Irish Times Article on the Superbowl by Brian O'Connor

Johnny_Fontane

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0130/1224310945792.html

This might make you mad!:mad::mad:

mikemac1

And that's under the sport section, not some random opinion piece

I'd like to submit my CV to the Irish Times, if they are going to pay someone to preview a game anyone could do a better job

THE 46th Super Bowl takes place next Sunday. No, I hadn’t realised either.

You see, the Patriots’ quarterback is a gentleman called Tom Brady. No, I don’t know him either.

Isn't a journalist supposed to have passion and interest in what they are writing about?? :rolleyes:

Wimbago

How so? It's balanced in both it's praise and knocking of the sport


I thought the Tom Brady/Super Bowl bashing was meant to be sarcastic :P

Gronkosaurus

I don't put much stock in the opinion of someone writing about American Football when they admit they don't know who the most famous American Football player of all time is, much in the same way I wouldn't trust a golf article that says "Tiger Who?" or a soccer article about "some Beckham chap". His overall message is good - it's a dramatic game with a storyline that a game like the Superbowl doesn't even need that may appeal to the casual fan, but he falls into the trap of lamenting the drama, pageantry and occasion of it all like so many foreign journalists do - it's just plain old lazy journalism. Just ignore him.

Wimbago

Hadn't looked at it like that, good point.

Johnny_Fontane

hes a very well respected journalist that tends to write about GAA/Racing, that what makes it so infuriating.

Surely the guy can see the bigger picture on this?

jack presley

Pretty crap cliched article alright but he does make one good point about the audience watching. Just because 5 million people in Ireland are capable of watching it, doesn't mean they will

Morrisseeee

...........but the biggest Q is: did he mention Tebow ??!! :pac:

BigBadRob83

It's like he's trying to apologise for enjoying an American Sport.

One bit wrecked my head (not just as a Pats fan)
"Brady the Beckham of his era" - give me a break! Comparing Brady, one of the Top 10 NFL players of all-time, to Beckham (less said about him the better) is ridiculous.

poldebruin

Yeah, I read this yesterday. Sounds like it's written by someone who knows (little or) nothing about the sport and does not care for it. There is a sneary tone to the article, despite the last couple of paragraphs that encourage the uninitiated into watching. A very uninformed piece.

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

One bit wrecked my head (not just as a Pats fan)
"Brady the Beckham of his era" - give me a break! Comparing Brady, one of the Top 10 NFL players of all-time, to Beckham (less said about him the better) is ridiculous.

Well there are definite similarities. Both are obviously handsome, married to famous women, get a lot of coverage in non-sports media, and were considered poster child(ren) for their respective sports, 4-or-so years ago. Beckham only won league titles in England, Spain and the US - no comparison at all.:D

Dodge

Shocking journalist. Writes deliberately to create controversy.

Has lieterally no clue about any sport other then GAA or Horse Racing. Co-incidentally the only two sports I don't have an interest in

adrian522

He doesn't write a lot about the GAA from what I know, I've never seen him write on that subject anyway. He's the racing correspondent, seems to be his main area of expertise.

Gronkosaurus

I'd also love to know where he gets his estimate of 93 million viewers from.

Superbowl 42: 97.5 million average / 148.3 million total
Superbowl 43: 98.7 million average / 151.6 million total
Superbowl 44: 106.5 million average / 153.4 million total
Superbowl 45: 111 million average / 162.9 million total

Considering the last 4 Superbowls have each broken the record for Superbowl viewers (and the last 2 are the 2 most watched broadcasts of any kind in American television history), the fact that the sport is growing rapidly, and the fact that it just so happens to be a rematch with one hell of a story behind it - not to mention the fact that one of the teams happens to be from New York - I would be amazed if this didn't exceed last year's 111 million figure.

D3PO

I havent read this tripe nor will I.

Its a farce that a newspaper would have a random journalist write about something they know nothing about.

They wouldnt have a fashion writer do a piece on the economy so what makes them think its ok to have a racing journalist write about American Football.

He knows about as much about AF as I do about quantum physics. Thats not saying very much.

tallaghtoutlaws

Friend of mine is a writer for an Irish Newspaper and a huge NFL fan and always gets looked over for Articles on the NFL to more Senior writers who haven't a clue about the sport.

matthew8

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

It's like he's trying to apologise for enjoying an American Sport.

One bit wrecked my head (not just as a Pats fan)
"Brady the Beckham of his era" - give me a break! Comparing Brady, one of the Top 10 NFL players of all-time, to Beckham (less said about him the better) is ridiculous.

Top 10 of all time? You must be joking.

Syferus

To be fair, he obviously means as a media brand, which is a very, very apt comparison.

tallaghtoutlaws

matthew8 wrote: »

Top 10 of all time? You must be joking.

Why is that such a joke to you? Many pundits have put Brady in the Top 10. In fact its usually down to who they prefer Manning or Brady but either way both of them on all the polls are usually hovering around the Top 10 if not in it. The problem with these things it always comes down to personal preference.

Rice, Montana, Brown, Peyton, Taylor, Marino, Unitas, Sanders seem to be the most consistent names always in peoples Top 10's

Out of the greatest QBs Elway, Manning and Brady seem to hover around or in these things and as I said it generally comes down to personal preference. If Brady wins another Bowl this year its going to be hard to argue against him being Top 10. And before anyone says Bowls dont make you great I agree and disagree with that statement. But it certanly helps your stock having Bowl Rings on your fingers.

D3PO

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

. And before anyone says Bowls dont make you great I agree and disagree with that statement. But it certanly helps your stock having Bowl Rings on your fingers.

Bowls dont make you great. :pac::pac:

persie11

WOW, that was insightful! I can't wait for his article's on the Olympic's! Synchronised swimming is gonna get hammered!

me-skywalker

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Friend of mine is a writer for an Irish Newspaper and a huge NFL fan and always gets looked over for Articles on the NFL to more Senior writers who haven't a clue about the sport.

Get him to freelance an article for boards.ie? Maybe users will link around on FB, Twitter etc etc and can increase his profile?

tallaghtoutlaws

me-skywalker wrote: »

Get him to freelance an article for boards.ie? Maybe users will link around on FB, Twitter etc etc and can increase his profile?

He is doing alright as a Journo he got into the newspaper because of his freelance stuff already. He is already a decent sportswriter and Id say its more office politics at play in his situation.

davyjose

matthew8 wrote: »

Top 10 of all time? You must be joking.

Name 10 better than him.

matthew8

davyjose wrote: »

Name 10 better than him.

I'll name more than 10, narrowing it down to 10 is very hard:
Jerry Rice, Jim Brown, Lawrence Taylor, Ray Lewis, Dick Butkus, Otto Graham, Barry Sanders, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas, Ronnie Lott, Joe Green, Walter Payton, Reggie White. I haven't seen all these guys play (obviously) but Tom Brady at this time hasn't had as good a career as these players. There's still a lot of time to break into the top 10 though (and I wouldn't rule him out becoming the greatest ever either).

D3PO

matthew8 wrote: »

I'll name more than 10, narrowing it down to 10 is very hard:
Jerry Rice, Jim Brown, Lawrence Taylor, Ray Lewis, Dick Butkus, Otto Graham, Barry Sanders, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas, Ronnie Lott, Joe Green, Walter Payton, Reggie White. I haven't seen all these guys play (obviously) but Tom Brady at this time hasn't had as good a career as these players. There's still a lot of time to break into the top 10 though (and I wouldn't rule him out becoming the greatest ever either).

credibility fail. How can you argue that x & y are better and then on the other hand say you havent seen them all.

as good as Taylor & Lewis are in their positions they are not in the same league as Brady is in the Pantheon of QB's

Brett Farve better than Brady are you kidding me ?

Not that its all about Bowls but Im pretty sure none of them have made 5 superbowls except you guessed it Brady.

matthew8

credibility fail. How can you argue that x & y are better and then on the other hand say you havent seen them all.

How can someone claim that Brady is in the top 10 all time if he hasn't seen every NFL player play?

as good as Taylor & Lewis are in their positions they are not in the same league as Brady is in the Pantheon of QB's

I don't get what you're saying here. Are you saying that defensive players don't belong in the top 10?

Brett Farve better than Brady are you kidding me ?

All time, absolutely. More MVPs, pro bowls, 30k more yards, 200 more TDs.

Not that its all about Bowls but Im pretty sure none of them have made 5 superbowls except you guessed it Brady.

5 superbowls... with a good team around him (well, maybe untrue this year with the defense).

tallaghtoutlaws

matthew8 wrote: »

I'll name more than 10, narrowing it down to 10 is very hard:
Jerry Rice, Jim Brown, Lawrence Taylor, Ray Lewis, Dick Butkus, Otto Graham, Barry Sanders, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas, Ronnie Lott, Joe Green, Walter Payton, Reggie White. I haven't seen all these guys play (obviously) but Tom Brady at this time hasn't had as good a career as these players. There's still a lot of time to break into the top 10 though (and I wouldn't rule him out becoming the greatest ever either).

Help me out you say Brady hasn't had as good a career of the guys you listed so what defines a good career? Stats? Bowls? Wins? Records? Or just because someone else said so?

Dan Marino and Brett Favre had extremely long careers but Brady has achieved more than both of them but yet folk will make the argument oh Bowls dont count when you mention Marino and Favre hell throw Manning in there also.

Brett Favre? Brady hasn't had as good as a career as Breatt Favre? I love Brett Favre but Tom Brady beats Favre to that top 10 list easy if its based on how good his career has gone. Favre was awesome but Tom Brady is a better QB and has achieved more than Favre.

Manning again I think is on the same level as Brady but it seems when Polls are made Manning is made out to be some genius and Brady is apparently not on the same level as him and again apparently Bowls don't mean anything.

But when I read these polls or peoples opinion they sprout words like, success and achievements and good careers and then mention the guys above. Dont get me wrong all 3 have had amazing careers in their own right but only even 2 on your list have won more than Brady and they are Montana and Graham. Montana for me deserves every accolade as he for me is a no brainer for the top 10 but Graham as awesome as he was many dont consider him top 10 greatest he barely squeaks top 20.

I got to wonder at what point will Brady get his just deserves with folk. If he win this 4th Bowl on Sunday there is absolutely no argument anyone can put to say he doesn't deserve top 10 of all time and over step Marino and Favre and Manning. He is without a doubt one of the main reasons why the Pats have won 3 Super Bowls and gotten to 5 in the last decade.

tallaghtoutlaws

matthew8 wrote: »

5 superbowls... with a good team around him (well, maybe untrue this year with the defense).

And all of the players you mentioned above didn't have the same thing? Ah come on now :rolleyes: Montana had a Top 10 off all time WR to throw to ffs for 2 of his Bowl wins and a great 49ers team and Bill Walsh as his coach for most of his 49ers tenure oh and they had Ronnie Lott someone else who is considered in Top 10 lists.

Dodge

I'm far from a Patriots fan, but you have to be bitter in the extreme to not include Brady in the discussion of top 10 of all time.

I know its ALL subjective, ands its impossible to try and rank someone like Reggie White to Tom Brady, but he's been at/about the top of the game for a long while now, and has proven himself on pretty much every way of grading QBs.

matthew8

Help me out you say Brady hasn't had as good a career of the guys you listed so what defines a good career? Stats? Bowls? Wins? Records? Or just because someone else said so?

Comparing him to other positions is apples and oranges, but I think stats are a pretty fair measurement of a player's quality. Awards and pro bowls and stuff matter too.

Dan Marino and Brett Favre had extremely long careers but Brady has achieved more than both of them but yet folk will make the argument oh Bowls dont count when you mention Marino and Favre hell throw Manning in there also.

Bowls do count, but it's a team game.

Brett Favre? Brady hasn't had as good as a career as Breatt Favre? I love Brett Favre but Tom Brady beats Favre to that top 10 list easy if its based on how good his career has gone. Favre was awesome but Tom Brady is a better QB and has achieved more than Favre.

I'm a big fan of gunslingers but Favre has the better stats anyway.

Manning again I think is on the same level as Brady but it seems when Polls are made Manning is made out to be some genius and Brady is apparently not on the same level as him and again apparently Bowls don't mean anything.

Manning is more of an asset to the Colts than Brady to the Patriots. The Patriots are able to win when Tom Brady plays quite poorly. The Colts can't win unless Manning plays well.

I got to wonder at what point will Brady get his just deserves with folk. If he win this 4th Bowl on Sunday there is absolutely no argument anyone can put to say he doesn't deserve top 10 of all time and over step Marino and Favre and Manning. He is without a doubt one of the main reasons why the Pats have won 3 Super Bowls and gotten to 5 in the last decade.

Maybe his stats could perhaps lead us to think that he's not top 10?

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

And all of the players you mentioned above didn't have the same thing? Ah come on now :rolleyes: Montana had a Top 10 off all time WR to throw to ffs for 2 of his Bowl wins and a great 49ers team and Bill Walsh as his coach for most of his 49ers tenure oh and they had Ronnie Lott someone else who is considered in Top 10 lists.

Ever since Dan Marino left the Dolphins they haven't been the same. The Manning-less Colts are the worst team in the league. So no, they did not have the same thing. Ray Lewis had Trent Dilfer, too.

Dodge wrote: »

I'm far from a Patriots fan, but you have to be bitter in the extreme to not include Brady in the discussion of top 10 of all time.

I know its ALL subjective, ands its impossible to try and rank someone like Reggie White to Tom Brady, but he's been at/about the top of the game for a long while now, and has proven himself on pretty much every way of grading QBs.

If he retired today, I wouldn't have him in my top 10. It's not bitterness. He's not good when I watch him. I saw a lot of him against the Giants, Ravens and Steelers this year, he was rubbish against the Ravens, poor against the Steelers and below average against the Giants. I saw him twice against the Ravens 2 year ago, he was awful in one game and below par in the other.

adrian522

matthew8 wrote: »

I'll name more than 10, narrowing it down to 10 is very hard:
Jerry Rice, Jim Brown, Lawrence Taylor, Ray Lewis, Dick Butkus, Otto Graham, Barry Sanders, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas, Ronnie Lott, Joe Green, Walter Payton, Reggie White. I haven't seen all these guys play (obviously) but Tom Brady at this time hasn't had as good a career as these players. There's still a lot of time to break into the top 10 though (and I wouldn't rule him out becoming the greatest ever either).

Notice you don't have Montana on your list either, Do you argue that neither Brady nor Montana are Top 10 type players?

matthew8

adrian522 wrote: »

Notice you don't have Montana on your list either, Do you argue that neither Brady nor Montana are Top 10 type players?

Don't know how I forgot him. Of course he'd be included in a top 10 list.

tallaghtoutlaws

matthew8 wrote: »

Comparing him to other positions is apples and oranges, but I think stats are a pretty fair measurement of a player's quality. Awards and pro bowls and stuff matter too.

Hence why I pulled out all the QBs

Bowls do count, but it's a team game.

So Brady Levels Montana on Bowl wins if he wins this weekend and statistically they are pretty much the same but yet Brady doesn't even come close to Brett Favre or Peyton Manning in your eyes. Even though Montana like Brady had excellent supporting cast including two guys you mentioned on your top 10 around him but yet Montana is on everyones Top 5 list even. Someone who you even forgot to put on your on list. Seems about right though eh?

I'm a big fan of gunslingers but Favre has the better stats anyway.

Better stats? Are you for real? The only stats that Favre has than Brady is the amount of yards and passes thrown and how long he has played for. But Favre retired at 41 Brady is only 34. If Brady lasts until 41 he will easily pass Favre and will have more Bowl wins and most likely more Pro Bowl shouts.

Manning is more of an asset to the Colts than Brady to the Patriots. The Patriots are able to win when Tom Brady plays quite poorly. The Colts can't win unless Manning plays well.

Bullsh1t. Take Brady out of the team and I highly doubt we would have won any of the Super Bowls we did and gotten to the 5 we did.

Maybe his stats could perhaps lead us to think that he's not top 10?

Are you for real and yes I ask that again. Stats arent everything and the stats you seem to be comparing is the length of time 1 player has over the other in the league. Easy for Marino and Favre to have more passing yards and completions and attempts etc etc when they have player 5-7 more season than Brady.

Ever since Dan Marino left the Dolphins they haven't been the same. The Manning-less Colts are the worst team in the league. So no, they did not have the same thing. Ray Lewis had Trent Dilfer, too.

And this is silly to bring up as Brady hasn't left the Pats so we cannot compare this factor and hold it against Brady.

If he retired today, I wouldn't have him in my top 10. It's not bitterness. He's not good when I watch him. I saw a lot of him against the Giants, Ravens and Steelers this year, he was rubbish against the Ravens, poor against the Steelers and below average against the Giants. I saw him twice against the Ravens 2 year ago, he was awful in one game and below par in the other.

Brady not good? How long are you watching the NFL? You know I am done debating with you. A couple of bad games that you have seen and Brady isnt that good. Yeah ok dude :rolleyes:

eagle eye

Matthew 8 is obviously still hurting at the loss in the Championship. Either that or he is a hater of all things New England Patriots. Or maybe its both!

poldebruin

It's so subjective, what is it you're measuring/comparing?

Stats?
Wins?
Championships?
Clutchness?
How do you comapre across era's?
How good a player can make a bad team?
How bad a team is without him?
Do they have to have had a long career or is being brilliant for a short span of time enough?
Does it only count if you saw them play (how many games did you actually see etc etc)

There's no doubt Tom Brady belongs in the discussion, he ticks so many of the boxes that I consider make a player great - however I tend to only think about where a player "ranks" after they have retired.

Dohnny Jepp

I hate lists, not only do you need to take into account rule changes through the eras, and different approaches to the game but no list will ever be difinitive.

In my opinion the only criteria that should be used is "skill/ability" (call it what you will.
When you start using stats and wins and rings it becomes more relevant to the team and less so about the individual.

And then how do you determine skill in such a way every one can agree on? you can't really. . . unless we use madden nfl player ratings!. . .

What I would say and most would agree, Brady is an elite player, Manning is an elite player, Montana is an elite player, Lewis is an elite player etc. Is it really neccesary to debate who is more elite using flawed criteria to determine it.

matthew8

So Brady Levels Montana on Bowl wins if he wins this weekend and statistically they are pretty much the same but yet Brady doesn't even come close to Brett Favre or Peyton Manning in your eyes. Even though Montana like Brady had excellent supporting cast including two guys you mentioned on your top 10 around him but yet Montana is on everyones Top 5 list even. Someone who you even forgot to put on your on list. Seems about right though eh?

I forgot about Joe Montana, when Brady retires he's probably gonna be at that level.

Better stats? Are you for real? The only stats that Favre has than Brady is the amount of yards and passes thrown and how long he has played for. But Favre retired at 41 Brady is only 34. If Brady lasts until 41 he will easily pass Favre and will have more Bowl wins and most likely more Pro Bowl shouts.

I agree. But you can't say someone is a top 10 all time player because of what they look like they'll do.

Bullsh1t. Take Brady out of the team and I highly doubt we would have won any of the Super Bowls we did and gotten to the 5 we did.

Depends who you put in. But you wouldn't be 2-14. I don't know if you'd go below 8-8.

Are you for real and yes I ask that again. Stats arent everything and the stats you seem to be comparing is the length of time 1 player has over the other in the league. Easy for Marino and Favre to have more passing yards and completions and attempts etc etc when they have player 5-7 more season than Brady.

Stats are big, and the amount of seasons you've played is big. Brady hasn't finished his career yet. If he gets 5 more years (and the stats to go along with it) he'd have to be pretty bad for those 5 years to be left out of my top 10 after them.

And this is silly to bring up as Brady hasn't left the Pats so we cannot compare this factor and hold it against Brady.

I'm holding it for Manning/Marino/Lewis, rather than against Brady/Montana.

Brady not good? How long are you watching the NFL? You know I am done debating with you. A couple of bad games that you have seen and Brady isnt that good. Yeah ok dude :rolleyes:

That's a blatant misinterpretation of what I said. I said that he plays poorly most times I watch him. I didn't say he's not that good.

eagle eye wrote: »

Matthew 8 is obviously still hurting at the loss in the Championship. Either that or he is a hater of all things New England Patriots. Or maybe its both!

It couldn't possibly be because of the facts, no. How could anyone say Brady is outside of the top 10 players of all time without hurting at a loss (in which he played very poorly) or hating all things NE Patriots.

poldebruin wrote: »

It's so subjective, what is it you're measuring/comparing?

