Samsung Defining Moments: Patriots spitting in the face of the league

My favorite

My favorite opinion on "running up the score"-gate has to be this: If the Redskins didn't want the Patriots to run up the score, the should have stopped them.

This is the NFL people. Get over yout baby whining and DO the DEED.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 30, 2007 1:43 PM PDT 0 recs

Running up the score

Here's my opinion, there's only a finite amount of game time during the regular season. So what's wrong with capitalizing on that limited game time?

by methodrampage on Oct 30, 2007 2:26 PM PDT 0 recs

Yeah

And it's good practice for games when 4th down matters. Hey look! A strategic argument FOR doing it! Cool.

All of my arguments for it before now just consisted of "stop being a baby, other team."

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 30, 2007 2:29 PM PDT up 0 recs

What about MNF?

Cutler having the ball knocked out of his hands by his left guard was more defining then anything that happened in the Jags/Bucs or Pats/Redskins games. But that's just me.

by methodrampage on Oct 30, 2007 2:31 PM PDT 0 recs

If I was to pick a moment from that game

It would definitely be that one time they showed Brett Favre's wife on the sideline.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 30, 2007 2:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

In the stands, I mean.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 30, 2007 2:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

Defining Moment Deadline

Unfortunately we have to have the defining moment in by Monday afternoon so it's before MNF, otherwise I would have gone with the Favre bomb in OT.

I just figure the Patriots are such a big story that it's going to go on the whole season and a defining part of the season.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Oct 30, 2007 4:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

WHAT?!

How could the Favre the bomb in OT beat out Cutler's fumble? If Cutler doesn't fumble, regardless if they score 3 or 7, this game doesn't go to OT.

by methodrampage on Oct 30, 2007 4:36 PM PDT up 0 recs

The fumble was very important and swung the momentum but most people would think that given the perpetual bj ESPN gives Favre, that defined the game. It won the game and it was a vintage play people love to see. For people who actually know football, the Cutler fumble was the mammoth difference.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Oct 30, 2007 4:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

Running Up The Score Is Pointless And Low Class

I don't know if I'd feel the same way if it was Drew Brees or Phil Rivers, but I hate that Tom Brady plays like heisn't on the best team in the NFL, like everyone is against him and his team. Playing with a chip on your shoulder isn't professional, and it doesn't end well. Brady will be a flash in the pan because his attitude will leave him burned out and useless once he's achieved any kind of success.

Think of heroes close to our hearts, would Montana or Young run up the score on a team that didn't wrong them first? Even in the most bitter of rivalries, the worst play I'd seen came from Deion Sanders and that had nothing to do with demoralizing an opponent, just celebrating to a questionable degree. The Patriots are a passing fad for that reason, they can't win clean and they're still not playing professionally. Bellicek is a cheater, and their attitude proves it. If you had accused Tony Dungee and Peyton Manning of cheating, they would come back and win with good attitudes, which takes infinitely more skill than playing until your self induced rage consumes you and eclipses whatever talent you had in the first place.

by LA49er on Oct 30, 2007 3:04 PM PDT 0 recs

really?

Brady will be a flash in the pan because his attitude will leave him burned out and useless once he's achieved any kind of success.

I think it's hard to call Brady a flash in the pan, and the Pats a passing fad after they won 3 of the last 6 Super Bowls. As much as I think it's low class to run up the score like they did, I don't think they're playing with a self-induced rage. Belichick may be an asshole (and a cheater), but he's also a damn good coach and he's leading what may be one of the all time great teams in history.

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Oct 30, 2007 4:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

Playing with a chip on your shoulder...

is really the only way to play. Guys who are driven, who are out to prove something often play "with a chip on their shoulder". Playing with or without a chip on their shoulder has nothing to do with being professional. If Bellicek, Brady and Co. out to prove that they have the most dynamic offense ever assembled in professional and deem it acceptable to use almost every last minute of each game to prove it then so be it. I don't see anything wrong with it.

There's a difference between running up the score in high school or college and in the NFL. Obviously everybody is getting paid, very handsomely, to be the best of the best in the NFL so either put up or shut up.

This alledged running up the score has way more to do with the play calling and Bellicek then it does with Brady. Unless you expect Brady to take himself out of games and to go against the coaches and start adjusting the play calls. So drop the Montana and Young comparisons, what's going on right now has little to do with Brady's character.

Now to follow-up on your totally nonsensical comments:

I don't know if I'd feel the same way if it was Drew Brees or Phil Rivers, but I hate that Tom Brady plays like he isn't on the best team in the NFL, like everyone is against him and his team.

So by contrast Brady should play like he's on the worst team in the NFL and/or like everyone loves his and wants to do him no wrong? Everyone that lines up opposite of Brady and the Patriots is against them, that's the whole point of playing the game, it's you vs. us. I guarantee nobody from the Redskins was rooting for Tom Brady to completely dismantle their defense last week.

Brady will be a flash in the pan because his attitude will leave him burned out and useless once he's achieved any kind of success.

Flash in the pan? How in the hell does winning 3 Super Bowls and being named to 3 Pro Bowls in 6 years, he's on his way to 4 and 4 in 7, constitute a flash in the pan? He's only 30 and he's already proven that he's anything but a flash in the pan and he's already experience a wealth of success. He's one of the most consistent and steady quarterbacks that has ever played.

the worst play I'd seen came from Deion Sanders and that had nothing to do with demoralizing an opponent, just celebrating to a questionable degree.

They're playing professional football; the point of the game is to demoralize your opponent. They hit the shit out of each other in an effort to convince the other not to get up, to call it quits, and to go sit on the sidelines for the rest of the game. The NFL is about winning games and if you can demoralize your opponent prior to taking field because your reputation precedes yourself then more power to you. You doing your job better than anyone else and your one step closer to earning that win.

If you had accused Tony Dungee and Peyton Manning of cheating, they would come back and win with good attitudes, which takes infinitely more skill than playing until your self induced rage consumes you and eclipses whatever talent you had in the first place.

WTF does this mean? I thought most of what you've said before made little to no sense at all but this takes the cake. So Brady and Bellicek has infinitely less skill than Dungy and Manning because, in your opinion, they're winning with bad attitudes and are playing/coaching with a chip on their shoulders and as a result has lead them to be totally consumed by rage which in turn has caused them to play at an artificially elevated level? Holy shit, self induced rages are the next performance enhancers and here I was thinking the latter was a cause for the former.

I don't know if it's the absense of a NFL team in LA but the whole concept of professional football seems to be lost on you. You're probably much better off watching the World Tidily Winks and Pattycake Championships than you are NFL football.

by methodrampage on Oct 30, 2007 4:33 PM PDT up 0 recs

So

The represent from LA has spoken.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 30, 2007 4:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think what he's saying here

Is that the Patriots use the Dark side of the force, and as such are privy to such powers as are forbidden to the Jedi, such as awesome murderous lightning, living forever, and sex.

The rest of the teams in the league, on the other hand, studiously follow the Jedi code, as per the wishes of Jedi Master Goodell. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage. Especially in the sex department.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 30, 2007 4:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

yeah but

the rest of the teams have Yoda on their side. And ya know, he's pretty bad ass

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Oct 30, 2007 6:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

So how long until...

the Colts start referring to the Patriots as the Evil Empire?

by methodrampage on Oct 31, 2007 8:34 AM PDT up 0 recs

Flash in the pan?

Are you sure you're talking about TOM Brady? QB for the Patriots? Do you follow football?

by jaytierney on Oct 31, 2007 8:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

Fine

Flash in the pan went a little far, I'll admit it.

But with talk swirling that Brady could be the greatest of all time, I just can't swallow it when you directly compare him to the class of a Montana or Young. I understand the play calling is what most of the controversy is about, but I am more specifically referring to comments made by Brady before this week's game. After saying they were aware of being the "greatest underdogs in the history of sports", Brady shot back at the Redskins with:

"I think he's blowing smoke," he said from New England. "I promise you that he's not telling his team that. I'm sure. That sounds like something Coach [Bill] Belichick] would say, so he's trying to butter us up. You know, it doesn't work for us. We know what we're getting ourselves into."

How lame is that?? I mean, that doesn't sound like a champion to me. I can't imagine hearing something like that coming from any of the greats of years past.

Look, I don't think it's possible to run it up in professional sports, you play like you play and that's that. But (badly) faking a spike when your team is well in the lead? Passing on fourth down?

It just smacks of desperation. I don't want to crown guys that play like that. The Chargers could have done the same thing to the Texans, but showed some class at home and let the opposing team limp out with some dignity.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for all the confirmation that Brady is one of the best ever. I never questioned his skill, I only said that he doesn't need all this self victimization. Yes, every team they play will be against them, but they don't need to make it personal and they certainly don't need to play like they're trying to prove something. Their combined skill at the game is a wonder to watch, but I could do without all the drama, and running it up on opponents just feeds into it. It's also pretty lame for a guy that until now has shown so much disdain for the media and the public at large in Belichick.

No doubt they'll walk away with all the marbles this season, but I believe in the class and demeanor of champions, and these guys don't have it. I believe that playing with class, and grace and respect for the game and your opponents paid off for the greats, and will continue to pay off in the future. Only time will prove me right (or wrong).

by LA49er on Oct 31, 2007 9:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

Attention football fans

There is new criteria for a champion:

How lame is that?? I mean, that doesn't sound like a champion to me. I can't imagine hearing something like that coming from any of the greats of years past.

Playing like a champion is no longer enough. You must pass the test of sounding like one too.

I believe that playing with class, and grace and respect for the game and your opponents paid off for the greats, and will continue to pay off in the future.

Joe Namath agrees.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Oct 31, 2007 10:05 AM PDT up 0 recs

I appreciate this response very much

Because we've sort of been canning on you, and you came back composed and well reasoned. That says a lot for you. And about the issue at hand, I can't stand Brady as much as the next guy. His cock-sure self-adoration, me against the world attitude is obnoxious (very Red Soxian of him, which is weird because despite being in New England, the Pats are vaguely Yankee-like). Furthermore, his playboy image (there'e the Yankee!) is just a knife in the eye.

And the Montana comparisons have been getting my goat from the second they started until right now. I could list reason after reason that Montana was better and that Brady still has a long way to go and even then comparisons will always be faulty.

But he is WELL on his way to being one of the best in history, if you don't already believe he is. Agree, though, he's obnoxious and has the most unnecessary chips on his shoulders in the NFL. He's a jerk. Great player. But a jerk.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 31, 2007 10:20 AM PDT up 0 recs

Brady > Montana?

I'd be interested in hearing some of the parameters or reasonings why Montana is so much better than Brady. Their career QB, for whatever that's worth, differs by only 0.1 pts. Brady has 3 Championships already and looks to be on his way to a 4th. Brady hasn't anything but league average recievers, less this year and Montana had Rice for a couple years. Montana's career best in TD's was 31 ,Brady has 30 through 8 weeks. Is Montana better on an intagible level, production level, humility level?

by methodrampage on Oct 31, 2007 12:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well

For every year that passes, Brady is crossing a reason off the list. I have no problems with that thought.

My biggest feeling is that Brady won 3 superbowls in 4 years early in his career. Superbowls are probably the worst way to grade QB's, I know, but as a vague barometer it could be worse. Now, this is to say that the point is NOT the number of superbowls the guy has won, but the longevity of success he can have. Montana had 4 super bowls over a full decade (to complete my bad "super bowl = googliegood" example).

On second thought, that's just a bad way to frame the whole argument.

Brady's career is half over, and most of his major accomplishments (impending record aside) have come in the first half of that career. Montana had a full career with his great accomplishments coming over the whole length of it. That's a better way to put it. The "Super Bowl" frame just gives a concrete, if poor, example of the way those accomplishments spread.

So the best thing for me to say is that it's impossible to say if Brady is better than Montana was. There is no way to qualify that whatsoever until Brady is done and gone from the sport. But I don't believe there is any way we can say that Brady is better than Montana was YET.

He's clearly well on his way. But this is a question of careers.

In terms of years, Brady's 2007 is probably the best single season that any QB has ever had. Ever. Period. Only a half a season separates him from that being completely indisputable.

And the whole idea that "Montana had Rice" kind of grinds my goat a little. The Niners were never so different from those teams Brady won with. Great defenses with a star QB on an offense filled with role players. Rice was a huge asset, no question, but the basic composition of the team was the same. Rathman, Craig, Taylor, Clark, etc. were all role players in the "Patriots" model. Corey Dillon was Brady's playmaker for a while. Now Moss is. (I won't discount the ones he won with neither guy because it was a hell of an accomplishment, but even Montana did that once) Rice was Montana's playmaker when he came on the team.

And it's really the WORST argument I could end with after being so potentially salient up to this point, because there are so many holes in it I could fill a... hole... bucket... (? When analogies fall apart! Next, on FOX) but there is one other thing that sticks out in my mind that separates Montana from Brady on the big stages: touchdown drives.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 31, 2007 1:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

It's only a matter of time

So winning 4 Super Bowls in 10 years in more impressive than say winning 3 Super Bowls in 6 years? How about 4 in 7? Barring an injury I don't see how the 2nd half of Brady's career plays out much differently than the first half.

I'm not going to argue the play making difference between Jerry Rice and Corey Dillon, mostly because I don't think I could do Rice the justice he deserves as the greatest WR of all time and Dillon only broke 1000 yards rushing once in a Patriots uniform. Well, looks like I did end up arguing the difference. But the bottom line is quarterbacks get rated on passing stats and championships. We all know Brady already has the championship and in his first season with a playmaker at WR he's putting up some gaudy statistics.

by methodrampage on Nov 1, 2007 8:08 AM PDT up 0 recs

I'm not saying it's not a matter of time

If things keep pace. And there's no good reason for things not to, but they might not. I can't concede that possibility.

And as to the rest, I didn't even touch on the ideas of eras, systems, competition, and a few other relevant aspects of the argument, but you've already ignored most of the important things I tried to say above, so maybe it's not worth it.

I absolutely discounted the idea of the Super Bowl as a tool for evaluation for QBs, because otherwise Terry Freaking Bradshaw would be in the a dead heat with Montana for best ever. Trent Dilfer would be in the same league as Favre. The only reason I used the Super Bowl example is because it's the easiest way to conceptualize the idea that Brady (until the record this year) has had most of his greatest success in one burst while Montana had most of his over a much longer period. That's all. That Brady won't shatter Montana eventually is NOT part of the equation. Super Bowls are ADMITTEDLY an awful example. They are the easiest, though.

And then about Rice. Yeah, Rice v. Dillon is not really fair. It was the idea of playmakers I was hoping to touch. But it's not Montana's fault that he was forced to play most of his career with freaking Jerry Rice while Brady had to wait until now to get Moss. It's not like Brady HASN'T had playmakers on offense, though. His offensive line has probably always been better than anything Montana ever had. Corey Dillon was always a big play threat, even if he's not a world beater. Whatever. Do we completely discount the fact that Montana did have some great success before Rice, on a team that was made up completely of role guys just because he played the rest of his career on an offense with only 9 role players instead of 10?

What I was saying is the single most basic and inarguable argument you can make for Montana over Brady. I'm sorry I even mussed it up with talk of Super Bowls and secondary players. Montana was great for a whole career, and Brady has only been great (arguably better) for half that. It's like calling Terrel Davis the best RB in history because of the five years he played better than anybody else. It doesn't work that way.

For Brady, all signs point to yes, but I will certainly not annoint him before he's passed the second half of the gauntlet. Things do change, even when it seems like they can't. There was a time Brett Favre was a lock to win 4. There was a brief period when Jake Delhomme was a top 5 QB.

So yes, Brady is well the hell on his way to upending Montana. But not yet. I just don't see how that's even an arguable point.

And then I think there are arguments that Brady's career to this point hasn't been as good as Montana was over the same period of his career (though it gets a lot tighter between the two when you go to this), and those arguments revolve around things like competition, era, system, secondary talent, coaching (yes, coaching!), league rules, realignment, and need I go on?

Obviously, it's a question that is just dangling up in the air and will for the next five+ years, if not forever, but come on, there are PLENTY of arguments for both guys, and some extremely compelling ones for Montana.

