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.Originally Posted by KJ
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.
Truth.
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.
Ehh, that timeout was a necessity more than anything. Gotta get your guys straight with composure, and it did just that.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Don't tell T3.
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks