots did around him.

You can't simply say "if Brady played for X team would they have won a super bowl or would he have done so well?". There's no answer to a question like that, only speculation. My speculation is that if the Raiders drafted Brady, instead of the Patriots, they'd have taken the AFC West by storm and been a perennial playoff team who would have built quite the offensive line and defense around Tom Brady, who would have made spectacular use out of a guy like Darren McFadden as his running back, with stars like Charles Woodson having stayed in Oakland instead of moving on to the Packers, and now a guy like Khalil Mack to anchor that pass rush. That certainly could have been a dominating AFC West team, and likely a parallel universe where Peyton Manning never goes to Denver, and guys like Wes Welker and Julian Edelman end up being "nobodies".

[Bodarc]

All I am saying is I think when you start trying to say who is the best quarterback, there are too many variables involved. You can say the Patriots are a great team because they proved it but it is the team, coaches and owners that put the QB in position to be a star. Without that, any QB would just be mediocre. Just like Sunday, Brady was on the bench when everything happened that made him a winner. The game could have gone the other way in the blink of an eye and he'd be 2 for 5 instead of 3 for 5 and Wilson would have been the MVP.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me, it's nothing but a ball game. You can see them at your local high school any Friday night of the season.

[moo321]

I remember Joe had this one receiver that was pretty good. Jerry Rice! Yet Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Roger Craig, even Tom Rathman got their fair share of touches. The years of John Madden and Pat Summerball says "just so many weapons" in reference to the 49ers. They could play a little defense too. Led by this guy named Lott. Dean. Hicks and Wright. They'd pick apart defenses with this short passing game - The West Coast offense. Imagine Peyton's Dad on those Steelers dynasty teams? Terry Bradshaw didn't evenstart the first 6 games during the teams first Super Bowl year.

Exactly. Jerry Rice is the best ever, John Taylor made numerous Pro Bowls, Dwight Clark was good, Brent Jones, Roger Craig and Ricky Watters were all Pro-Bowlers, and Tom Rathman is one of the best fullbacks ever to play the game. I believe he had 2 HOF offensive lineman. He had several hall of famers and near hall of famers on defense: Haley, Romanowski, etc.

Compare that to Brady's teams. For his first 3 superbowls, he had Corey Dillon, who is probably comparable to Montana's RBs. But besides that, he had slightly above average receivers and an ok offensive line. He had some players on defense, Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, and some good defensive linemen, but I don't think they're at the level of the 49ers.

2007 is the only year that he had a team that's maybe comparable to the 49ers dynasties, and he won every game except the Super Bowl, while breaking a number of passing records. He even played very well in the super bowl despite getting sacked (5 times?) and hit constantly, and they barely lost on a freak-catch and a long drive to tie. That wasn't Brady's fault.

I'm not hating on Montana at all. He's a great quarterback, and I don't think it's outrageous to say he's the best ever. But I think Brady could have won 4 super bowls with his teams. I think Marino probably could have, too. Bradshaw had an insane defense, Montana had a dynasty. Brady has won 4 and been to 6 with mostly just above average teams.

[The Suburbs]

Moo i respect your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it but when you use the term team you seem to be talking how many outstanding players are remember historically. To me what makes football great is having a bunch of superstars doesn't win you games. It is having a great team. Unlike other sports where your team is as good as your superstar, in football your team is only as good as its weakest link. The other team will exploit a weakness and it doesn't matter how many superstars you have that weakness will cost you the game. That is how I see a team not by how many superstars they have. Is Brady getting sacked much? No, the O-line must be solid, the receivers get open and the coaches call good situational plays. Are the other teams' QB's getting quick releases and is NE getting a lot of sacks and pressures? I would say the answers to these questions say the defenses have been great teams. You look at every aspect of the NE game and it suggests that part of the team is very strong. How can you not say they have a great team. Exactly what do you think team means. It sounds like the people that see it as all Brady think the team is measured not as a unit (as it should be) but as a bunch of individuals. To me individuals do not spell team. Did Montana and Bradshaw have great teams? Of course they did but it has a lot more to do with the entire squad than a bunch of great individuals. I expect many of the Pats will be in the Hall of Fame when their time comes in a decade or so.

