Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?

[oldecapecod11]

NOTE: This was one of our hottest threads. Peyton's recent record may rekindle the flame?

ARCHIVE

Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Started by John Turney, Jan 16 2014 05:51 PM

Page 1 of 5

80 replies to this topic

#1 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:51 PM
In the upcoming game and the many times they've faced each other, the loser gets what reputation. The winner what? Or are their legacies sealed?

#2 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:04 PM
I think winning is much more important to Manning's legacy than to Brady's. Brady currently holds a 10-4 edge in their head-to-head meetings and I think many people perceive Manning as a guy who tends to choke in big games.

However, they've met only three times in the post-season and Brady's edge there is only 2-1. Manning can even his post-season record against Brady and, in the process, he'll get a chance to win the Super Bowl for a second time.

If the Broncos lose this game at home, I think there are millions of fans who will always look back at Manning as a great regular-season QB who couldn't rise to the challenge in big games.

#3 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:44 PM
If anything, Manning is 2-1 in AFC Championship Games.

#4 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 07:21 PM
rhickok1109, on 16 Jan 2014 - 6:04 PM, said:
I think winning is much more important to Manning's legacy than to Brady's. Brady currently holds a 10-4 edge in their head-to-head meetings and I think many people perceive Manning as a guy who tends to choke in big games.

However, they've met only three times in the post-season and Brady's edge there is only 2-1. Manning can even his post-season record against Brady and, in the process, he'll get a chance to win the Super Bowl for a second time.

If the Broncos lose this game at home, I think there are millions of fans who will always look back at Manning as a great regular-season QB who couldn't rise to the challenge in big games.

I agree, but if Brady loses, and never gets back to the SB after this (which he wont, in my opinion), this will end up hurting his legacy more and more over time than it will now.

#5 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 08:29 PM
The fact that Manning has come up short in previous games against New England will likely be magnified this time because he'll be losing at home--and if the weather's cold, it will also reinforce the "Manning can't win in the cold" complaint.

#6 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:08 PM
Also with a win, Manning would be the third QB tp start a Super Bowl with two different teams (after Craig Morton and Kurt Warner) and maybe the first to win it.

#7 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:24 PM
If New England loses, with their receiving corps, it will be a team loss and won't hurt Brady's legacy one single iota.

If Denver loses, with Julius Thomas back in the lineup and Gronk out, it will be a Manning loss. But how much can it really hurt the legacy of a guy who will be a unanimous first-ballot Hall of Famer?

#8 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:35 PM
97Den98, on 16 Jan 2014 - 7:21 PM, said:
I agree, but if Brady loses, and never gets back to the SB after this (which he wont, in my opinion), this will end up hurting his legacy more and more over time than it will now.

Nonsense. Brady's legacy is 100% secure. His legacy can be enhanced but not harmed. Manning has much more to lose as he "only" has one SB title and two appearances to his credit.This game and, if they win it, the SB are important to how he is remembered by some.

However, as Jeremy said, at the end of it all Manning will still be one of the greatest of all time, no matter what happens in the next game or two. Along with Brady, Peyton will deserve a place on the Mount Rushmore of QBs with Baugh, Graham, Unitas and Montana.

#9 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 12:05 AM
Manning clearly has more to lose and more to gain. Brady...well, we are closing in on a decade since NE last won a SB, but even if they never win another before he retires there aren't many who were the starting qb for a team that won at least three league titles (plus played in two others). The club gets even smaller if you narrow it to just SB teams.

#10 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 12:44 AM
If Peyton Manning wins over the Patriots and the Broncos go on to win the Super Bowl, Manning will be the first QB to win a Super Bowl with different teams. Norm Van Brocklin was the only QB to do it (Rams and Eagles) in the pre-Super Bowl era.

#11 3243
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 02:41 AM
Unlike others here, I'm thinking that if the Patriots win the AFC Championship but then lose the Super Bowl, and if neither Manning or Brady make it back to the Super Bowl, their legacies, while considerable, will be tainted also. Manning will be viewed as a great regular-season QB who failed in the postseason every year except once, and there are those who will view Manning's Super Bowl win as a fluke. Brady, meanwhile, will be viewed by some as a quarterback who was greater early in his career than later, thus bringing up questions as to whether Brady lost his championship hunger at some point. Moreover, some will question the Patriots of the 2000s as a dynasty, and even give placekicker Adam Vinatieri more credit for actually winning their Super Bowls than Brady (even though it was he who got them into position for Vinatieri).

I can see this as eventually making the 2007 Patriots' Super Bowl loss to the Giants analogous to the '68 Colts' upset by the Jets, in that in both cases, that particular championship defeat of the team that was thought (and that thought themselves) to be the vastly superior team would affect it beyond that year; i.e. I can imagine people saying that after the heretofore-unbeaten 2007 Patriots' loss, that team was never the same again.

#12 conace21
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 03:06 AM
I was prepared to put Manning on my Mt. Rushmore of QBs if he had won the Super Bowl in 2009. After he lost, I resolved to table his candidacy until after his career ended. A SB win with Denver would reopen it.

#13 Bernard Brinker
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:05 AM
Often the legacies of QB's are defined by one or maybe two games, almost always playoff games. Prior to the 1970 merger and its expansion of the playoffs, John Unitas played 14 years started 159 games and quarterbacked a grand total of 3 playoff games (I am not counting the 4th quarter of the SB where he floated the ball around on a bad arm). A 162 games is a lot to choose from but unquestionably Unitas' legacy for most fans rests upon the 58 championship game. In Unitas' case it probably is not a bad shorthand for his career and how he played the game.

Joe Namath played 12 years with the Jets starting 126 games with 3 playoff appearances. Whether or not one liked Namath (and I did) his signature game and the source of his legacy was the SB win. Was it a good shorthand for his career? In the SB win he brilliantly executed a fairly conservative game plan, in particular the way he beat the Colts blitz with his quick release and mostly short passes. This was not typical of how Namath usually played the position.

Have Manning and Brady played their signature game, the one they will be remembered for (and will it be a good shorthand for their career)?

By my count Manning has played 15 years started 240 games with 21 playoff appearances while Brady has played 14 years with 191 games started and an additional 25 playoff games.

#14 74_75_78_79_
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:11 PM
Manning VS Brady...neither have won the Big One since '06 & '04 respectively, but Brady, at least, has made it to noticeably more AFCCs in his career whereas Manning, sadly, has had quite his share of one-and-done 1st-round byes - many of them involving critical/costly INTs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Peyton's weakness as far as not winning enough big games goes, is maybe (just maybe) he's TOO much of a student of the game for his own good. Maybe he tends to overthink/over-prepare at times, and it tends to bite him during those crucial situations. Just look at Bradshaw. Yes, maybe it wouldn't have hurt to spend some time in the film room, but he always said he was never one of those guys who would take out films from the library just to impress the coaches. He prided himself on instinct. 4-of-4 Rings, calling his own plays...not a bad author to take a page from.

Peyton has always had the numbers over Brady but always had at least one true 'marquis' WR while Brady for the most part has always seemed to have above-average WRs to work with; nothing special. Yes there's been Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Gronk, and in such an event having at least two of them in his arsenal, Brady proved that he could put up the big numbers just as well. Both are legendary 1st-ballot HOFs (heck, put 'em both in now), the argument can go either way, but for the reasons I state, I personally have to give Brady the nod over Peyton so far. He has less to lose with this upcoming AFCC while Manning has more to gain legacy-wise. If Peyton wins, and wins two weeks later, that's now two Rings he has - both since Brady won his last! He'll definitely gain some ground - first QB to win with two different teams certainly having a nice ring to it. Now if Brady were to win a third before it's all over, then that ought to catapult his status some; or if Peyton were to win again (back-to-back) next year, and so on. Still plenty of ground for either to gain on one another in their 'legacy' sweepstakes despite how little of their careers may be left.