Stats?
Wins?
Championships?
Clutchness?
How do you comapre across era's?
How good a player can make a bad team?
How bad a team is without him?
Do they have to have had a long career or is being brilliant for a short span of time enough?
Does it only count if you saw them play (how many games did you actually see etc etc)

There's no doubt Tom Brady belongs in the discussion, he ticks so many of the boxes that I consider make a player great - however I tend to only think about where a player "ranks" after they have retired.

They all count, but I just think that other QBs have the better body of work.

eagle eye

matthew8 wrote: »

It couldn't possibly be because of the facts

Definitely not.

tallaghtoutlaws

matthew8 wrote: »

I forgot about Joe Montana, when Brady retires he's probably gonna be at that level.

So wait you say stats do count but he isn't at Montana's level? Montana and Brady have the same body of work for the most part bar 1 Super Bowl win and Montana is considered the best QB of all time by most.

I agree. But you can't say someone is a top 10 all time player because of what they look like they'll do.

No you cant but Brady has a better body of work than Favre in less time. I dont see passing yards as something amazing especially when you play 20 years. All you have to do is put up average amount of yards and you will still out pass every other QB who plays a shorter career. Bradys body of work as you said it is better than Favres and it is that simple.

Depends who you put in. But you wouldn't be 2-14. I don't know if you'd go below 8-8.

A for fooks sake the same thing can be said for the Colts. It always depends on who you put in. Manning's backups are awful. Put a decent QB in with that offense and they wouldn't have gone 0-16. You are starting to make ridiculous counter points now.

Stats are big, and the amount of seasons you've played is big. Brady hasn't finished his career yet. If he gets 5 more years (and the stats to go along with it) he'd have to be pretty bad for those 5 years to be left out of my top 10 after them.

See my first bit. Montana rates better than Manning and Favre even though both of them by your logic have a better body of work. And before you say Oh I didnt say Montana vs those two. Brady as I said many times has the same body of work as Montana minus 1 Super Bowl.

I'm holding it for Manning/Marino/Lewis, rather than against Brady/Montana.

As in Ray Lewis? You said it yourself you cannot compare different positions but now you bring in Ray Lewis into the argument. Yeah ok.

That's a blatant misinterpretation of what I said. I said that he plays poorly most times I watch him. I didn't say he's not that good.

Not its not. You clearly said from what you saw of him he played rubbish etc etc and it implies that because of those games you think he is bad or thats were you made your decision he wasn't top 10

It couldn't possibly be because of the facts, no. How could anyone say Brady is outside of the top 10 players of all time without hurting at a loss (in which he played very poorly) or hating all things NE Patriots.

But you haven't shown any facts to back up your argument. And it does come across as bitter. You are in an extremely low minority who thinks there is no case for Brady being Top 10.

Hazys

I hate the comparison of the season the Pats played without Brady and the season the Colts just played without Manning as a way to compare the two...its a very simplestic comparison, there is very little the two scenarios have in common.

1. Team Quality. I was picking the Colts before the season not to make the playoffs before i knew Manning was not going to play or play injured. The Colts team was average last season and they didnt get any better in the offseason. The Pats team was one of the best in the league going into that season.
2. Quality of backups. Cassel turned out to be a decent starter in the NFL. The Colts, firstly couldn't even decide which of their backups was the most talented. Cassel was the clear no.2 in NE. Painter & Olansky (however you spell it) are not even decent backups, not to mention decent starters.
3. Difficulty of Divisions. The Pats division that year was a lot easier than the division the Colts played in this year.

ReacherCreature

Shame about the article but in the print edition I read, most Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the Irish Times has Judy Battista of the New York Times writing in there. Granted it's a copy and paste job but she's a good writer and at least, knows her stuff.

The NFL loves growth. The only way the sport can get bigger and bigger (which is incredibly valuable to us folk involved with Irish American Football) is to have 1) a quality journalist who knows what he's talking about and 2) proper writing which will pull in readers.

frostie500

Matthew8 if for some reason Brady retired after the Superbowl (win or lose) do you think there would be any question about him going to the HoF? He would walk into Canton as a first ballet player and his stats, success and leadership would be the three reasons why he will always be compared to the Montanas, Elways and other great QBs.

