Wednesday, January 26, 2005

NFL football

I don't think I have ever seen a more overrated athlete in professional sports than Tom Brady, the QB of the Patriots.

13 Comments:

Blogger West70 said...

I respectfully disagree. In order to be overrated he would have to be touted as the reason the Pats are going to the SB. Haven't heard that at all. Instead the Pats are probably the most complete team in the NFL in my memory. Also I heard news this morning that Brady had a fever of 101 the night before that game. Perhaps he's even underrated.

2:32 PM, January 26, 2005  
Blogger Stan said...

Rev,

Last week, Mel Kiper said on ESPN radio that he thought Brady was a lock for the hall of fame. Dan Patrick said he would be if they won the Super Bowl this year. I can't even keep count anymore of the writers who have compared him to Joe Montana.

For a guy with incredible protection who usually has all day to find open receivers, it is amazing how inaccurate he is throwing the ball.

I think a better comparison is to Kurt Warner when the Rams offensive line was giving him all day to throw to those awesome receivers. Brady's receivers aren't as good, but they are good and they have depth. Of course, Brady's passing rating and other numbers aren't ever close. The quality of the pass pro is about the same. When Warner's pass pro declined, we found out he wasn't that great, despite the 2 MVPs.

3:14 PM, January 26, 2005  
Blogger Yes I Have The T-Shirt said...

Yeah... But the Pat's as a team are so good its sickening.

I'm rooting for the eagle's strictly because I'm sick of watching New England win.

10:11 PM, January 26, 2005  
Blogger Acres said...

I know where you're going, but I think the two most overrated players are Peyton Manning & Brett Favre. Manning, despite all the records, commercials, and the fact he's affable, hide the fact that he's never won the BIG GAME at Tennessee or Indy. Until he proves he can pull a team out, then he's overrated (historically, you'd have to put Marino & Tarkington in that same category.)

Favre hurts because I'm a life-long Packer fan. Yes, he put up the numbers this year, as in year's past, but in the past three seasons when up against a quality team, he plays like a backup on a JV football team. I'm inclined to think that he's under pressure to score every time they get the ball because of their woe-full defense, but ouch! At least put the team in a competitive situation in the 4th quarter. If GB's new defensive coordinator creates a respectable defense, maybe ol' Brett will finish his career like he really should.

9:24 AM, January 27, 2005  
Blogger Stan said...

This idea that Manning has never won a big game is a lie that requires an amazing amount of dishonesty to perpetuate. Manning-haters define a big game as any game that Manning's team fails to win. If they win, it doesn't qualify as a big game.

Manning threw an 80 yard TD on the first play from scrimmage against Alabama his soph year (1995) and helped UT win for the first time against the Vols' biggest rival since 1985. When you haven't beaten your arch-rival in almost 10 years, you better believe it was a big game.

Manning's Vol teammates did everything they could to fumble away the SEC championship game his senior year. He kept them in the game and led the comeback. Of course, had they lost, it would have been Manning losing the big game. Since he led them to the championship, it didn't count as a big game any more.

I could go on and on about all the games in which Manning has led inferior teams with weak defenses and poor offensive lines to victory. No QB in NFL history has led his team to more victories with one of the worst defenses in the league as Manning has with the Colts the last 2 years.

11:44 AM, January 27, 2005  
Blogger Acres said...

I'm not a Manning-hater, not even close. I've enjoyed every game I've watched him play. I appreciate the fact that he's easily the most cerebral QB the league's had since maybe Montana. Fact is, despite winning one game against a conference foe nine seasons ago in college, he hasn't won a big one since.

To generate the anemic offensive output that he's done the past two playoffs against NE, after the season's he's enjoyed can't all be blamed on his defense, which played good enough to win in this year's playoffs, or other players.

Until he wins that game, he has to be on the list that compares him favorably to Fouts and Marino. NE is to Manning what the Yankees are to Pedro ~ right now. That could easily change.

His situation is similar to Favre's. For season after season, Favre enjoyed incredible regular season success only to lose in Dallas every year. The one season they didn't play in Dallas, the beat 'frisco in their own house.

1:05 PM, January 27, 2005  
Blogger Stan said...

I spent four seasons as a football coach (major college, small college and Europe). In breaking down the tape of both of the last two playoff losses to the Patriots, it is clear that Manning played better than Brady in both games.

Manning makes a poor offensive line look great, if he can get a receiver to get open. If they get shut down, however, there isn't a QB who ever played the game who can complete passes to them. The Pats have been able to rush 3 and get pressure while dropping 8 in coverage.

How Manning is supposed to be at fault for the weaknesses of his line and receivers is beyond me. If you can point me to failings in his play last weekend, please do. Just pointing to the score of team game and blaming it on the QB is just silly.

Your comment on winning the big game is just foolish. You have just proven what I wrote earlier. If they win a playoff game (3 times in the last 2 seasons), it doesn't count. But a playoff loss proves "Manning has never won a big game." The proposition is simply laughable.

And the fact that a lot of incredibly stupid reporters and commentators repeat it ad nauseum doesn't make it true.

3:13 PM, January 27, 2005  
Blogger Acres said...

Which quarterback (Brady or Manning), regardless of statistics, placed their team in a better position to win? This is my main point. Brady played mistake-free ball and the Patriots won. If Manning played well, and be honest, he didn't have his "A" game that day, and they lost, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Fact is, statistically he may have outplayed Brady, but 3 points? Against a secondary that included a receiver performing yeoman's work? Granted, getting more than 39 yards out of James may have made a difference, but the fact is, New England forced Indy to play to Indy's strength ~ its passing game.