Just the same, as I'm sure some Saints, Packers, and NYG fans may say of their QB, or some Seahawk-fans may very well be saying of their QB in the next few years, as a Steeler-fan, I'd simply rather have Big Ben than either Manning or Brady. To me (healthy, that is), he's the best QB for HIS very team than any other QB in the league is. On that particular two-minute-drill SB vs Cardinals, I seriously don't think Manning nor Brady drives them all the way down the field to the endzone. Maybe one of them gets them into FG-range and ties things up for OT, but that's about it. JMO.

#15 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:16 PM
JohnH19, on 16 Jan 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:
Nonsense. Brady's legacy is 100% secure. His legacy can be enhanced but not harmed. Manning has much more to lose as he "only" has one SB title and two appearances to his credit.This game and, if they win it, the SB are important to how he is remembered by some.

However, as Jeremy said, at the end of it all Manning will still be one of the greatest of all time, no matter what happens in the next game or two. Along with Brady, Peyton will deserve a place on the Mount Rushmore of QBs with Baugh, Graham, Unitas and Montana.

You think? I look at Brady like Joe Paterno. Nobody thought that his legacy would ever be harmed, but look at him now.

If Brady loses this game, and never wins one, it has to hurt, especially if the details of Spygate slowly start to gradually come out after people are retired.

#16 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:19 PM
3243, on 17 Jan 2014 - 02:41 AM, said:
Unlike others here, I'm thinking that if the Patriots win the AFC Championship but then lose the Super Bowl, and if neither Manning or Brady make it back to the Super Bowl, their legacies, while considerable, will be tainted also. Manning will be viewed as a great regular-season QB who failed in the postseason every year except once, and there are those who will view Manning's Super Bowl win as a fluke. Brady, meanwhile, will be viewed by some as a quarterback who was greater early in his career than later, thus bringing up questions as to whether Brady lost his championship hunger at some point. Moreover, some will question the Patriots of the 2000s as a dynasty, and even give placekicker Adam Vinatieri more credit for actually winning their Super Bowls than Brady (even though it was he who got them into position for Vinatieri).

I can see this as eventually making the 2007 Patriots' Super Bowl loss to the Giants analogous to the '68 Colts' upset by the Jets, in that in both cases, that particular championship defeat of the team that was thought (and that thought themselves) to be the vastly superior team would affect it beyond that year; i.e. I can imagine people saying that after the heretofore-unbeaten 2007 Patriots' loss, that team was never the same again.

I get what you're saying about the Patriots, but there's what the casual observers think and there's what the people in the know (like the members on this site) think. The Patriots weren't a dynasty in any true sense of the word. They had something like eight guys who were starters on all three teams, and seven of them aren't going to get a whole lot of Hall of Fame consideration. Compare that to the Cowboys, where they had 13 starters on all three teams and three (and counting) are in the Hall, or the Steelers, or the 49er's, or the Dolphins.

The opening-day scouting report on the 2001 Patriots was that they had the least talent of any team in the league, with only two players who had a shot of being Pro Bowlers -- Drew Bledsoe and Terry Glenn. That team won those Super Bowls on coaching, teamwork, and great quarterbacking. The narrative that gets thrown around is "dynasty", but the reality is as you say -- three games decided by a field goal, two games that could easily have gone the other way (the Eagles being the third).

As for Manning, people will say what they say. But nobody thinks of Brett Favre as the guy who was great in the regular season but always fell short in the playoffs except for one year where he arguably got lucky (those two return TDs by Desmond Howard), and nobody thinks of Dan Marino as the guy who couldn't get it done in the playoffs.

#17 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:21 PM
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:16 PM, said:

You think? I look at Brady like Joe Paterno. Nobody thought that his legacy would ever be harmed, but look at him now.

If Brady loses this game, and never wins one, it has to hurt, especially if the details of Spygate slowly start to gradually come out after people are retired.
What's Don Shula's legacy? Is he considered anything other than one of the greatest coaches of all time? He's in the same position -- a couple of Super Bowls early, then strikeouts for the rest of his career.

#18 byron
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:22 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 16 Jan 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:
If New England loses, with their receiving corps, it will be a team loss and won't hurt Brady's legacy one single iota.

If Denver loses, with Julius Thomas back in the lineup and Gronk out, it will be a Manning loss. But how much can it really hurt the legacy of a guy who will be a unanimous first-ballot Hall of Famer?

I think you've got Gronk on the wrong team?

I don't think either will take much of a hit with a loss. Their legacies are pretty well established IMHO.

#19 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:08 PM
byron, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:22 PM, said:

I think you've got Gronk on the wrong team?

I think what he means is that Manning will have lost with his best tight end back in the lineup, while Brady will have won with his best tight end out of the lineup.

#20 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:34 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:21 PM, said:
What's Don Shula's legacy? Is he considered anything other than one of the greatest coaches of all time? He's in the same position -- a couple of Super Bowls early, then strikeouts for the rest of his career.

If Brady never wins the SB again, here's how I will remember Don and Tom:

Don Shula: I remember him as a guy who didn't get Marino much help his last several years. He should have been fired after the 1992 AFC Title Game loss. However, if it wasn't for him, who knows what happens to the Dolphins because they weren't too popular in Miami until he came in and they started winning. And, he coached an average Dolphin team to the SB in 1982, and another one that, while exposed in the SB, did get there on Marino's right arm. So, all in all, pretty favorable.

Tom Brady: No matter what, I will remember him as the beneficiary of playing with Bill Belichick, and having a mysterious figure like Ernie Adams in the background pulling strings:

http://espn.go.com/e...tory?page=adams

I don't know what the actual facts are with Spygate, because Matt Walsh wouldn't talk, and Goodell destroyed the tapes. However, there is enough smoke there to conclude that there was a fire. How much that helped Brady be successful, I don't know, but it had a decent affect, at least. I don't see Tom being a top-10 QB in another organization.

Page 1 of 5
oldecapecod 11

Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Started by John Turney, Jan 16 2014 05:51 PM

Page 2 of 5

80 replies to this topic

#21 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:52 PM
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 7:34 PM, said:
If Brady never wins the SB again, here's how I will remember Don and Tom:

Don Shula: I remember him as a guy who didn't get Marino much help his last several years. He should have been fired after the 1992 AFC Title Game loss. However, if it wasn't for him, who knows what happens to the Dolphins because they weren't too popular in Miami until he came in and they started winning. And, he coached an average Dolphin team to the SB in 1982, and another one that, while exposed in the SB, did get there on Marino's right arm. So, all in all, pretty favorable.

Tom Brady: No matter what, I will remember him as the beneficiary of playing with Bill Belichick, and having a mysterious figure like Ernie Adams in the background pulling strings:

http://espn.go.com/e...tory?page=adams

I don't know what the actual facts are with Spygate, because Matt Walsh wouldn't talk, and Goodell destroyed the tapes. However, there is enough smoke there to conclude that there was a fire. How much that helped Brady be successful, I don't know, but it had a decent affect, at least. I don't see Tom being a top-10 QB in another organization.

Well, you're right, but don't you think you've gone overly specific on a general truth? The same -- perhaps stronger -- argument can be made regarding Joe Montana being the beneficiary of playing with Bill Walsh (and Jerry Rice). Put Lynn Swann on another team in the 1970's and he never gets a sniff of the Hall of Fame. Otto Graham was one of the greats, but if he didn't hook up with Paul Brown he'd be just another one of the really goods. I don't know how many Hall of Famers are in there because they ended up in the right situation, but I'd be shocked if it was less than half.