This is exactly why your argument is hypocritical. You give Brady very little credit for winning for 15 years because his teams were "great", yet you argue that Montana is far better despite the fact that his teams as a whole were objectively MUCH better on average than Brady's. The only time Brady had even close to same type of support on offense as Montana were the years when he had Randy Moss in the twilight of his career (which is not the same as having Jerry Rice in his prime), and he proceeded to win two MVPs, two Offensive Player of the Year awards, and have arguably the best statistical year of any quarterback EVER. I may be a Patriots homer, but even I'm not as blatantly biased as you.

[Aslan]

All I am saying is I think when you start trying to say who is the best quarterback, there are too many variables involved. You can say the Patriots are a great team because they proved it but it is the team, coaches and owners that put the QB in position to be a star. Without that, any QB would just be mediocre. Just like Sunday, Brady was on the bench when everything happened that made him a winner. The game could have gone the other way in the blink of an eye and he'd be 2 for 5 instead of 3 for 5 and Wilson would have been the MVP.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me, it's nothing but a ball game. You can see them at your local high school any Friday night of the season.

Haha Friday night football, eh?

But don't forget that Dan Marino was a great QB on his own merit-- just doesn't have any SB rings to show it But the stats show it just the same. But I understand what you are saying It takes the entire cast to make a hit, but the lead actor sometimes gets all the accolades, sometimes deservedly, sometimes not. I wonder how many "average" QBs would have done as well as Terry Bradshaw, or was he something special like an Aaron Rodgers? The Redskins made a living using average QBs for quite some time and had several SBs to show for it. Uh, forget about the past 23 years though..

[Exoter175]

All I am saying is I think when you start trying to say who is the best quarterback, there are too many variables involved. You can say the Patriots are a great team because they proved it but it is the team, coaches and owners that put the QB in position to be a star. Without that, any QB would just be mediocre. Just like Sunday, Brady was on the bench when everything happened that made him a winner. The game could have gone the other way in the blink of an eye and he'd be 2 for 5 instead of 3 for 5 and Wilson would have been the MVP.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me, it's nothing but a ball game. You can see them at your local high school any Friday night of the season.

Brady was on the bench because he drove his team down the field to score. He earned his position on the "bench" though he was clearly standing with his team. And what do you mean 2 for 5 instead of 3 for 5? He's 4 for 6.

Most of the incomplete passes were horrible passes that slipped out of his hand because the football was more inflated than Brady has used in some time. They either were intercepted or went into the dirt as Brady couldn't pull down the harder football but rather had it slip out of his hand. The Pats receivers have talent.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read on this forum since ZK stopped posting as often. You seem to have forgotten the Indianapolis game where Brady went lights out in the 2nd half with the "inflated" balls. Its comments like these that make "your" stance clear. You are CERTAIN in your mind that Brady is a cheater, Brady is responsible for the footballs, despite having no evidence to support you belief, with current evidence doing nothing but proving you very, very wrong. On top of that, its the repetitive way you bring this up, like a child who just won't let go of something bothering them. Or like an ex girlfriend who never got over you and still finds a way to stalk you or call you on your birthday despite changing your number six times.

Brady didn't cheat, get over it, he throws an "inflated" football just fine, and if you knew the difference in a "regulation" ball at 12.5PSI vs 13.5PSI you'd realize how foolish, silly, shallow, and pedantic you're coming off with your nonsensical windbag posts.

And, no, the Pats receivers do not have talent. Edelman has marginal talent, enough to make him maybe a top 50 receiver, and Gronk is certainly the best TE in the business, but there's nobody else there making noise. LaFell is not good at all, maybe a top 150 receiver, and Amendola has scarcely been used in that offense, despite his talent suggesting he could be a top 50 guy.

This is exactly my point. People act like Brady carries this team when His turnovers and comeback offset each other in the SB. The game was won by the team but the masses can't see it.

That game was won by Butler, who was put into a position to win the game because the Offense was put on Brady's back to "come back" from the largest 2nd half deficit in super bowl history. And Brady did just that, he came from behind by 10 after his final turnover, to turn around and go up by 4 in with a few minutes left. You keep talking about Brady's turnovers like he's Trent Dilfer or something. He's thrown 4 more interceptions than Joe in 1 fewer year played, but thrown ONE HUNDRED AND NINETEEEN MORE TOUCHDOWNS in one fewer year.