And, if Indy's line and receivers were so deficient, why have the Colts been considered an offensive juggernaut the past few seasons? To imply that Manning elevated his O-line to greatness is absurd. James rushed for over 1,500 yards for crying loud. I know 1,000 isn't what it used to be, but still, 1,500 yards nothing to sneeze at. Does Manning deserve credit for that?

Right now in his career, Manning has the same affect on the Colts as Favre (again back to Favre) does on the Packers. If both play well, their teams tend to win. That's why I rank Manning and Favre as the two most over rated NFL players right now. Unfortunately, in today's game a team fails or succeeds based on the play of the QB. Even the Ravens won the Super Bowl with an average, at best, quarterback. They won with defense and a mistake-free, albeit conservative offense.

Winning playoff games is a considerable achievement. That's something Barry Sanders never experienced. But when the games get bigger, the cream rises. Brady is undefeated in the playoffs, yet you diminish that achievement, extol Indy's two wins, and call Brady overrated. How?

I applaud your attention to detail in breaking down film. And, you may have experience that I cannot compare (If I was a foot taller, 100 pounds heavier...I would have, well, probably ended up a masked professional wrestler.), but to simply imply that you have that knowledge to make that statement and for me to accept it as fact, is ludicrous. I respect your opinion and you have given a fair argument, which I truly appreciate, but I disagree.

And, FWIW, I usually take the commentators blathering as nonsensical. Quite honestly, you look through the history of American sports, and you learn how truly stupid some commentators really are. Examples abound. My opinion is my own. Whether you think I'm a blathering fool or not ~ and please don't ask my wife, my opinion is my own. Again, Not to diminish his accomplishments, I think Manning is AT LEAST in the top two of NFL QB's right now. He is one of my favorites, but he has to get the ability to push his team over the top.

4:29 PM, January 27, 2005  
Blogger Acres said...

You know, after reading Ben Maller's site (http://www.benmaller.com/), I think I need to re-think.

****************************************************

"...Ever since Michael Vick broke into the league, people have talked about him "reinventing" the quarterback position. But the only way somebody is going to reinvent the quarterback position is if they reinvent the game itself. The QB is, first and foremost, a passer, a deliverer of the football. This has nothing to do with running a 4.3 40 or leaping tall buildings in a single bound. It's an act that requires vision, precision and — since large, malevolent men are often bearing down on you — no small amount of guts. The most important thing is, can he hit a moving target at 20 paces? Sometimes Vick can, and sometimes he can't. In four of his 17 games this season he failed to complete 50 percent of his passes, and in two others he connected on exactly 50 percent. That's too many off days for a supposedly elite quarterback, especially when you've got Daunte Culpepper (69.2) and Peyton Manning (67.6) completing close to 70 percent for the entire season. Of course, Vick's fans will tell you, "Throw out the statistics. Michael's unique, a freak of nature. All that matters is that he wins." Throw out the statistics? All of them? How about his league-leading 16 fumbles (seven of which were recovered by the opposition)? Can we include that in the discussion, or are his fumbles unique, too? Vick ain't a kid anymore. Next season will be his fifth. But in many respects, he's still the same player he was when he came into the league. He's still a Highlight Reel Hero, the kind of guy who can nail the quadruple axel but still hasn't mastered the figure eight...."

****************************************************

Food for thought.

4:44 PM, January 27, 2005  
Blogger Stan said...

I'm working on a long piece which will detail exactly why the Colts' offensive line is bad and how Manning's audibles, ball faking and handoff technique allows them to double their production from the running game. Remember that Titans coach Jeff Fisher admitted that their QBs couldn't even replicate in practice what Manning does on the Colts' bread and butter zone stretch.

Manning's greatness isn't because of stats. It is because of the way he takes mediocre teammates and makes them look like Super Bowl contenders. If he can find a single mismatch, he can beat you by 4 TDs. But he can't work miracles. The Pats have substantially better players at just about every single position. the idea that one player, in the ultimate team game, is somehow obligated to play so well that he makes up for an enormous talent difference for the rest of the team is just ridiculous.

Hopefully, when I get it written and if you read it, you'll understand my position.

Sorry for the irritation. Thanks for reading.

10:05 AM, January 28, 2005  
Blogger Acres said...

Me Vagabond, I changed my posting name.

My apologies for being an irritant as well. I've enjoyed your blog since I've found it. Believe me, it was nice having a civil debate ~ my previous one involved trying to tell my 22 mo girl the importance of taking a bath! Since I don't understand much of what she "says," the debate is usually one-sided, with me losing.

1:30 PM, January 28, 2005  
Blogger Stan said...

My daughter is 21 mos. I know where you are coming from. It is my 11 year old who is REALLY impossible to reason with. When he wants something, reason has no bearing on the discussion.

6:23 PM, January 28, 2005  
Blogger Sports Junky said...

I agree,

I love NFL. and recently I have bought stock in it. Not like real stock on Wall street, but a stock market that is strictly for sports.

You have seen it? Its pretty cool. You buy issues for your favorite teams and you make real money. Not like a fake stock simulator. I cash out Dividends each time the team wins. Also I can sell my team stock when the price goes up.

check it out if something like this interests you.
heres a link http://allsportsmarket.com
you can log in and check it out for free..

They just released IPO'S for NFL this week, so there are alot of good deals there.

Keep up the good work on your blog!
-Erik

1:42 PM, October 03, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home