Then there's the other side of the coin: if Henry Ellard was five years younger, and comes out in the late 70's instead of early 80's, he's a Hall of Famer. But he was groomed in college as a 70's-style receiver, and kept that way in the pros even after the game had changed. So his name absolutely never comes up in HoF discussion, despite his numbers. In 1998, the Colts had to decide who to keep: Marvin Harrison or Sean Dawkins. Both were viewed at the time as being busts, but they likely kept Marvin because he was a year younger. Dawkins went on to have what is arguably one of the greatest season by a WR in history -- 53-823-15.1-1 in 15 games, at the hands of Billy Joe Tolliver, Kerry Collins at the low-point of his career, Danny Wuerffel, and Billy-Joe Hobert. Marvin made out okay as well....

Nobody gets great on their own. Greatness is always a function of talent, hard work, and opportunity. But answer me this: where is Bill Belichick with Drew Bledsoe as his QB through the 2000's?

#22 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:58 PM
I never heard Harrison viewed as a bust.

#23 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 10:28 PM
Peyton's legacy would have much more to lose if he was still searching for ring #1. I don't think he has much to lose compared to the 2006 AFC CG.

Plus, let's face it- even if he wins the SB, there is still going to be plenty of "Yeah, but..." discussion.

#24 3243
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:32 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:19 PM, said:
The Patriots weren't a dynasty in any true sense of the word. They had something like eight guys who were starters on all three teams, and seven of them aren't going to get a whole lot of Hall of Fame consideration. Compare that to the Cowboys, where they had 13 starters on all three teams and three (and counting) are in the Hall, or the Steelers, or the 49er's, or the Dolphins.

I wouldn't put the 2000s Patriots up with their dynastic predecessors. Now it's true that the Pats' lack of consistent starters on all three of their Super Bowl-winning teams was not their fault (unlike their predecessors, New England had free agency and salary cap limitations to deal with year after year), but their Super Bowl victories were all close games. For what it was, their first, over the Rams in 2001 was their best, as the Rams were the strongest of the Patriots S.B. opponents (especially on offense) and that Patriots team was a rag-tag bunch that really needed the Tuck Ripoff--I mean Rule just to get past Oakland (which was a better team than that Patriot team) in the Divisional round.

On the other hand, the 1990s Cowboys, the '80s 49ers, the '70s Steelers, and the early '70s Dolphins--even borderline dynasty teams like the '70s-mid-'80s Raiders and the early '80s-early '90s Redskins each had at least one Super Bowl victory which was a blowout. Yes, I include the Steelers' 16-6 victory over Minnesota in Super Bowl IX as a blowout, just for the way the Steel Curtain thoroughly dominated Minnesota's offense and shut them out (the Vikings' only score that day was on a blocked punt).

#25 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:43 PM
JWL, on 17 Jan 2014 - 8:58 PM, said:
I never heard Harrison viewed as a bust.

I suspect you did but don't remember. He was still two years away from being Marvin Harrison; at that point, he was basically another Darnay Scott, and who remembers now anything anyone said about him back in '98?

I'll try to find my yearbooks from '98 and get some quotes. (There's a reason why it's good to keep all those old magazines.)

#26 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:54 PM
3243, on 17 Jan 2014 - 11:32 PM, said:
I wouldn't put the 2000s Patriots up with their dynastic predecessors. Now it's true that the Pats' lack of consistent starters on all three of their Super Bowl-winning teams was not their fault (unlike their predecessors, New England had free agency and salary cap limitations to deal with year after year), but their Super Bowl victories were all close games. For what it was, their first, over the Rams in 2001 was their best, as the Rams were the strongest of the Patriots S.B. opponents (especially on offense) and that Patriots team was a rag-tag bunch that really needed the Tuck Ripoff--I mean Rule just to get past Oakland (which was a better team than that Patriot team) in the Divisional round.

On the other hand, the 1990s Cowboys, the '80s 49ers, the '70s Steelers, and the early '70s Dolphins--even borderline dynasty teams like the '70s-mid-'80s Raiders and the early '80s-early '90s Redskins each had at least one Super Bowl victory which was a blowout. Yes, I include the Steelers' 16-6 victory over Minnesota in Super Bowl IX as a blowout, just for the way the Steel Curtain thoroughly dominated Minnesota's offense and shut them out (the Vikings' only score that day was on a blocked punt).

I agree, but I'd be more blunt: the 2001 Patriots weren't that good, and the reason the roster changed so much between then and 2004 was because it really REALLY wasn't that hard to find better players.

The Eagles game was close for quite a while, but I remember thinking that the Eagles were very very lucky to be in it for so long. I thought they played quite badly, that the Pats had them completely under control. The other two, different stories. Mike Martz singlehandedly threw away that game by not listening to his players. The Panthers game is one of the greats, could easily have gone the other way.

#27 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:01 AM
Stats-wise, Pats were #6 in points score/allowed in 2001.

#28 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:16 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 17 Jan 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:
I suspect you did but don't remember. He was still two years away from being Marvin Harrison; at that point, he was basically another Darnay Scott, and who remembers now anything anyone said about him back in '98?

I'll try to find my yearbooks from '98 and get some quotes. (There's a reason why it's good to keep all those old magazines.)
I never heard him referred to as a bust. Keyshawn Johnson went first overall in that draft. Harrison was considered the better WR by some. I think Sterling Sharpe was one of the people who said it. Two years into their careers it was difficult to say who was better and Johnson was not considered a bust.

Maybe you have a much different definition of bust than I have?

To me, a bust is Tony Mandarich, Art Schlicter, Ryan Leaf, and JaMarcus Russell.

#29 TouchdownTimmy
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:23 AM
This may sound selfish, but I have enjoyed living in the moment of watching Brady and Manning play so much since their college days that this game will do nothing to tarnish their legacies in my mind. I will view this game as simply one more opportunity to see two of the games greats battle with everything at stake knowing that there is a good chance it may never happen again.

The truth is, people will talk glowingly of both long after all of us have left this earth.

#30 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:29 AM
JWL, on 18 Jan 2014 - 12:16 AM, said:
I never heard him referred to as a bust. Keyshawn Johnson went first overall in that draft. Harrison was considered the better WR by some. I think Sterling Sharpe was one of the people who said it. Two years into their careers it was difficult to say who was better and Johnson was not considered a bust.

Maybe you have a much different definition of bust than I have?

To me, a bust is Tony Mandarich, Art Schlicter, Ryan Leaf, and JaMarcus Russell.

Sigh.

Not my definition. Read the yearbooks from 1998, particularly Pro Football Weekly's. That's where you're going to see phrases like "a disappointment" and "is looking like a bust".

Two years in is, in my mind, far too early to reach that conclusion, but I get it: he'd played 32 games, started 30, and he was an old rookie to begin with, and he hadn't put up particularly impressive numbers. But obviously the only opinion that mattered was Bill Polian's, and his opinion was he needed to draft receivers in rounds 2 and 3 after taking Peyton Manning in the 1st, and he added Torrance Small to boot.

#31 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:56 AM
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:16 PM, said:
You think? I look at Brady like Joe Paterno. Nobody thought that his legacy would ever be harmed, but look at him now.

If Brady loses this game, and never wins one, it has to hurt, especially if the details of Spygate slowly start to gradually come out after people are retired.

Brady reminds you of Joe Paterno? Okay...

Maybe you've missed it but, unless winning the Super Bowl is the only thing that makes for a successful season, the Pats haven't skipped a beat since Spygate. It's time to let it go.

97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 7:34 PM, said:
I don't see Tom being a top-10 QB in another organization.

That must be because he's been blessed with so many HoF quality players around him on the Pats offense for the past 13 years. There's Randy Moss and...and...uh, sorry, you're going to have to help me out here...

#32 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:15 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:
Sigh.

Not my definition. Read the yearbooks from 1998, particularly Pro Football Weekly's. That's where you're going to see phrases like "a disappointment" and "is looking like a bust".