I just don't see how the idea of sustained greatness can even be a question. It's not completely fair to Brady because he hasn't had the chance to sustain his greatness yet, but it has to HAPPEN before it can rightfully become debatable. As far as I'm concerned every other argument about the two is secondary (and I'm happy to argue them, but they kind of mean squat to me until the first one is settled). Right now Brady has half a career of greatness and Montana has a full one. Therefore, Montana trumps. It's about what they've proven, and you've only proven what you've done. It will only be fair to Brady in five to ten years. Oh well. Stuff isn't always fair.

Anyway, I'm sorry I even brought up Super Bowls. Even if I was careful to discount them, there's no way it wasn't getting misread. I argued my point about Rice weakly, but I hope you can see what I was getting at. Montana did win without him, and even with him the kind of offenses those were were very similar to the role player model of the modern dynasty Pats.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Nov 1, 2007 10:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

Eesh

I come off very testy through that. What I meant to write was a calm and well reasoned response. My apologies. I was fairly ticked off this morning. It took me 45 mintes to get to work. I live 5 minutes from the freeway and the freeway is 5 minutes from work. Once on the freeway, it took me 5 minutes to get to work.

There were no accidents and no cops. Just a lot of jerks. And all the jerks honking at everybody were the same jerks trying to turn onto the freeway from the no turn lanes. I almost got hit by somebody doing this. Bad morning. Furthermore, my hair looks awful. Bah.

In any case, please assume that that was a calm and well reasoned response. In other words, please ignore anything that reads like a snap.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Nov 1, 2007 11:08 AM PDT up 0 recs

The Comparison

Let's go back to square one.

And the Montana comparisons have been getting my goat from the second they started until right now.

First, let me iterate that I'm not proclaiming Brady, at this moment in time with his current resume, as besting Joe Montana. However I do believe he is well on his way and the comparisons are justified. Montana was great and Brady is on the verge of greatness, comparisons are going to be made and they're going to be dumbed down but to hold Montana on untouchable pedestal is a bit ignorant.

As for championships, the media makes them important and they do serve a purpose but they are most definitely the end-all-be-all evaluation of a quarterback. Peyton Manning was labeled as really good quarterback that couldn't win the big one, now he's a great quarterback because he's got a championship under his belt. Brady has 3, Montana has 4 and the duration over which it took to win said championships is totally irrelevant. If you want to argue longevity as a means for greatness then look at some stats but looking at championships isn't going to cut it.

I could list reason after reason that Montana was better and that Brady still has a long way to go and even then comparisons will always be faulty.

I'm still waiting on these reasons that Montana was better than Brady.

Montana was great for a whole career, and Brady has only been great (arguably better) for half that.

So now Brady is better than Montana through this point in his career?

but you've already ignored most of the important things I tried to say above

I'm not sure what I'm missing, you haven't said anything substantial while you're main point seems to be that Montana performed at a high level for longer but you also keep flip flopping which causes a simpleton like myself to confuse your points. Either way you can't discredit Brady because he hasn't had the opportunity to match Montana's longevity. We don't need to wait for Brady to retire in order to make comparisons and time will only tell if Brady can match that longevity but it's also conceivable that Brady wins 3 more championships thus surpassing Montana on all levels.

And then I think there are arguments that Brady's career to this point hasn't been as good as Montana was over the same period of his career (though it gets a lot tighter between the two when you go to this), and those arguments revolve around things like competition, era, system, secondary talent, coaching (yes, coaching!), league rules, realignment, and need I go on?

Wait, now Montana is better than Brady through this point Brady's career? Anyways, we might be getting somewhere now. This is what I'm interested in finding out. Do you think the competition was at a higher level during Montana's era? If you're bringing in secondary talent we might as well bring in receiver talent (but you didn't want to because that's not going to help Montana's case). Are Bellichick and his staff better than Walsh and his? Care to elaborate on the other and how they prove Montana was better? You hint at these parameters and then basically assume that they all support Montana. I could argue that Montana had better receiving talent, was in a better system, he was basically a pioneering quarterback for the west coast offense, no? How much was it Walsh's system and not Montana? Remember Joe could barely hold Young off by the '88 season.

there are PLENTY of arguments for both guys, and some extremely compelling ones for Montana.

What are these extremely compelling arguments? Make one already, I'm tiring of you're bush beating.

Moving on, let's get to some stats to compare Brady's first 6 seasons (which won't include this season which is obviously statistically going to be his best) and Montana's, starting in '01 for Brady and '80 for Montana.

Touchdowns
Tom - 147
Joe - 132

Interceptions
Tom - 78
Joe - 67

Completion %
Tom - 61.9
Joe - 63.3

Passing Yards
Tom - 21,558
Joe - 19,166

Super Bowl Championships
Tom - 3
Joe - 2

Hmm...pretty close definitely worth the comparison. But after this year I'm confident Brady's numbers through 7 years will blow Montana's away.

The comparisons are justified, until you prove otherwise.

by methodrampage on Nov 1, 2007 2:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

Heyyo

Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa.

We are really on different pages here. Much of that is my fault because my on the fly writing style is relatively convoluted. But there are some things you are just plain misreading, too. So back from square one, that sounds good.

I never waffled or flip flopped in my convictions. What I said was that Brady's career to this point is arguably better than Joe's to the same point (which is not to say that it IS better, just conceding the point that it can be ARGUED to be better) and that Joe's career trumps Brady's half career on the merits of sustained achievment.

The two are not contradictory. The idea that Joe's first six years are arguably better than Brady's six years is also not contradictory to the idea that Brady's are better than Tom's. If anything, I've only admitted, in all earnestly, that the comparisons are apt.

Which brings me to an annoying issue of diction. So I said the Montana comparisons have been getting my goat to this point. The comparisons themselves did get my goat pretty hard at one point. Now, I think the comparisons themselves are justified. The idea, however, that Brady's career is already better than or as good as Joe's is what gets my goat now. I think that is ridiculous and indefensible, and not because I hold Joe as untouchable, but because Brady is likely still less than halfway through his career.

I don't see what part of any of that is objectionable. Yes, I said it poorly to begin with, but it's neither radical nor is it contradictory. And I've said time and again that Brady is on his way to having a better career than Montana if things don't fall apart. What part of THAT is holding Montana on an impossibly pedestal?

I hereby strike Super Bowls from the record. They are as arbitrary a measure of success for a QB as wins and losses are for a relief pitcher.

but you've already ignored most of the important things I tried to say above
I'm not sure what I'm missing, you haven't said anything substantial while you're main point seems to be that Montana performed at a high level for longer but you also keep flip flopping which causes a simpleton like myself to confuse your points. Either way you can't discredit Brady because he hasn't had the opportunity to match Montana's longevity. We don't need to wait for Brady to retire in order to make comparisons and time will only tell if Brady can match that longevity but it's also conceivable that Brady wins 3 more championships thus surpassing Montana on all levels.

I said that because my original point WAS that Montana performed at a high level for longer becuse my issue has ALWAYS been with the idea of comparable CAREERS, not comparable players. For some insane reason I decided to bring up Super Bowls and Jerry Rice, which complicated the whole issue because they had nothing to do with the point. I was saying something very simple. I brought two things into it that I immediately said were either secondary or useless and you responded by addressing the exactly those points and ignoring the one I cared about. So, in a bad mood from traffic anyway, I decided to try and reiterate the important part of my argument and said screw it to the rest. That's why you didn't see any other arguments around. I was still just trying to get the original one across without having my words minced. And, in said bad mood, I said it in a way that was confrontational rather than friendly. I guess now I'm in the middle of a confrontation because of it, rather than a simple discussion. No other way to explain the Joe Morgan treatment.

But I still wasn't speaking clearly, I guess. Maybe I'm still not. I don't know. I'll recap.

I said Brady's career can't be compared to Montana's career, except insofar as the first six years are concerned.
I said a bunch of secondary and tertiary stuff, and I didn't say it well.
You thought I was trying to argue a greater point. Understandably so.
I tried to backtrack because I didn't think the original point had been heard.
I said it less than perfectly.
Joe Morgan.
More backtracking on my part
We are here.
I go farther, like you requested.

