Wait, what? Welker doesn't have an "after," he's still there, and Moss is Moss - we all know about Moss' problems, but both are without question HOF players, and likely first-ballot selections, at that. You guys make some weird arguments.
Fact: Tom Brady's best season as a QB came when he was throwing the ball to Randy Moss (Season QB rating of 117.2). Fact: Tom Brady's next best two seasons, statistically, came when he was throwing the ball to Wes Welker (the last two seasons, where his rating was 111 and 105.6). These three seasons are his only seasons where his QB rating was above 100 for the season. No, Brady didn't win the Superbowl in those seasons, but that was because the TEAM around him wasn't good enough. Whether it was the defense or the poor running game, his team wasn't good enough. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that Randy Moss was shit without Tom Brady? He was shit in Oakland, but he didn't try in Oakland, because he didn't give a fuck. When he was with Minnesota, everyone knew he was one of the best wide outs in football. A great case could be made for Randy Moss going into the hall of fame one day. Randy Moss's best season, in terms of yards per game, came in Minnesota in his 6th season. His second highest TD totals (17, in his 1st and 6th seasons), and those were topped only by his 23 TD season in New England. Randy Moss was one of the best wide receivers in football for several seasons, before Tom Brady ever threw a pass to him. Wes Welker was a slot machine in Miami before coming to New England. That said, there is no doubt in my mind that Welker could've been just as good in, say, New Orleans, San Diego, and especially Indianapolis. Just stop, and remember a few things: 1) I'm not saying Tom Brady isn't good. That isn't my argument. My argument is that his best seasons came with high profile receivers. When he didn't have high profile, good receivers, he was a good, solid, winning QB. When he was throwing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker, he became an unstoppable QB. 2) I'm not saying Tom Brady was throwing to all-stars in his SB wins. That isn't my argument. My argument is that, in the seasons where they won the SB, their TEAM as a whole was great (especially their defenses), and Tom Brady good enough to push them forward and help them win. If you continue to insist that Tom Brady spent his career throwing to no-name scrubs, all you're honestly doing is showing that you're so blinded in your love for Brady that your arguments are invalid. Take a step back and look at it rationally, rather than 'ZOMG HE IS SAYING BRADY ISN'T THE GREATEST PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF EVERS! WE MUST END HIM!"
You're right. It isn't true that he never had good receivers. He merely won five division titles and three Super Bowls over six years. with average or worse receivers It's impossible to disentangle the value of the receivers and the value Tom Brady coaxed out of them, but prior to their arrival in New England, Wes Welker and Randy Moss were a bench player more known as a kick returner than a receiver, and a former Pro Bowler who was widely regarded around the league as an intractable has-been. Randy Moss's "most uncoverable" period was probably before Tom Brady was even playing for New England. Their true talent level was probably somewhere in between their pre-NE value and their prime-in-NE value, but exactly where, no one knows. NBo, but it was Jimmy James's argument. The problem isn't the conclusion. It's the shit route to get there. Reasons why Tom Brady might not the the best QB ever: 1) The potential for a system halo from Bill Belichick 2) A well above average offensive line 3) Played in an inflated offensive era, especially with regards to the passing game 4) The merits of other quarterbacks, such as Manning, Unitas, Graham, Elway, Montana, Young, Marino, or Favre Correction: he didn't win a Super Bowl in 2007 because of shit luck (which was probably also the reason he DID win a Super Bowl in 2001). The 2007 team was better than each and every Patriots team that did in fact win, and is a valid candidate for the best team ever. They just happened to have a bum game in week 20 rather than week 4, and alas, no title. That's the way it happens some times.
My post looked retarded because I was rushing for a meeting and edited it 50 times. I meant besides Welker and Moss, none of those guys who went on did shit. Hell even Branch had to come back to play decent. None of those guys are notable. I'm not talking about his best statistical years. We're talking about him being the best. Fact: A Great QB can blow records out the water with two great wide receivers and be unstoppable. Fact: The Greatest QB can win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years with no name wide receivers who went on to do absolute shit without him and will never ever be mentioned again except "Who were those guys Brady won his first 3 Superbowls with?" "Uh, you sure it wasn't Welker, Moss, and Gronk?" "No they weren't on the team then." "Let's check Wikipedia." "Oh fuck its down because of SOPA." "I can't remember any of their names..." "Was Branch one of them?" "No we got him in 2010 from Seattle." "Oh right." Bonus Fact: "Solid, winning QB" is a bit of an understatement for a guy that won 3 SBs in 4 years. Just saying. AND he's the best looking. When you throw in his stats for modeling contracts, there is no contest.
Yes, and the rest of the team (i.e. running game, offensive line, and the defense) had nothing to do with those wins. Again, stop trying to make it out like anyone saying Brady is awful. I haven't seen ANYONE say that. All we are saying is that he may not be the single greatest QB in the history of football. He may be a really, really amazing QB that had the benefit of playing for one of the best coaches ever and having a great team surrounding him. Your homerism for the Patriots and Tom Brady is clearly blinding you, so this discussion is officially pointless. No matter what I say, Tom Brady is the greatest human being ever to throw a football, and no amount of argument made for anyone else will ever be sufficient. People like you are why I root against Tom Brady (and against Tebow and others). The worship is insane. By your standards, Terry Bradshaw is the greatest QB ever with his 4 Superbowl rings, and Tom Brady can only tie him. Bradshaw has 4 rings in six years. Brady is in the discussion for greatest QB ever. However, he is NOT the unanimous only choice, even by YOUR standards, and your standards seem to be "he won the most Super Bowls."