Two years in is, in my mind, far too early to reach that conclusion, but I get it: he'd played 32 games, started 30, and he was an old rookie to begin with, and he hadn't put up particularly impressive numbers. But obviously the only opinion that mattered was Bill Polian's, and his opinion was he needed to draft receivers in rounds 2 and 3 after taking Peyton Manning in the 1st, and he added Torrance Small to boot.
He put up good numbers with bad QBs like Paul Justin. Was somebody expecting him to catch 95 passes for 1,489 yards in 1997?

I find it silly that the bust label was used with Harrison. If he only caught a few passes like A.J. Jenkins, then it would make sense.

#33 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:47 AM
Playing for a team that would end up with the #1 overall pick the following spring, Harrison ended up with 73 catches for 866 and 6 tds. Anyone labeling him a 'bust' at that point was, to be polite, being premature. As far as the team spending 2nd and 3rd round picks on wrs in '98, well, they did let Dawkins walk and there wasn't much leftover. Only other wr I can think of who was still with them in '98 was Aaron Bailey and he was relegated to kick return duties.

Speaking of Dawkins, I just can't see putting a season in which the receiver finished with less than 850 yards and 1 td up there with the likes of Jerry Rice's 1995 season and Randy Moss's 2007 season regardless of who was throwing him the ball. Gotta say that's the first time I've ever heard/seen it opined that that was 'arguably one of the greatest seasons by a WR in history'. As for the rest:

-As I've said here before, anyone who thinks Swann was just along for the ride on those Steelers' teams hasn't done their homework.

-You could just as easily ask "What if Paul Brown hadn't hooked up with Otto Graham?" or "What if Walsh hadn't hooked up with Montana?" as you could the other way around. And Montana already had two rings before Rice showed up.

#34 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:08 AM
26554, on 18 Jan 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:
Speaking of Dawkins, I just can't see putting a season in which the receiver finished with less than 850 yards and 1 td up there with the likes of Jerry Rice's 1995 season and Randy Moss's 2007 season regardless of who was throwing him the ball. Gotta say that's the first time I've ever heard/seen it opined that that was 'arguably one of the greatest seasons by a WR in history'.

I'm quickly realizing that this place is an irony-free zone.

You're all right. I confess, I made it up completely. All the journals in 1998 were declaring Marvin Harrison a Hall of Famer in the making.

#35 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:12 AM
26554, on 18 Jan 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:
-As I've said here before, anyone who thinks Swann was just along for the ride on those Steelers' teams hasn't done their homework.
I apologize for this one as well. I didn't realize you'd said it before. I'm guessing that the selectors on the Hall of Fame committee who voted him out for 13 consecutive years also didn't do their homework. And, you know, didn't realize you'd said it before. You could have saved them more than a decade of argument if you'd just said it a little louder.

#36 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:19 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:
I'm quickly realizing that this place is an irony-free zone.

You're all right. I confess, I made it up completely. All the journals in 1998 were declaring Marvin Harrison a Hall of Famer in the making.
I heard that more than I heard bust in 1997 and I'm not making it up. What I heard were comparisons to Johnson. This was something Jets fans kept an eye on. Through two years, Johnson was not considered a bust, yet many Jets fans were wondering if the Jets picked the best WR in that draft.

If anyone called Harrison a bust, then the person was a moron.

#37 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:41 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 02:12 AM, said:
I apologize for this one as well. I didn't realize you'd said it before. I'm guessing that the selectors on the Hall of Fame committee who voted him out for 13 consecutive years also didn't do their homework. And, you know, didn't realize you'd said it before. You could have saved them more than a decade of argument if you'd just said it a little louder.

Your point is what?

#38 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:06 PM
26554, on 18 Jan 2014 - 02:41 AM, said:

Your point is what?
The point, Your Eminence, is that "as I've said here before" probably isn't the discussion-ending slam-dunk point that you think it is. You don't get points for being wrong for a long time.

Swann was a really good receiver, but you need to do a little math. Feast-or-famine players like him simply are not as valuable as guys that consistently move the chains. When you run the simulations, replacing a 17.0 YPC guy with a 12.5 YPC guy who gets the same yards wins you more games. The 17.0 guy gets you more lopsided scores, essentially "wasted" points, and games where he's kept off the board, costing his team the game.

But don't believe me, believe Bill Walsh and the hundreds of coaches who moved away from the 70's Steelers-type offense in favour of Walsh's call-it-what-you-want offense.

#39 conace21
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 03:00 PM
The biggest bust talk about Harrison seemed to come after 1998 and before 1999. He was not a bust like a Heath Shuler or Mandarich, as he put up solid but unspectacular numbers his first three years. The problem was with his peers. Terry Glenn had a super season in 1996 and put up great numbers the next two years....When he was healthy. Keyshawn Johnson and Eric Mounds broke out in the 1998 season, and even Terrell Owens had a 1,000 yard season in 1998. Jermaine Lewis and Eddie Kennison had shown promise as return men. Harrison didn't seem to match up. Of course, after 1999, it was a different story.

#40 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 05:24 PM
JohnH19, on 18 Jan 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:
Brady reminds you of Joe Paterno? Okay...

Maybe you've missed it but, unless winning the Super Bowl is the only thing that makes for a successful season, the Pats haven't skipped a beat since Spygate. It's time to let it go.

That must be because he's been blessed with so many HoF quality players around him on the Pats offense for the past 13 years. There's Randy Moss and...and...uh, sorry, you're going to have to help me out here...

1. I don't think they stopped cheating. They still have Ernie Adams, who is a very shady figure that helps them get any edge they can.

2. Belichick's system, which is about structure rather than talent, is tailor-made for Brady. That's why how many HOF and Pro Bowl players he has had around him is completely irrelevant.

Page 2 of 5
oldecapecod 11

[oldecapecod11]

Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Started by John Turney, Jan 16 2014 05:51 PM

Page 3 of 5

80 replies to this topic

#41 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 06:36 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 1:06 PM, said:
Swann was a really good receiver, but you need to do a little math. Feast-or-famine players like him simply are not as valuable as guys that consistently move the chains. When you run the simulations, replacing a 17.0 YPC guy with a 12.5 YPC guy who gets the same yards wins you more games. The 17.0 guy gets you more lopsided scores, essentially "wasted" points, and games where he's kept off the board, costing his team the game.
I now look forward to reading your continued thoughts on Lynn Swann, and this new tidbit does not disappoint. Your point about Swann is well-taken, especially considering how regularly those Steeler teams lost. When I think of wasted points, I immediately think of Swann's TDs in Super Bowls X, XIII, and XIV.

#42 Bob Gill
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 06:39 PM
I don't see it as a case of Belichick's system being right for Brady in particular, though I'm sure it helps him. The main thing is that Belichick is the best coach in the league, and has been for more than a decade now. Brady has been the Patriots' best player for that time, but I'm not sure he hasn't been their second-most important person, after the coach.

Manning has played for several coaches: Jim Mora was a good coach, Tony Dungy was very good, Caldwell (I think) was just mediocre, and John Fox is also good. But any time Manning and Brady have ever matched up, Brady has always had an advantage with the guy on the sidelines, and in football especially, that counts for a lot.

#43 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 11:26 PM
97Den98, on 18 Jan 2014 - 5:24 PM, said:

1. I don't think they stopped cheating. They still have Ernie Adams, who is a very shady figure that helps them get any edge they can.

2. Belichick's system, which is about structure rather than talent, is tailor-made for Brady. That's why how many HOF and Pro Bowl players he has had around him is completely irrelevant.
#1---I still he rumors . . . for credible people who've left the organization . . . but they are just rumors. I've not see evidence. So I give half agreement to #1.

#44 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 01:32 AM
Bryan, on 18 Jan 2014 - 6:36 PM, said:
I now look forward to reading your continued thoughts on Lynn Swann, and this new tidbit does not disappoint. Your point about Swann is well-taken, especially considering how regularly those Steeler teams lost. When I think of wasted points, I immediately think of Swann's TDs in Super Bowls X, XIII, and XIV.