Tell me again how Brady's turnovers hurt his team so badly only for him to have to come from behind, rather than his defense not being nearly as good as Joe's was, and having to actually throw the ball to come back from these deficits to win a game. Like, but not limited to, the largest 2nd half deficit in super bowl history, or the first time a team has ever overcome a two time 10 or more point deficit to win in the post season. I mean, you're right, that wasn't Brady bringing his team back against both of those teams lol.

Seriously, stop posting about football T3, you're way off your rocker.

Ironic, the QB that held most of Notre Dame's passing records that Joe Montana broke was Bradshaws backup for those Super Bowl years. But Bill Bellichick didn't relay in the play at 2.52. Seattle defense was losing it's composure at that time, not NE's offense. In the press conference no reporter ever asked him "why the timeout?"

Perhaps he didn't want to give Seattle a chance to regain their composure at the 2 minute warning. The call was weak for coming out of a timeout and it looked like he used that play to set up the next play and catch Seattle off balance with a clock ticking down to two minutes. Pats were in complete control at the game at that point.

Then gave up control for the lead. Sure one could argue the logic of... yes, but they scored a TD. And you'd be 1 yard 1 play shy of being incorrect.

Problem with that is you're essentially relying on the opponent to drive ~75 yards or so down the field to be on that 1 yard line to maybe win a game. The Seahawks benefited from two busted plays on that drive, with one of them being a MIRACLE catch and quick jump out of bounds which moved them MILES closer to the goal line in what could easily be called a top 10 super bowl catch. Point was, that timeout was a necessity and didn't hurt them, and more importantly was that they had another one left, but weren't going to face a situation to use it, except when they had a situation that dictated using it by the standards of 99.99999999% of the coaches currently coaching any level of football, and then he didn't take it.

That was the brilliance of all of this. Bill absolutely mindfucked Pete all the way through the game, but laid it on heavy in the 4th, and it proved to be effective multiple times.

This is exactly why your argument is hypocritical. You give Brady very little credit for winning for 15 years because his teams were "great", yet you argue that Montana is far better despite the fact that his teams as a whole were objectively MUCH better on average than Brady's. The only time Brady had even close to same type of support on offense as Montana were the years when he had Randy Moss in the twilight of his career (which is not the same as having Jerry Rice in his prime), and he proceeded to win two MVPs, two Offensive Player of the Year awards, and have arguably the best statistical year of any quarterback EVER. I may be a Patriots homer, but even I'm not as blatantly biased as you.

If you read my comments on Joe and Brady, what I said separates them is this:
1) Joe Montana: I don't care about rings or playoff appearance but Joe could hit receivers in stride anywhere on the field. That is a skill hardly any QB has possessed. His skills as a QB are unparalleled.

2) Brady has had lots of wins and rings and comeback victories on the rare occasions they were behind toward the end of the game. But what Brady has done is make his career about short dink and dunk passes. His accuracy downfield is nothing special. This style of QB fits beautifully into the Pats team so I wouldn't expect him to do anything else. It makes the Pats the best team it can be. But Brady does not have the skills that Joe had. Brady has a ho-hum record throwing longer passes. Like I said it doesn't matter because he only throws longer passes to keep the short passes open. If he didn't throw any longer passes the D would adjust to stop the shorter passes. Short of what is above his shoulders, were Brady may be special, that skill set can be done by almost any QB.

So you can think me hypocritical but if you understand the difference between the two QB's abilities there is no comparison. They both have a great head on the shoulders for the position and that is not easy to find. The difference in the physical abilities and skills of the 2 QBs are like night and day. Short dink and dunk works really well with lots of types of teams. Too many try to do more and fail because they can't. Either weak O-line can't give the QB the time, receivers can't get separation or the QB isn't accurate enough or telegraphs a long pass's destination with is eyes. That just makes the safeties job easy to be in position to either break up the play or make an interception. Joe could hit his guys deep in stride with remarkable efficiency. That sets him apart from almost every QB in NFL history especially if you want to count rings and records. I really see all of them as team efforts and not an individual accomplishment even though they are individual records.

