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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Math Demon]

Thanks Tthree.

Does winning hinge on continuity in front-office and coaching staff? Seems to me that the most successful teams have long-tenured GM, scouts & personnel people, head coach and coaching staff, and oftentimes, owners.

Or maybe getting lucky in drafting (and trading) like Brady, Manning, Luck, Favre, Rodgers, Flacco, etc? On the opposite end, CLE & BUF seem to be wasting draft picks left-and-right.

The top 10 teams with regards to win percentage since 2002 are:
NE (75.6%), IND (67.5%), PIT (63.8%), GB (61.6%), BAL (58.7%), PHI (58.6%), DEN (58.4%), SD (57.3%), SEA (56.4%) & NO (55.5%).