forums

Goat

Advertisement
Let me guess:

80 pages of 1 side spitting facts and the other side saying “uhhhhhh CHEATER” or some lame ****
 
canesthing3 said:
Unfortunately, wasn't around to watch those fellas. Coming up my dad always told me that he thought Magic and Bird(in that order) were the 🐐s.

I think Bron would have done fine back then. He's a freight train and an elite passer, you couldn't just focus your whole D on him.
Click to expand...

He would do fine but would he have beaten LA, Boston or Detroit? Not with any team he's been on so far. I could imagine him playing Detroit, they absolutely beat up players. When BB was king.
 
orange&green84 said:
Brady's an excellent clutch QB. You guys make it sound like he's the only one that does it. Manning has plenty of performances where he's done the same thing. As has Rodgers.

Let's not forget that Brady got bailed out by Dee Ford being lined up just inches off-sides in which he had no impact on the play. Yet Brady threw an interception. Then there's the Seahawks foolishly outsmarting themselves by not running Lynch on the 1-yard line. Or let's talk about the Falcons who could've easily made their game a 2-score game (similar to the Pats last night) if they just ran the ball and kicked a FG. Brady's a great QB and this is in no way to knock him as a QB. Having said that, when people start talking about Brady as the GOAT, you force the rational group to start talking about context. Brady's a great QB. He's also probably the luckiest QB to ever play in the NFL as well.
Click to expand...
How many of those guys have 6 rings?
 
Advertisement
CaneOil said:
He would do fine but would he have beaten LA, Boston or Detroit? Not with any team he's been on so far. I could imagine him playing Detroit, they absolutely beat up players. When BB was king.
Click to expand...


It's hard to compare teams across eras but I think 2016 Cavs and the Heat team that beat the Thunder could have competed with them.

MJ couldn't beat them either until they was all old. Those were some great teams.

When I look at bb 🐐, I take a lot into consideration. You can't just say so and so has X amount of rings so he's the best. Who did they beat, who was his teammates, what era did he play in, who was his coach. All that plays into the rings. I look more at the individuals abilities first then everything else.
 
orange&green84 said:
Brady's an excellent clutch QB. You guys make it sound like he's the only one that does it. Manning has plenty of performances where he's done the same thing. As has Rodgers.

Let's not forget that Brady got bailed out by Dee Ford being lined up just inches off-sides in which he had no impact on the play. Yet Brady threw an interception. Then there's the Seahawks foolishly outsmarting themselves by not running Lynch on the 1-yard line. Or let's talk about the Falcons who could've easily made their game a 2-score game (similar to the Pats last night) if they just ran the ball and kicked a FG. Brady's a great QB and this is in no way to knock him as a QB. Having said that, when people start talking about Brady as the GOAT, you force the rational group to start talking about context. Brady's a great QB. He's also probably the luckiest QB to ever play in the NFL as well.
Click to expand...

I love how there is always some convoluted reason for Brady's success and never is own talent. And there is that luck thing again. Brady should play the lottery with all that luck...17 years of lottery winnings. You passed rational thought and context a few pages back.

Context would actually tell you Brady is the GOAT. Context and rational thought would tell you when someone is offside then they are offside and it is not Brady being lucky. Context would tell you that when Brady drives down to take the lead once again, and the D lets the Seattle drive down for a winning TD it is not Brady being lucky when the D makes a great play.

You some like that nut job on Fox sports Parker or whatever his name is....
 
Guess Bradshaw is better than majority of QBs because the rings.

Guess Eli is better than Marino because of rings and beating the “GOAT” twice.

Use rings/titles in 1 on 1 sports like tennis, boxing, golf.

Using rings in a team sport is ridiculous. Gotskowski out scored Brady last night, the defense held a team averaging 32 a game to 3 points and people are having an ****** over Brady.

Besides rings how is Brady better than let’s say Rodgers?
 
Advertisement
monkey1371 said:
Explain this then.....Since you brought up winning 11 games with Matt Cassell.

Patriots scored 589 points in 2007......Brady got hurt and they scored 410 points the following year with Casell.

Entire same offense was back...Welker & Moss playing at Pro Bowl levels, entire offensive line....

2007 Brady 4806 Yards 50 TD 8 Int 68.9 Comp% 117.2 Rating 88.5 QBR 8.3 Yrds/attempt 21 Sacks 589 Points Scored
2008 Cassell 3693 Yards 21 TD 11 Int 63.4 Comp% 89.4 Rating 65.3 QBR 7.2 Yrds/attempt 47 Sacks 410 Points Scored

21 to 47 sacks....Did the OLine forget how to block?
50 to 21 TD's.....Did WR/TE forget how to catch TD's?

How does "coaching" explain that HUGE Dropoff in production?
Click to expand...

Again, we're arguing Patriots success. I just said Brady's a Mount Rushmore QB. The fact that Bellichick was able to squeeze out 11 wins with a subpar QB tells you that the Pats' success is more predicated on Bellichick than Brady. You literally are proving my point.
 
NE Canes said:
I love how there is always some convoluted reason for Brady's success and never is own talent. And there is that luck thing again. Brady should play the lottery with all that luck...17 years of lottery winnings. You passed rational thought and context a few pages back.

Context would actually tell you Brady is the GOAT. Context and rational thought would tell you when someone is offside then they are offside and it is not Brady being lucky. Context would tell you that when Brady drives down to take the lead once again, and the D lets the Seattle drive down for a winning TD it is not Brady being lucky when the D makes a great play.

You some like that nut job on Fox sports Parker or whatever his name is....
Click to expand...

Brady threw a pick when Dee Ford didn't even have anything to do with the play. That was the point of that post. That pick would've ended the Pats' season.
 
No idea what this thread is about. Didn't read.

But the GOAT was on display last night and it wasn't Thom Brady.
 
Advertisement
canesthing3 said:
It's hard to compare teams across eras but I think 2016 Cavs and the Heat team that beat the Thunder could have competed with them.

MJ couldn't beat them either until they was all old. Those were some great teams.

When I look at bb 🐐, I take a lot into consideration. You can't just say so and so has X amount of rings so he's the best. Who did they beat, who was his teammates, what era did he play in, who was his coach. All that plays into the rings. I look more at the individuals abilities first then everything else.
Click to expand...

I think they might compete but not beat them, it was a totally different game. You didn't see all the bad games Jordan had in Boston, it was so much more physical. There were at least 15 centers in the league back then that just beat people up, the power forwards we just as bad. I don't think this generation of players win. This is why Jordan couldn't win in 7 years, they had to change much of the game for him. lol. Half of the detroit team were killers. Now how would Lebron react to this?
 
orange&green84 said:
Brady threw a pick when Dee Ford didn't even have anything to do with the play. That was the point of that post. That pick would've ended the Pats' season.
Click to expand...

It still does not make Brady lucky. He was offside. The paly does not count. That's the way penalties work.

Are we going to go back in every game and look at every play that would have counted if not for a penalty. It is a stupid line of thinking to say a penalty makes the QB lucky. The Pats had penalties vs KC...how come they were not lucky and did not win the game?

We will also ignore the fact that the ball went through Gronk's hands as well....because that is Brady luck as well.
 
Advertisement
NE Canes said:
It still does not make Brady lucky. He was offside. The paly does not count. That's the way penalties work.

Are we going to go back in every game and look at every play that would have counted if not for a penalty. It is a stupid line of thinking to say a penalty makes the QB lucky. The Pats had penalties vs KC...how come they were not lucky and did not win the game?

We will also ignore the fact that the ball went through Gronk's hands as well....because that is Brady luck as well.
Click to expand...

Brady overthrew a 6'6 Gronk.

And yes, Brady's been incredibly lucky.
 
orange&green84 said:
Brady overthrew a 6'6 Gronk.

And yes, Brady's been incredibly lucky.
Click to expand...

In his hands is not over......

Please, use any argument but the lucky argument. No other statement will make you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about than just saying someone is lucky.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Back
Top