And you walked right into it... So...this Lynn Swan guy...maybe in the Hall of Fame? Or this John Stallworth fellow, 4 pro-bowls and 2 MVPs? Any of Brady's receivers going to the HOF? Any of his WRs during those years get MVPs? Not SB-MVP, regular season MVPs? Any of those guys hold any records with the team? My point is Brady should get credit because with every other QB, he has a RB or WR or TE on his way to the HOF. Not the case with Brady in any of his SB runs. He did more with less and therefore is better then Bradshaw.
I'd argue that Bradshaw is still better because he called his own plays, while Brady relies entirely on Bellichek, a guy who can turn Matt Cassel into an all-star. Again, the argument is silly, and you're still ignoring a fundamental point: Tom Brady didn't win those superbowls. The Patriots won those superbowls. The team. Not Brady. The Pats were known as a defensive powerhouse back then, too. You know who else won a Superbowl with no name receivers? Trent Dilfer. I suppose we should put him in the conversation for greatest QB ever, and ignore the fact that his defense won those games for him.
Bringing up Trent Dilfer is like bringing up Hitler or Nazi's...its destroys any football argument. Plus he's ruled out due to only winning 1. And Bradshaw had the Steel Curtain. Matt Cassel isn't a bad QB as someone mentioned earlier. He actually might be a QB capable of 11-5. Didn't the Cheifs go 10-6 in a competitive division? Maybe it's not a Belichick system?
I know where you got it from (his wiki page says he was the 'Steelers two-time MVP') but he was never an MVP. Those were Pittsburgh-specific team awards.
And just for comparison in case people want to claim that Belichick "just learned to be a better coach": Norv Turner 58-81 (Redskins, multiple QBs), 49-31 (Chargers, Phil Rivers) Dennis Green 97-62 (Vikings, multiple QBs), 16-32 (Cardinals, multiple QBs) Tony Dungy 54-42 (Bucs, multiple QBs), 85-42 (Colts, Peyton Manning) Mike Holmgren 75-37 (Packers, Favre), 86-74 (Seahawks, Hasselbeck) Mike Shanahan 8-12, (Raiders, multiple QBs) 138-86 (Broncos, multiple QBs) John Gruden 38-26 (Raiders, Gannon), 57-55 (Bucs, multiple QBs) Jimmy Johnson 44-36 (Cowboys, Aikman), 36-28 (Dolphins, Marino) (I didn't specifically cherry pick these; I just chose who I could think of that coached multiple years with two different teams.) If you look on this list the only coaches who significantly improved his head coaching record when he went on to coach his second team were Shanahan and Dungy, and Dungy upgraded from scrub QBs to Peyton Manning. Shanahan went from scrub QBs to John Elway; during his Broncos tenure he was 54-18 with Elway, 92-72 without him. So as far as the claims of Brady being a "system quarterback" the evidence so far points to the reality that QBs make coaches, not the other way around.
How is Norv Turner going from sub-.500 to a 49-31 not a significant improvement? There's a few others you can throw in for the sake of data points. These ones seem to be fairly stable across location, except Seifert: Tom Coughlin (68-60 in Jax w/ Brunell, 74-54 in NY with Eli) Don Shula (71-23-4 in Baltimore w/ Unitas, 257-133-2 in Miami w/ Griese and Marino) Marty Schottenheimer (44-27 with Kosar in CLE, 101-58-1 in KC with a motley crew, 8-8 in DC, 47-33 in SD) Bill Parcells (77-49-1 i for NYG w/ Simms, 32-32 in NE w/ Bledsoe, 29-9 in NYJ with multiple QBs, 34-30 in Dallas with multiple QBs) George Seifert (98-30 in SF, 16-32 in CAR) I just think this is ultimately a kinda silly argument because it's so damn hard to answer definitively. Football is the hardest sport to try to disentangle individual output from team output.
Football is a team sport? Here I thought it was a game played by Quarterbacks with a bunch of other dudes who just dance around them and don't actually DO anything to help their Quarterbacks.
I admit I know nothing about how the schedule is made. Will the Bengals be facing a tough schedule next year being a playoff team yet finishing third in their division?
NFL teams will play 6 games against their own division (two against each of the 3 teams), 8 games against opponents that their other divisional members play (for example, this year the AFC North faced all the teams from the AFC South and the NFC West), and 2 games against other teams (for the Bengals, it was the Broncos and the Bills). In other words, with the exception of two games a season, they will face all the same teams as everyone else in their division. Only those two games will be different, and they'll likely be against middle-of-the-road teams again. It is really a matter of which divisions their division gets put up against. They usually use those two "flex" games for rivalries, which was how the Peyton and the Colts faced Brady and the Patriots every year for the past ten years or so.