You say that you prefer Favre's style of quarterbacking over Brady's but can I ask which period of Brady's career are you taking as the yardstick?

When Brady first came into the league he spent much of his time as a solid QB that made good decisions and didnt turn over the ball. From the outside its an unspectacular style of playing the game but it was exactly what the Pats needed for their Superbowl winning seasons.

In his first four years as a starter Brady achieved more than any player in the history of the NFL in such a period, winning three titles. Generally speaking in his first four years he was a 3700 yard passer that would pass for 25 or 26 touchdowns but again would have a healthy TD-INT rating.

The Patriots of that time were built on solid defence, great special team/field position play and a good rushing attack (Corey Dillon in 04 being a prime example with 1700 yards but you also had Smith and Faulk in the first three years as very productive runners)

It seemed at the time that Brady was the prototype for a "game manager." A 21st century Troy Aikman if you will. Ill be honest at the time I loved watching Brady play because of his ability to be composed and unflappable under pressure. Obviously everyone loved watching Favre because you never knew what was going to happen next but who do you think the Packers players would have preferred to have been calling plays in their huddle?

After winning those three Superbowl titles we saw a change in the 2005 Patriots. In the previous two title winning seasons they had fielded the top and second rated defences in the league. The defence suddenly dropped off to be a middle of the pack unit and not even Brady could keep the Superbowl momentum going.

In 2006 Brady, armed once again with a solid rushing attack and a good defence, took the Pats to the AFC Championship game where they were beaten by the Colts. Again this year Brady was putting up solid numbers and looking like a controlled QB.

The following year however saw Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Donte Stallworth all sign for the Pats and for the first time in his career Brady had legitimate weapons at the receiver position. NE stopped being a team that used the running game and handed the reigns over to Brady.

Suddenly the man that was viewed as being a conservative QB was running the most attacking and productive offence in the history of the league. Brady went from never throwing more than 28 TDs in a season to nearly double that and had over 4800 yards in their 16-0 regular season.

When Brady got the pieces in place to allow him to be the focal point of the offence he quickly became the most aggressive, attacking QB in football. In 2007 he was as aggressive as Favre ever was but he didnt turn the ballover (a +42 TD to INT rating.)

Obviously the 2007 season ended badly with defeat in the Superbowl and then 2008 ended before it began with an injury. In 09 he came back but already Moss was aging and you could see him starting to struggle even though his numbers were still good but with only Welker and Moss as reliable targets the Patriots need to make a change in their gameplan if they were to be successful in future.

In the last two years, especially this year, we have seen the Patriots become a more ball control offence. They evolved from using a base formation of 4WR and 1RB to an ACE formation (2WR,2TE and 1RB) and utilised the short and intermediate throws rather than the downfield bombs. And guess what Brady is still just as productive as ever. In the last two years Brady has had a +59 turnover rating..

Brady showed once again that he can change his style depending on the players around him. When he needed to be a game manager that is exactly what he did and his teams won three Superbowls. When he had the pieces in place to be a gunslinger he was the most productive in the history of football and now when he needs to utilise TEs in the short and intermediate passing game we see his primary TE set the single season TD record for TEs.

Is that a coincidence? Absolutely not. Brady can be anything that he has to be to win and while he will never have the career numbers of a Favre or a Manning it is worth remembering just how productive Brady has been when he had the weapons in place to put up huge numbers.

Not to belittle Manning, as everyone knows I love Peyton, but throughout his career he had terrific players at the skill positions. As a rookie he had Marvin Harrison and Marshall Faulk. Then the Colts added Edgerin James who for a few years was one of the most complete backs in football and then they gave Manning the likes of Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Brandon Stokley etc. to throw to. The Colts were playing indoors and built around Manning and the offence. Brady adapted to whatever the Pats team needed him to be.

Even Favre as a rookie had Sterling Sharpe, one of the most productive players in the NFL in the ninties before he got injured. Add in the likes of Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Donald Driver and at one time or another Terry Glenn, Greg Jennings and then with the Vikings having Rice and Peterson.

Favre was surrounded by greater talent levels in Green Bay yet only won one ring. Everyone loved watching Brett play ball but I think we all will also admit that the Favre in 95-97, 2007 and 2009 was the best he played at the QB position because he halted his "gunslinging" tendencies and didnt turn the ball over.