Couple things:

1. I can't believe you're sitting here telling us that Joe is better because he could make "all the throws" and Brady only got by with the "dink and dunk" when Joe was in the fucking West Coast offense under Bill Walsh himself, father of the fucking West Coast offense, the GRAND DADDY OF DINK AND DUNK. Also, Joe and Tom are within .09 of eachother in YPA and within .2 of eachother in YPC, with Joe leading ever so slightly. What Brady could do with a Jerry Rice, we'll never know, but I promise you he'd at least be leading Joe in those stats if he did, and Joe without Rice would look very pedestrian. But who am I kidding? Its not like Jerry was the best receiver of ALL TIME by magnitudes over all other competition. Oh wait, he was.

2. You are aware, through you extensive playing time as a quarterback in the national football league, I presume, that the hardest past to actually make is a quick 5-7 yard slant to the slot guy. Ever so slightly "harder" than a touch "fade" pass at the goal line, or an 8-10 yard out route at the sticks.

You know, T3, there's a reason that those 3 passes are the most practiced, most called, and most "perfected" plays in practice between a QB and his receivers. They are the most effective when complete, and often times the most crucial routes.

Example, this last Super Bowl, of which you watched and complained about Brady tossing 2 interceptions, despite 4 fucking touchdown passes (A better average than Joe Montana's Career 1.96:1 TD/INT ratio, and far below Tom's career 2.74:1 TD/INT ratio) was "won" by the opposing team's defense because the Offense could not complete a.....................you guessed it, quick 5 yard slant route to the slot.

The Absolute irony there, Russel Nails the deep pass to get them into the red zone (the same pass you're talking about with Joe) and then gets intercepted at the goal line (on the same pass I'm talking about in rebuttal to your claim) and the game is won or lost depending on what side you're on.

[Exoter175]

Well Brother Ex. Mr Bill was 1 yard and 1 play away from mfing himself. Consider this; No TO at 2.52. The Pats didn't need to call a TO to run Blount. Now..it's 2nd and goal coming out of the 2 minute warning. If he runs Blount again, it put all the pressure on Pete. Does this force Pete to now call a TO or let the clock run down? If he has complete faith in his defense then he doesn't call the TO and waits to call it after the 3rd and goal stop. Game potenially tied 24-24 and he'd still have a minute or so to get into field goal range. If Pete calls a timout then he's burning a valued commodity at that stage of the game.

It was on helluva potential for drama that will "never" go down in history. But it appears Belichek used to 2 yard run to set up that play action pass ...and just before the 2 minute warning was a brilliant offensive strategy. I doubt his defensive minded mentor would have done it that way.

I think the issue amongst debate was Bill's Mindset from 3:00-1:02, because it appeared as if he was playing "ball" expecting a Seattle score and the Patriots needing to be setup with time to drive the ball for a game winning/tying field goal in the end. Then when we got to the miracle catch and "run stop" bringing clock down to 1:02 and ticking, what I believe we might have seen was a stroke of brilliance for Bill in the "non call" timeout of which there are now DOZENS of articles about his "non call" timeout there, and I quote, "no coach in the super bowl era would have let that clock run". They do double back to 2:52 as well, positing the idea of Bill getting nervous, though he'll never admit to it as an active coach.

Point is, in every "alternate" universe, a coach in Bill's shoes calls a timeout there at 1:02, the Seahawks snap the ball, hand off to Lynch for the TD, and the Patriots drive down the field with no timeouts and a minute left on the clock. Well, ~55 seconds left. And either they get in range for the field goal try to tie it and go to overtime, or they don't, we'll never known. What we do know, however, is that he made the most brilliant of "no call" calls there might have ever been, and got his subs out fast for his goal line 3 corners package and his guys made the play they were practicing all week long and they got a ring for it.

Overall, a fantastic super bowl in my eyes, and oddly reminiscent of the Green Bay game on Seattle's part.

[Exoter175]

Why let a scandal brew when there is none?