The other guy I said needed to do some math. You apparently also need to learn how to read.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter: Swann's in the Hall of Fame, and like everyone else, the only reason you can give to justify it is those three Super Bowls where he made a couple of great catches. The number of times in his career he was held to 20 yards or less (more than 30% of his games, pretty shockingly high for a Hall of Famer) doesn't matter. We can all go to Canton, set up an altar in front of his bust, and sacrifice a small animal to the memory of his greatness on that one awesome day, January 18th, 1976, when he was truly one of the best receivers in football.

And as security chases us out after we refuse to clean up the blood and guts, we can shout back at them, "Hey, the rest of his career was pretty good too. Not great, but pretty good!"

#45 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 January 2014 - 01:40 AM
97Den98, on 18 Jan 2014 - 5:24 PM, said:

1. I don't think they stopped cheating. They still have Ernie Adams, who is a very shady figure that helps them get any edge they can.

2. Belichick's system, which is about structure rather than talent, is tailor-made for Brady. That's why how many HOF and Pro Bowl players he has had around him is completely irrelevant.

1. "I don't think they stopped cheating."

Without facts to back it up that comment means absolutely nothing. You're being nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. Even "Spygate" didn't necessarily mean anything in terms of additional wins.

2. "Belichick's system, which is about structure rather than talent, is tailor-made for Brady."

What exactly makes it tailor-made for Brady? Would it not be tailor-made for every other NFL QB? Are you equating Brady with Alex Smith as a "game manager"?

"That's why how many HOF and Pro Bowl players he has had around him is completely irrelevant."

Really? Completely irrelevant? The level of talent surrounding Brady doesn't matter? Do you really think that any schmuck would have had similar success with the Pats since '01 just because of Belichick's system?

#46 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 January 2014 - 02:18 AM
Bryan, on 18 Jan 2014 - 6:36 PM, said:
I now look forward to reading your continued thoughts on Lynn Swann, and this new tidbit does not disappoint. Your point about Swann is well-taken, especially considering how regularly those Steeler teams lost. When I think of wasted points, I immediately think of Swann's TDs in Super Bowls X, XIII, and XIV.

Don't forget that Warfield fellow. I've lost count of how many games he cost the Dolphins.

#47 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 January 2014 - 02:26 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 01:32 AM, said:
The other guy I said needed to do some math. You apparently also need to learn how to read.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter: Swann's in the Hall of Fame, and like everyone else, the only reason you can give to justify it is those three Super Bowls where he made a couple of great catches. The number of times in his career he was held to 20 yards or less (more than 30% of his games, pretty shockingly high for a Hall of Famer) doesn't matter. We can all go to Canton, set up an altar in front of his bust, and sacrifice a small animal to the memory of his greatness on that one awesome day, January 18th, 1976, when he was truly one of the best receivers in football.

And as security chases us out after we refuse to clean up the blood and guts, we can shout back at them, "Hey, the rest of his career was pretty good too. Not great, but pretty good!"

Like Bryan said, please keep going.

Paraphasing Seinfeld (which I'm not even a big fan of) "That 's gold, Jeremy! Gold!!"

p.s. - Did you know that Swann was named first-team All-Pro in three different seasons? Did you also know that those are regular season-based?

p.p.s. - Are you acquainted with somebody named Clark Heins?

#48 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 03:31 AM
26554, on 19 Jan 2014 - 02:26 AM, said:
p.s. - Did you know that Swann was named first-team All-Pro in three different seasons? Did you also know that those are regular season-based?

p.p.s. - Are you acquainted with somebody named Clark Heins?

1. Yes, I did. And if the New York Post carried the same weight as the Associated Press, then you could actually say he WAS first-team All Pro in three different seasons instead of just one. But I guess the opinions of 84 writers and broadcasters is worth more than the opinion of one man, even if the one man is Paul Zimmerman.

2. Not acquainted with him. Is he another Canadian? Most of us do know each other. I'll go knock on some igloo doors and see if I can find him. Is there a message for him?

Say, I'm betting you're American. Do you know a guy named Col. Sanders? I think he's from Kentucky. He gave me a recipe once, it was nine herbs and spices, but I think he was holding out on me.

#49 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 January 2014 - 03:43 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:
1. Yes, I did. And if the New York Post carried the same weight as the Associated Press, then you could actually say he WAS first-team All Pro in three different seasons instead of just one. But I guess the opinions of 84 writers and broadcasters is worth more than the opinion of one man, even if the one man is Paul Zimmerman.

2. Not acquainted with him. Is he another Canadian? Most of us do know each other. I'll go knock on some igloo doors and see if I can find him. Is there a message for him?

Say, I'm betting you're American. Do you know a guy named Col. Sanders? I think he's from Kentucky. He gave me a recipe once, it was nine herbs and spices, but I think he was holding out on me.

Not sure what you're talking about ( I have a feeling this will become a recurring phrase), but these are Swann's first-team honors -

1975: PFWA
1977: Pro Football Weekly
1978: AP, NEA, PFWA, Pro Football Weekly

Swann also received multiple first-team All-Conference honors at the conclusion of these three seasons.

#50 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 January 2014 - 04:03 AM
Quote
2. "Belichick's system, which is about structure rather than talent, is tailor-made for Brady."

What exactly makes it tailor-made for Brady? Would it not be tailor-made for every other NFL QB? Are you equating Brady with Alex Smith as a "game manager"?

"That's why how many HOF and Pro Bowl players he has had around him is completely irrelevant."

Really? Completely irrelevant? The level of talent surrounding Brady doesn't matter? Do you really think that any schmuck would have had similar success with the Pats since '01 just because of Belichick's system?


I don't think that just any schmuck could succeed in Belichick's system.

Brady is not a schmuck. However, as it said in his scouting report 14 years ago, he was going to be a system-type QB that wouldn't be for everyone. Guess what? He was drafted into that system.

Brady never really has been the QB that wins games on his own, but from day one, he also never lost games, and he would put the Pats in position to succeed. Not every QB does that.

However, if someone like Chad Pennington, Marc Bulger, or Drew Brees would have been drafted by NE around that time instead of Brady, they could have had the same success.

#51 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 January 2014 - 08:36 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 01:32 AM, said:
The other guy I said needed to do some math. You apparently also need to learn how to read.

Everything Swann did was bad. His acrobatic catches were due to his inability to get open. His high YPC was just an indication that he wasn't moving the chains, like most other WRs of his era were doing. His TD catches were made in games well after the outcome had been determined. He did not help his team win, and was usually the reason his team lost. The Super Bowls were a poor indicator of Swann's quality, and even his TD catches in those games could not be considered important or "game-winning" as they did not occur in the last two minutes of regulation.

I've run the simulations, and here is the typical Swann performance...Steelers up 51-0, 15 seconds left to play, Swann has no catches, but on the last play of the game he has an 85-yard TD reception...just more wasted points to a lopsided score.

#52 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 08:41 AM
26554, on 19 Jan 2014 - 03:43 AM, said:
Not sure what you're talking about ( I have a feeling this will become a recurring phrase), but these are Swann's first-team honors -

1975: PFWA
1977: Pro Football Weekly
1978: AP, NEA, PFWA, Pro Football Weekly

Swann also received multiple first-team All-Conference honors at the conclusion of these three seasons.

"All Pro" means Associated Press All Pro. That's why you cleverly referred to him as being "named first-team All-Pro" three times, rather than referring to him as being first-team All-Pro three times.

You left out a few, by the way. Football News, the aforementioned New York Post, and... heck, you're reading from the same list as me, I don't think I need to repeat it.

By all means, continue the straw-man building exercise, and trash me for things I haven't said. On one thing at least we agree: "not sure what you're talking about" will almost certainly be a familiar refrain. I think we just disagree as to why.

You know, in discussion threads like this, as in the real world, your arguments have to stand or fall on their own. Saying you don't understand something when you obviously do doesn't advance your cause, nor does emphasizing that you've made a point before at some time in the past.