I tend not to get into these kinds of "comparison" discussions because 1) I don't have much of a memory for details, and 2) My football mind regarding eras, schemes, and the like isn't good enough to go into the insane detail they usually require. So if my arguments read more like an outline for something that somebody else would write an essay about, I'm sorry, but I have neither the capacity, the patience, nor the interest to write those essays. Somebody else can. I'm also afraid that I won't say anything particularly mind-blowing. You'll have heard most, if not all of these before. And for good reason. Anyway, my basic outline. I'd also like to make clear that I'm arguing neither for nor either here, simply listing what I think are compelling arguments for or against either one.

Brady doesn't have the supporting cast? His receivers are worse, but his offensive line has been better than Montana's, and his backs have been comparable. Still, I'll go ahead and give Montana an edge for having Rice. Schemes and era are a huge can of worms that nobody has the answer to. Did Montana face stiffer competition in the regular season because of the pre-cap era and fewer teams? Not likely a significant difference, if at all. In the postseason? That's a hell of a tough thing to say for anybody. In the Superbowls? Boomer Esiason, Dan Marino, and John Elway are some pretty crazy names, but were the teams that good? How about schemes? Montana played in the first real scheme designed to maximize QB efficiency, but which consequently limited gaudy production (in theory). Brady as also played in an efficiency first offense, but his reigns have been let seriously loose the last few years. Could Montana have done what Brady is doing if he's played in a similar scheme? How the hell should I know? Physical attributes? Montana isn't nearly as naturally gifted as Brady. Doesn't have the arm, the size, strength, or mobility (which is no knock on Montana's mobility). Is Montana a better QB for doing more with arguably less? I've made the same argument for Maddux over Clemens in baseball, but I think it's more complicated in football. Montana played at a time when league rules made it much easier on a defense and much harder on a QB. Does that mean his stats mean more and Brady's mean less. It's hard to say, but would Brady's stats be depressed if defenses could still do what they were able to 20 years ago? Yeah, I think so. Walsh vs. Belicheck? I cannot play against Walsh there, but the idea really is at his time Walsh was the best in the league and now Belicheck is the best in the league. Does that make it a wash? I don't think so, but I don't know which way it falls...

You see how I go on this? Both guys are compelling candidates, but the bottom line is that Brady's not done, not halfway done, still has half a career to prove, and Montana has his proof on the table. Ask me again in 6 years.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Nov 1, 2007 7:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

My box formatted wrong

It should look like this:

but you've already ignored most of the important things I tried to say above

I'm not sure what I'm missing, you haven't said anything substantial while you're main point seems to be that Montana performed at a high level for longer but you also keep flip flopping which causes a simpleton like myself to confuse your points. Either way you can't discredit Brady because he hasn't had the opportunity to match Montana's longevity. We don't need to wait for Brady to retire in order to make comparisons and time will only tell if Brady can match that longevity but it's also conceivable that Brady wins 3 more championships thus surpassing Montana on all levels.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Nov 1, 2007 7:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

Knit Picking

Fine, we're basically on the same page. I agree, as of right now I wouldn't argue that Montana was better than Brady but I think this issue could be revisited depending on the outcome of this season. Montana may have played for 16 years but, in my opinion, failed to prove anything in his last 4. He really only had 11 years of solid contribution and after this season Brady will have 7. I realize it's still only like 64% of Montana's career but it's arguable Montana wasn't even the best quarterback on his team for the last 4-5 years. I do know one thing for sure, this season and possibly a few seasons down the road will definately put a different spin on things.

by methodrampage on Nov 2, 2007 7:40 AM PDT up 0 recs

Is that really what you want?

I can't believe anyone outside of New England supports this ridiculous running up of the score.

What does NE achieve going for it on 4th down, in the 4th quarter, up 38-0, against a non-conference opponent? Name one positive thing that is accomplished; give one reason why this is necessary.

The only REMOTELY sane argument is to demoralize a hated rival, but New England faces Washington once every 4 years, and they're not a real Super Bowl threat.