To "keep up" with the NFL interest during a two week "slump" in "stuff to talk about" that's why. Just about every talking head agrees that this is a non-issue with information being withheld for nothing more than "sales" at the end of the day. Just like how they just happened to wait until after the game to put out more Josh Gordon drama, coupled with the three arrests/suspenion filings on top of that. Just like how "textgate" will become a "thing" up until the combine.

[muffdiver]

As I've stated before, I'm far from being a fan of either of the teams in this year's SB but I truly enjoyed watching the whole game. Also, being a Packers fan, I took some pleasure in seeing Seattle lose it in the way that they did. I even had one more drink after witnessing the "blunder of the decade".

muffdiver

[Aslan]

I am not a fan of either team either. I do like the Seahawks team with the balance of O and great D and the unique threat of their offensive style. I like the Patriots too but it drives me crazy that people that don't understand football give Brady the credit for being lucky enough to be on a good team his entire career. Then it really drives me crazy when people try to compare stat for stat players in one era from another. If Brady played in Montana's day he would have been a mediocre QB. Back then it was about throwing further downfield when your receivers get mugged, you get slammed and the offense line had a tougher time dealing with the defenses. Brady's dink and dunk career would not have been enough to hold a starting job as QB in that era. Today the defense can't look at the QB funny or hit receivers or mug receivers. If any contact occurs Brady has a hissy fit and goes crying to the refs. The teams also played fewer playoff games and in 1978 the NFL went from a 14 game season to a 16 game season. So in the same number of years Brady will play 16.7% more games than players of an earlier era. Montana started his career right after the NFL went to the 16 game season. The real difference is that Montana would have been the best in either era and Brady only great in this era.

You have the debate about great QBs and stats talk about air yards because YAC is on the receiver more than the QB. Then someone always points out that Montana always hit his receivers in stride so they had a much better YAC due to this one of a kind QB super accurate passing. Brady's receivers have huge YAC stats but nobody says it is Brady's accuracy that helps with that like they do with Montana. Joe was just that good even in the twilight of is career. If there wasn't such a good QB as Young backing him up Joe probably would have finished his career in SF. There is no doubt in this era of p*ssy football designed to create huge offensive stats where they would not have been Brady is among the best. But in the era of manly football that was centered more on running and longer passing when Montana played I don't think Brady would have even stood out among the leagues QBs. It isn't a knock on Brady as much as an stating of fact. Brady can only play in this era and Montana will never get the chance to play in the current ridiculous offensive era. It is obvious to me Montana would be the best ever in this era and Brady would be average in Montana's era.

My take on it is different than yours. Brady does what he does in this era because that is what wins in this era. Just like you say, you can't compare players from different eras. While I am partial to Montana, you'd have to be crazy to write Brady off as just a mediocre QB on the right team. You could make that same argument against Montana. Both are great QBs and I imagine if Joe were in this era his game would fit the day and the particular team he had to work with, and if Brady were in Joe's era, he would do the same In any era, a great QB does what he has to do to be most successful. No matter what Marino did, he could only go so far with the team he played for, so any great QB needs a great supporting cast to go the distance. Let's just drop the quarreling and admit that both Montana and Brady are great QBs and not make judgments as to what on might do in this or another era-- it just doesn't equate.

And for the love of Mike, you and Exoter stop the bickering. You both have a good grasp of the game and the teams, and no one can help the biases they have formed over the years. Maybe you two could learn from each other if you would stop talking past and at each other. I enjoy both of your perspectives. Thank you both for posting, but lets keep it less personal, especially I'm sad to say, Exoter. They are only our opinions and like "you know what", everyone has one. Although I do like your take on things more, Exoter, please let's not get personal. This place is turning into a 1930's men's club, the proverbial "pool" room, ladies not allowed, where you had to fight to get in and fight to stay in. LOL It's fun, but it can get out of hand real easy and I'd hate to see either of you banned by pushing it any further. Us less educated NFL fans learn from both of you and we can sort the BS from the real McCoy without you two roughing up each other. Just my two cents-- hope I didn't offend either of you, as I love to read what you have to say and form my own opinions.

Anyway, kudos to the both of you for sharing your opinions without any political correctness and no holds barred. It's all good so long as it doesn't get personal.