As for Paul Warfield, go check out his PFR page. You'll see he played for someone before Miami. He started out awesome, had a serious injury, came back to be awesome again, played at a very high level into his thirties. THAT is what a Hall of Famer looks like, but he too had his "down" years, which is a statistical certainty given... sorry. Big words again. Bad habit.

#53 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 08:44 AM
Bryan, on 19 Jan 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:
Everything Swann did was bad. His acrobatic catches were due to his inability to get open. His high YPC was just an indication that he wasn't moving the chains, like most other WRs of his era were doing. His TD catches were made in games well after the outcome had been determined. He did not help his team win, and was usually the reason his team lost. The Super Bowls were a poor indicator of Swann's quality, and even his TD catches in those games could not be considered important or "game-winning" as they did not occur in the last two minutes of regulation.

I've run the simulations, and here is the typical Swann performance...Steelers up 51-0, 15 seconds left to play, Swann has no catches, but on the last play of the game he has an 85-yard TD reception...just more wasted points to a lopsided score.
C'mon, now, that's not reading. That's just cutting and pasting direct quotes. Could you read what I said and maybe paraphrase instead?

#54 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:20 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:
"All Pro" means Associated Press All Pro.

No, "All Pro" doesn't only mean AP All Pro.

#55 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 January 2014 - 12:00 PM
97Den98, on 19 Jan 2014 - 04:03 AM, said:
I don't think that just any schmuck could succeed in Belichick's system.

Brady is not a schmuck. However, as it said in his scouting report 14 years ago, he was going to be a system-type QB that wouldn't be for everyone. Guess what? He was drafted into that system.

Brady never really has been the QB that wins games on his own, but from day one, he also never lost games, and he would put the Pats in position to succeed. Not every QB does that.

However, if someone like Chad Pennington, Marc Bulger, or Drew Brees would have been drafted by NE around that time instead of Brady, they could have had the same success.

I think it's clear to most of us that the scouting report on Brady going into the 2000 draft was a bit off. That happens from time to time. It's hard to believe that you're still referencing a report which was so clearly wrong to try to make your case.

I don't know of any QB that has ever won a single game on his own. Feel free to give an example.

Brees is great...not Mt. Rushmore great like Brady...but great. He was terrific in San Diego and he's been terrific in New Orleans. You're insulting yourself by bringing Bulger and Pennington into the conversation.

Every QB is a "system" QB. There's these things called playbooks. Every team has them. Some playbooks are more diverse, complex, ingenious than others and so are some QBs. Brady makes a lot more happen with the system and players he works with than the vast majority of other QBs do with what they have to work with. The proof is in the pudding.

#56 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 04:01 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:
"All Pro" means Associated Press All Pro.

I'd like the get the memo on that. The directive, the official decree, anything other that it being repeated so many times by the lesser informed out there. Was to Rozell? Tags? Goodell? PR guy like Joe Browne? I've looked, cannot find anything official or that defines that term in such a limiting way. I could be wrong. If someone has the press release, let me know.

#57 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 05:44 PM
John Turney, on 19 Jan 2014 - 4:01 PM, said:
I'd like the get the memo on that. The directive, the official decree, anything other that it being repeated so many times by the lesser informed out there. Was to Rozell? Tags? Goodell? PR guy like Joe Browne? I've looked, cannot find anything official or that defines that term in such a limiting way. I could be wrong. If someone has the press release, let me know.
Well, I know. But it's not just repeated so many times by the lesser informed out there, it's repeated so many times by basically everybody -- the media, the various football publications over the years, and everyone else -- that it's basically as close to a consensus definition as you're going to get.

So much of what's been posted on this thread, and several others that are current, are about the conflict between what is accepted truth and what the facts are that lie behind the accepted truth. Well, mostly what's been posted is "you're an idiot", without offering a contrary opinion. But let's assume it's about debate. The Associated Press is the oldest. When you see the list of All Pro teams, the AP usually is listed first, including here on the PFRA site.

So if it isn't AP, who is it? Is anybody putting forth Football Digest or the USA Today or Sports Illustrated as a more authoritative source? Or are we really talking about AP versus the Pro Football Writers of America?

#58 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 05:53 PM
JohnH19, on 19 Jan 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:
I think it's clear to most of us that the scouting report on Brady going into the 2000 draft was a bit off. That happens from time to time. It's hard to believe that you're still referencing a report which was so clearly wrong to try to make your case.

***

Every QB is a "system" QB. There's these things called playbooks. Every team has them. Some playbooks are more diverse, complex, ingenious than others and so are some QBs. Brady makes a lot more happen with the system and players he works with than the vast majority of other QBs do with what they have to work with. The proof is in the pudding.

The negatives on Brady accurately reflected the available information at the time, but it was a little short-sighted for them to assume that he wasn't going to fill out and add 20 pounds or so of muscle.

As for him being a system QB, as you say, the proof is definitely in the pudding. But some QBs are more system QBs than other. Michael Vick couldn't run a timing-based passing game, neither could Randall Cunningham, while Donovan McNabb could. Tim Couch and Ryan Leaf weren't system QBs. Well, nobody could find a system that they could understand or execute....

#59 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 06:14 PM
John Turney, on 19 Jan 2014 - 4:01 PM, said:

I'd like the get the memo on that. The directive, the official decree, anything other that it being repeated so many times by the lesser informed out there. Was to Rozell? Tags? Goodell? PR guy like Joe Browne? I've looked, cannot find anything official or that defines that term in such a limiting way. I could be wrong. If someone has the press release, let me know.

It appears that the Pro Football Hall of Fame uses the AP poll and not the PFWA. Consider Larry Allen, who on the PFHoF website is described as 7 consecutive All-Pro. In 1995 he was second team AP, but didn't make the PFWA cut. Then there's consistency between AP and PFWA for the next six years.

So... you know. Not just the lesser informed, though it wouldn't shock me if other biographies contradicted my theory. (Paul Warfield, "All-NFL 6 years" -- no earthly idea what that means.)

#60 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 06:23 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 6:14 PM, said:
though it wouldn't shock me if other biographies contradicted my theory.
...like the biography for my all-time favourite player, Lynn Swann....

Page 3 of 5
oldecapecod 11

Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Started by John Turney, Jan 16 2014 05:51 PM

Page 4 of 5

80 replies to this topic

#61 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 January 2014 - 08:51 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 5:44 PM, said:
Well, mostly what's been posted is "you're an idiot", without offering a contrary opinion.

In your particular case, I don't believe there is a contrary opinion. But perhaps Sean Dawkins feels otherwise.

#62 Bob Gill
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 09:02 PM
This is the biggest case of a "hijacked thread" we've ever had -- at least that I can remember. I mean, the original topic was Manning vs. Brady, the best individual quarterback rivalry of this century, at the very least. You'd think that might be enough to sustain a conversation, but nobody's mentioned Manning OR Brady for days now.

#63 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:45 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 5:44 PM, said:
When you see the list of All Pro teams, the AP usually is listed first, including here on the PFRA site.

Alphabetical listing? The only time there was ever an offical All-Pro team was in 1969, 1970 and 1971. In 1969 it was the Hall of Famer voters and for some reason it was official. In 1970 it was the Pro Football Writers of America, in the NFL Record and Fact book, above the PFWA All-Pro team it said it was the official All-Pro team. And that was repeated in 1971 Record and Fact Book.

The AP is the oldest, but it was not without rival. I think Bob Carroll and the editors gave careful thought into the teams they included in Total Footall: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League and Total Football II: et al.

It is that book and the continuation of those decisions that are used now by the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Pro Football Reference makes a distinction, but that is their own editorial choice . . .and they have every right to run their website as they see fit.

But if you "know", good for you. Good to know someone "knows". I certainly don't.