Those years Favre was unreal because he limited the turnovers and picked his spots against the defence while still being incredibly productive. The rest of his career he threw a lot of picks and seemed to force the issue. When he was patient he was fantastic to watch, the rest of the time the Packers were fascinating to look at and see what he would do next. Would it be a miracle TD or a pick six? That was the intrigue of Favre for much of his career.

As I said earlier I'm not looking to belittle either Manning or Favre, they are two of the absolute legends of the NFL and Im privileged to have seen them play during my time watching the NFL but to diminish Brady's performances in his career and cite Manning and Favre as better QBs in foolish. Each brings a lot to the table but the adaptation of Brady, not to mention his three rings, is a lot of weight to the credence that he is one of the true greats of NFL history

Chucky the tree

Favre top 10 all time, credibility just went out the window right there.

poldebruin

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Favre top 10 all time, credibility just went out the window right there.

I'm not sure if this post is missing a smilie at the end or not? If not, it is comparable to the "brady in the top 10 is laughable" comment.

matthew8

poldebruin wrote: »

I'm not sure if this post is missing a smilie at the end or not? If not, it is comparable to the "brady in the top 10 is laughable" comment.

I said that I prefer him to Brady, and the reason I prefer him to Brady is his longevity and the amount of records he holds. I'm not going to argue with the Patriots fans anymore, because they, of all people, think that my rating of Brady is biased by bitterness (I'm thankful that Brady rarely looks like a great against the Ravens, not bitter) and they are the objective ones.

tallaghtoutlaws

matthew8 wrote: »

I said that I prefer him to Brady, and the reason I prefer him to Brady is his longevity and the amount of records he holds. I'm not going to argue with the Patriots fans anymore, because they, of all people, think that my rating of Brady is biased by bitterness (I'm thankful that Brady rarely looks like a great against the Ravens, not bitter) and they are the objective ones.

Only one Pats fan called you bitter and I said it sounded bitter. Big difference. Usual nonsense from Non Pats fans making sweeping generalisation and taring us all with the same brush. But to be fair its not the first time you have called Pats fans out or made mad comments about the Pats.

matthew8

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Only one Pats fan called you bitter and I said it sounded bitter. Big difference. Usual nonsense from Non Pats fans making sweeping generalisation and taring us all with the same brush. But to be fair its not the first time you have called Pats fans out or made mad comments about the Pats.

Just like the big difference between me saying Brady is bad when I watch him and saying Brady is bad altogether, no?

poldebruin

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Usual nonsense from Non Pats fans making sweeping generalisation and taring us all with the same brush.

hmmmm.....;)

tallaghtoutlaws

matthew8 wrote: »

Just like the big difference between me saying Brady is bad when I watch him and saying Brady is bad altogether, no?

Let me remind you what you said in the context of what we were debating:

He's not good when I watch him. I saw a lot of him against the Giants, Ravens and Steelers this year, he was rubbish against the Ravens, poor against the Steelers and below average against the Giants. I saw him twice against the Ravens 2 year ago, he was awful in one game and below par in the other.

You said without facts that Favre was better and used the above as one of your arguments. So every time you saw Brady you form an opinion on him. If you have failed to watch him any other time where he was excellent good or better and then you try convince us he is not as good as other guys this to me smacks of you saying he is not good in your eyes. How else can we take it in the context of the conversation if you admit everytime you saw him he was bad. So you are either trying to form your own opinion on what others say and balancing it with what you see which in this case wasn't a lot.

poldebruin wrote: »

hmmmm.....;)

Oh no look at you trying to make me look silly good man. But yes I am a hypocrite in this case as Most Non Pats on here always nitpick Pats fans and bring up ridiculous points. And when the argument doesn't go their way they use the good old lines "typical Pats fan".Small minority of those who don't. Ask yourself why a lot of the long time Pats fans posters in here don't post as often as they did in the past. I use other teams forums and you get less of it there than you do here.

SantryRed

:pac:

Noticed the irony too

Dodge

For the record some Pats fans here ARE pretty precious about criticisms of their team

But as I said earlier, anyone who denies Brady is one of the best QBs of all time must be compeltley bitter about something