The only thing you get is a great chance to have Tom Brady suffer a season-ending injury - if not on that play, then when a pissed off safety jumps the count and drills them for their poor sportsmanship.

Folks, that's what this is really about. It's not about a 100-yd war, it's not about scoring as much as you can and demoralizing your opponent. It's about being a class act and showing some sportsmanship.

by WhatWillisWasTalkinBout on Oct 30, 2007 4:54 PM PDT 0 recs

injury

I agree with you on the injury comments. They're entitled to run up the score, but they have to realize the risk that is created. If Brady gets hurt they have nobody to blame but themselves. You don't want to encourage someone to illegally go after him, but these are human beings who get frustrated and it's very easy to see someone just decide he's had it and wants to make something happen. Next thing you know, it's Cassel time.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Oct 30, 2007 5:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

4th down reasons

How about practice? There's no better time to work on stuff than against live competition. Why not work on your 4th down conversions in a situation where a non-conversion doesn't hurt you. Who knows maybe they'll need to convert a 4th down against the Colts this week and they'll be that much more prepared.

Being a class act and showing what you're inferring to as "sportsmanship" never won any Super Bowls. And make no mistake, players and coaches [of the NFL] are in the business of winning Super Bowls regardless of class and "sportsmanship". Belichick caught a bunch of flack for "cheating" and no he's proving a point and I don't see a problem with professionals running up the score, demoralizing, or beating down other professionals. I could give a rat's ass if Randall Godfrey got his feelings hurt by getting spanked so hard, he needs to learn to deal with it.

So at what point during the game did the Redskins concede defeat? That seems like the classy thing to do. At what point did they take out there starters on offense or defense? At half time when it was 28-0, at the end of the 3rd quarter when it was 38-0? Nope, they were playing their starters the entire time. So what's wrong with the Patriots playing their starters while the Redskins are playing theirs?

Injuries? That's so cliché. So let's see what are the odds that a season ending occurs to any given starter through the course of the season on any given team? I couldn't tell you but I know it's pretty small. So pulling Brady in at the start of the 4th quarter in the Redskins games does what? Decreases his playing over the length of the season by 1.5%? So if the odds are extremely small that a player suffers a season ending injury during the length of the entire seasons how small are odds that one is going to occur in 1.5% of a players season?

*I realize that as the season progresses the chances of a season ending injury most likely increases due to the decreasing amount of time one would have to recover from any injury by the end of the season. But with saying that it was week 8, if Brady or anyone else got injured the Patriots could most assuredly make the playoffs and said player would have 9 weeks to recover in order to return for the playoffs. The injury threat isn't as great as you guys think it is, especially when you're dominating the opposition.

by methodrampage on Oct 31, 2007 8:33 AM PDT up 0 recs

running up the score.

it doesn't even help them in the BCS rankings...

Lott's Prayer: Almost as many words as the Lord's Prayer, but the Lord wouldn't recognize any of them.

by Nosetackle Supreme on Nov 1, 2007 11:01 AM PDT up 0 recs

Running up the score

At this point I think Belichick is continuing to run up the score out of spite towards the media who keep calling for him to not do so. Normally I would rarely support running up the score, but with everyone's over-reaction to spygate I'm kind of enjoying it.

by jaytierney on Oct 31, 2007 8:41 AM PDT 0 recs

HOPEFULLY, RAIDERS WON'T SELL OUT

If the Raider sell out by 1:15 today, all Bay Area fans ARE FORCED to watch them on Ch. 5.

If they don't sell out, however, we get to see the Patriots-Colts game on local TV.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/31/SP1HT3BRI.DTL

Lott's Prayer: Almost as many words as the Lord's Prayer, but the Lord wouldn't recognize any of them.

by Nosetackle Supreme on Nov 1, 2007 11:03 AM PDT 0 recs

There's a really simple solution to this

which is, keep rushing 7 guys every time and plant Brady regardless of penalties or results. The game's over anyway; what have you got to lose? I guarantee you, if he takes a few cheap shots, he won't be in the game much longer. It's just not worth it to the Pats.

It doesn't matter if you get there if you don't know where you're going.

by Zagarna on Nov 1, 2007 12:43 PM PDT 0 recs