#64 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:52 PM
Bob Gill, on 19 Jan 2014 - 9:02 PM, said:
This is the biggest case of a "hijacked thread" we've ever had -- at least that I can remember. I mean, the original topic was Manning vs. Brady, the best individual quarterback rivalry of this century, at the very least. You'd think that might be enough to sustain a conversation, but nobody's mentioned Manning OR Brady for days now.
Yeah, how Swann got involved . . .I am not sure. Brady . . . his legacy was sealed as a Hall of Famer, but as a "Rushmore QB" or whatever, greatest ever was being tossed around in 2007 at the Super Bowl in Arizona. "If he wins . . . etc. ." But that loss, plus another loss, but some championship losses . .. plus the "spygate" thing which is more around Belichick than Brady.

Interestingly from 2001-2006 Brady was a 62% passer averaged about 3600 yards 24 TDs and 13 picks 10 fumbles and a passer rating of 89 or so.

From 2007 to present its 65% averaged about 4500 yards 35 TDs 9 INTs 5 fumbles and a rating of over 100. But no Super Bowl wins, whereas with the earlier set of stats . . . he won 3 . . . interesting, IMO

#65 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:34 AM
John Turney, on 19 Jan 2014 - 11:52 PM, said:
Yeah, how Swann got involved . . .I am not sure.
Our friend from Fairmont, West Virginia brought him over from another thread.

It's been a slice. Go Broncos!

#66 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:56 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 20 Jan 2014 - 12:34 AM, said:
Our friend from Fairmont, West Virginia brought him over from another thread.

It's been a slice. Go Broncos!

You posting complete nonsense is what got the thread derailed.

#67 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:01 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 6:14 PM, said:
It appears that the Pro Football Hall of Fame uses the AP poll and not the PFWA. Consider Larry Allen, who on the PFHoF website is described as 7 consecutive All-Pro. In 1995 he was second team AP, but didn't make the PFWA cut. Then there's consistency between AP and PFWA for the next six years.

So... you know. Not just the lesser informed, though it wouldn't shock me if other biographies contradicted my theory. (Paul Warfield, "All-NFL 6 years" -- no earthly idea what that means.)

The career highlights section of Allen's HoF bio lists all his honors, not just the ones from AP. TSN named Allen to its' first-team in '95 -

http://www.profootba...&tab=Highlights

It's the same with others.

#68 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:14 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 3:14 PM, said:
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 6:14 PM, said:
It appears that the Pro Football Hall of Fame uses the AP poll and not the PFWA. Consider Larry Allen, who on the PFHoF website is described as 7 consecutive All-Pro. In 1995 he was second team AP, but didn't make the PFWA cut. Then there's consistency between AP and PFWA for the next six years.

So... you know. Not just the lesser informed, though it wouldn't shock me if other biographies contradicted my theory. (Paul Warfield, "All-NFL 6 years" -- no earthly idea what that means.)

The career highlights section of Allen's HoF bio lists all his honors, not just the ones from AP. TSN named Allen to its' first-team in '95 -

http://www.profootba...&tab=Highlights

It's the same with others.
__________________________________________________
You are correct 26554 . . . . the Pro Football Hall of Fame uses Total Football: The Official Encylopedia of the National Football League in it's bios. And it, like Total Football listed AP first alphabetically. Not chronologically. Maybe the original poster was looking at Pro Football Reference.com and not Pro Football Hall of Fame.com. Maybe that is the reason for the error.

#69 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:29 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 19 Jan 2014 - 5:44 PM, said:
Well, mostly what's been posted is "you're an idiot", without offering a contrary opinion.
"All Pro" doesn't only mean AP All Pro. No one has to offer a contrary opinion because it is not an issue of opinion. You were merely being corrected - now by multiple people.

#70 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:32 AM
400 yards, no turnovers, clean game.

Well, if anything, he's now 11-3 when he's not one-and-done.

#71 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:40 AM
John Turney, on 20 Jan 2014 - 01:14 AM, said:
You are correct 26554 . . . . the Pro Football Hall of Fame uses Total Football: The Official Encylopedia of the National Football League in it's bios. And it, like Total Football listed AP first alphabetically. Not chronologically. Maybe the original poster was looking at Pro Football Reference.com and not Pro Football Hall of Fame.com. Maybe that is the reason for the error.
Not important, but to add to the point of All-Pro not only meaning the AP team. The most recent Official NFL R&F book lists the (PFW/)PFWA and AP teams (in that order since apparently the order determines something?) ... as well as a combined "All-NFL" team using the selections from both the AP and PFW/PFWA. Also lists the PFW/PFWA All-Rookie team. Lists the Sporting News awards (OPOY, etc) but not their all-pro team. So if All-Pro only meant Associated Press All-Pro then indeed it appears everyone (else) has missed the memo, including the NFL itself.

#72 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:51 AM
Yes, Reaser, the Official NFL R&F lists PFW/PFWA back until 2007 just as you mention. I suspect they will have an All-NFL team composed of AP and PFWA this year, too. I don't know if it's the awards show or Pro Football Reference.com (a website l like very much) and purpetrated this "AP only" world some live in. Also, add in the 2011 NFL/NFLPA Collective Bargining Agreement. It lists AP, PFW/PFWA and Sporting News as "Recognized Media" and "Veteran Media" in terms of bonus and such . . . .

HONORS AND RECOGNIZED MEDIA
VETERAN HONORS

PRO BOWL
ALL NFL (First and Second Team)
ALL CONFERENCE (First and Second Team)
SUPER BOWL MVP (ROZELLE TROPHY)
NFL MVP
OFFENSIVE PLAYER OF YEAR — NFL OR CONFERENCE
DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF YEAR — NFL OR CONFERENCE
PLAYER OF YEAR — NFL OR CONFERENCE

VETERAN MEDIA
ASSOCIATED PRESS
PRO FOOTBALL WEEKLY
PRO FOOTBALL WRITERS OF AMERICA
SPORTING NEWS

#73 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 20 January 2014 - 11:53 AM
97Den98, on 19 Jan 2014 - 04:03 AM, said:
I don't think that just any schmuck could succeed in Belichick's system.

Brady is not a schmuck. However, as it said in his scouting report 14 years ago, he was going to be a system-type QB that wouldn't be for everyone. Guess what? He was drafted into that system.

Brady never really has been the QB that wins games on his own, but from day one, he also never lost games, and he would put the Pats in position to succeed. Not every QB does that.

However, if someone like Chad Pennington, Marc Bulger, or Drew Brees would have been drafted by NE around that time instead of Brady, they could have had the same success.
I can't believe that you honestly think the Patriots would have won three Super Bowls with Pennington or Bulger at QB. (Brees, maybe ... but only maybe).

You're leaning on a generic scouting report; I doubt that the New England scouting report on Brady said anything like that. I believe the Belichick wanted Brady to be his starter as early as his first training camp and perhaps as early as the 2000 draft. However, Bledsoe was the established starter and was playing well enough that Belichick couldn't simply replace him. But, when Bledsoe got hurt, Belichick got his chance.

And he really put his job on the line by continuing to start Brady after Bledsoe was ready to play again. Robert Kraft as much as told him that he'd be fired if Brady didn't perform well. (Remember, Bledsoe was made the first overall pick in the draft by none other than Bill Parcells, and Kraft had just signed him to a 10-year, $103 million contract, the largest in NFL history at that time.)

Shortly after Bledsoe was traded to Buffalo, Boston's Channel 5 did an interesting story, featuring video clips that showed Bledsoe and Brady side by side in similar situations. The clips made three facts very clear: 1) Brady had much better pocket sense than Bledsoe; 2. Brady's passes got to his receivers faster because of his quicker release; 3. Bledsoe was slow getting to his secondary and tertiary receivers if the primary receiver was covered; he often made a bad throw or was sacked in those situations, while Brady found those other receivers and got the ball to them quickly.

In other words, Brady, in his second year in the NFL and his first as a starter, was more skilled than the more experienced Bledsoe, a four-time Pro Bowler.

No quarterback wins games on his own, but some can win when playing with less talented teammates. Brady is one of them. The one year he had a really top-notch receiver (Moss), he threw 50 TD passes. Neither Pennington nor Bulger could have done that even if they had Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, and Calvin Johnson. Brady made stars of guys like David Patten and Deion Branch, both of whom left New England for more money and never produced as much without Brady.

#74 oldecapecod2
PFRA Member
Posted 20 January 2014 - 06:16 PM
Bum Phillips' comment concerning Don Shula speaks volumes:

"He can take his'n and beat your'n and then take your'n and beat his'n."

Will we ever see another guy like Bum?

(I don't know if the apostrophes are appropriate and ain't never lived in Texas.)

#75 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 20 January 2014 - 07:37 PM
rhickok1109, on 20 Jan 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:
I can't believe that you honestly think the Patriots would have won three Super Bowls with Pennington or Bulger at QB. (Brees, maybe ... but only maybe).

You're leaning on a generic scouting report; I doubt that the New England scouting report on Brady said anything like that. I believe the Belichick wanted Brady to be his starter as early as his first training camp and perhaps as early as the 2000 draft. However, Bledsoe was the established starter and was playing well enough that Belichick couldn't simply replace him. But, when Bledsoe got hurt, Belichick got his chance.

And he really put his job on the line by continuing to start Brady after Bledsoe was ready to play again. Robert Kraft as much as told him that he'd be fired if Brady didn't perform well. (Remember, Bledsoe was made the first overall pick in the draft by none other than Bill Parcells, and Kraft had just signed him to a 10-year, $103 million contract, the largest in NFL history at that time.)

Shortly after Bledsoe was traded to Buffalo, Boston's Channel 5 did an interesting story, featuring video clips that showed Bledsoe and Brady side by side in similar situations. The clips made three facts very clear: 1) Brady had much better pocket sense than Bledsoe; 2. Brady's passes got to his receivers faster because of his quicker release; 3. Bledsoe was slow getting to his secondary and tertiary receivers if the primary receiver was covered; he often made a bad throw or was sacked in those situations, while Brady found those other receivers and got the ball to them quickly.

In other words, Brady, in his second year in the NFL and his first as a starter, was more skilled than the more experienced Bledsoe, a four-time Pro Bowler.

No quarterback wins games on his own, but some can win when playing with less talented teammates. Brady is one of them. The one year he had a really top-notch receiver (Moss), he threw 50 TD passes. Neither Pennington nor Bulger could have done that even if they had Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, and Calvin Johnson. Brady made stars of guys like David Patten and Deion Branch, both of whom left New England for more money and never produced as much without Brady.

1. Chad Pennington was a good QB. He led the Dolphins, who were 1-15 the year before, to 11 wins and the playoffs in 2008 (which was, by the way, after he tore his rotator cuff). Here is a good entry about Chad:

http://www.ganggreen...on-hadnt-gotten

2. From what I heard, Belichick wanted Tim Rattay in the draft that year, and Dick Rehbein had to talk him into Brady. Also, Drew Bledsoe had signed a 10-year contract in March, 2001. Does that sound like Brady being starter was ever imminent?

3. I agree with you that Brady is a better decision maker than Bledsoe was. However, is that all him, or is that Belichick's structured offense? I think it is a little of both. When Drew came, the Pats were terrible, and it was all put on him. With Tom, the offense was not designed to go through him. That, his decision making, and the defense making plays were all responsible for the team's success in Tom's early years. The Brady-Belichick combo is an example of lightning striking at the perfect time. I don't think that either one would be where they are without the other.

#76 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 January 2014 - 09:57 AM
I've heard the term "system QB" ad nauseum, and its always used as a derogatory term, yet no one can really give an example of a QB whose level of success was completely independent from "the system".

In his first full season as a starter (2002), Brady had over 600 attempts and led the NFL in TDs...yet the offense was not designed to go through him. I guess that makes Brady's accomplishments even more incredible.

But I agree that there is an element of luck in Brady's success. Just think of how many times the Colts would have beaten the Pats in the playoffs during the 2000's had they jettisoned "bust" Marvin Harrison, kept Sean Dawkins, and traded Peyton Manning for Chad Pennington. Perhaps the Patriots would have eventually fired Bill Belichick for continually falling short in the postseason, then the Colts could have hired Belichick and have him install his structured offense. Montana-to-Rice, Unitas-to-Berry would have been a thing of the past...Pennington-to-Dawkins would have rewritten the record books.

#77 Nwebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 January 2014 - 03:14 PM
It strikes me that in Football its almost always the intersection of player and system. There are a handful of greats that I think would have been great in literally any system . . . Jim Brown, Dan Marino, Reggie White. But even some all time greats were great within the context of the perfect system for them. Dan Fouts pre/post Air Coryell, Elway pre-Shanahan, Moon in the Run 'n Shoot, Kelly in the K-Gun - all amazing players probably none of whom are Hall of Famers on the 90's Bengals, for example. I guess the classic example is the old thread about what happens if - somehow - the Saints draft Bradshaw and the Steelers get Manning??

#78 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 January 2014 - 07:12 PM
Bryan, on 21 Jan 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:
I've heard the term "system QB" ad nauseum, and its always used as a derogatory term, yet no one can really give an example of a QB whose level of success was completely independent from "the system".

In his first full season as a starter (2002), Brady had over 600 attempts and led the NFL in TDs...yet the offense was not designed to go through him. I guess that makes Brady's accomplishments even more incredible.

But I agree that there is an element of luck in Brady's success. Just think of how many times the Colts would have beaten the Pats in the playoffs during the 2000's had they jettisoned "bust" Marvin Harrison, kept Sean Dawkins, and traded Peyton Manning for Chad Pennington. Perhaps the Patriots would have eventually fired Bill Belichick for continually falling short in the postseason, then the Colts could have hired Belichick and have him install his structured offense. Montana-to-Rice, Unitas-to-Berry would have been a thing of the past...Pennington-to-Dawkins would have rewritten the record books.

Yes, Brady did do well in 2002. However, his team missed the playoffs with a 9-7 record. The QB who knocked them out: Chad Pennington. He led his team to victory in NE in Week 16 that year. and then led the Jets to a blowout win over GB in Week 17 to wrap up the East Title.

The next year, Brady had 527 attempts and 23 TD's, and they won the Super Bowl. Then, in 04, he had only 474 attempts, but he had a 1,600 yard rusher on his side in Corey Dillon, and they won it again.

Tom has never won a SB in a year where he has had 600 or more attempts (2002, 2011, 2012, 2013). He also has never thrown for more than 30 TD's in a season without a pretty full year with someone like Moss, Gronk, Welker, and/or Hernandez.

#79 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 21 January 2014 - 07:49 PM
what's your take on this: Lesser numbers, better teams?

Interestingly from 2001-2006 Brady was a 62% passer averaged about 3600 yards 24 TDs and 13 picks 10 fumbles and a passer rating of 89 or so.

From 2007 to present its 65% averaged about 4500 yards 35 TDs 9 INTs 5 fumbles and a rating of over 100. But no Super Bowl wins, whereas with the earlier set of stats . . . he won 3 . . . interesting, IMO

#80 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 21 January 2014 - 08:29 PM
Tom has never won a SB in a year where he has had 600 or more attempts (2002, 2011, 2012, 2013). He also has never thrown for more than 30 TD's in a season without a pretty full year with someone like Moss, Gronk, Welker, and/or Hernandez.
So it's not the system, it's the receivers?

Page 4 of 5
oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member

Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Started by John Turney, Jan 16 2014 05:51 PM

Page 5 of 5

80 replies to this topic

#81 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:05 PM
http://books.google.... Brady.&f=false

Page 5 of 5