Isn't it funny how QBs with great O-lines...

[BuffaloRanger]

never get accused of holding the ball to long?

Because they have a strong O-line they can hold the ball and wait for the long routes to open up.

But with a weak O-line they are supposed to get rid of it quicker, to WRs that are still covered.

Maybe QBs don't just lose it suddenly - Warner, Bledsoe, etc - maybe they can't make the adjustment.

So then I think the answer becomes...Improve your linemen or your QB.

What have the Bills done? I hope improving coaching was enough.

[Bufftp]

:bf1:

I believe the key to a great O is a great O-line.

[Tatonka]

we dont have to worry about that.. because drew will never and has never been a great qb.. regardless of his oline.

[don137]

The same can be said that QBs that hold onto the ball too long never are said to have a great offensive line...

[Tatonka]

funny... last i checked.. all qbs in the nfl should be very good if they have good olines.

[Jan Reimers]

Originally posted by Bufftp
:bf1:

I believe the key to a great O is a great O-line.

It is, and ours has to be better because of McNally. And whether you like Drew or not, he will be better because of the O line improvement.

Love your sig, Bufftp.

[justasportsfan]

Originally posted by Tatonka
we dont have to worry about that.. because drew will never and has never been a great qb.. regardless of his oline. Mularkey said, he will not make his players do what they can't do. I guess he won't make Drew make his own calls. If he can make Drew do what he's only told to do, we'll be fine.

[LtBillsFan66]

Great post! :up:

[Goobylal]

Originally posted by Tatonka
we dont have to worry about that.. because drew will never and has never been a great qb.. regardless of his oline.
Got a question for you Tat. Do you consider Kelly a "great QB?" Why or why not.

[Ickybaluky]

How can you blame Warner's injury on a bad O-Line?

You can point to injury, but the fact is Marc Bulger played a lot better than him with the same O-Line.

As for Drew, Brady played a lot better than him with pretty much the same team. When the Patriots won the Super Bowl, Brady was sacked 41 times. That O-Line wasn't much to write home about, but Brady got the job done with limited talent around him.

In Buffalo, did the O-Line suck all of a sudden after 6 games? The first 6 games of 2002 Drew was on fire, then he steadily got worse and finished the season playing poorly. Did the O-Line suddenly get sucky after 6 games?

It isn't like Drew didn't have the running game to take the pressure off, Travis Henry has had some big games while Drew struggled.

Maybe you guys should consider that Drew is what he is, and isn't going to change any more than Rob Johnson did.

[saviorbledsoe]

Originally posted by NE39
How can you blame Warner's injury on a bad O-Line?

You can point to injury, but the fact is Marc Bulger played a lot better than him with the same O-Line.

As for Drew, Brady played a lot better than him with pretty much the same team. When the Patriots won the Super Bowl, Brady was sacked 41 times. That O-Line wasn't much to write home about, but Brady got the job done with limited talent around him.

In Buffalo, did the O-Line suck all of a sudden after 6 games? The first 6 games of 2002 Drew was on fire, then he steadily got worse and finished the season playing poorly. Did the O-Line suddenly get sucky after 6 games?

It isn't like Drew didn't have the running game to take the pressure off, Travis Henry has had some big games while Drew struggled.

Maybe you guys should consider that Drew is what he is, and isn't going to change any more than Rob Johnson did.

and maybe the team didnt know how good it was under Drew and just needed a change? I may be wrong but Bulger was the starting QB when he was injured and the Rams out of NOWHERE won the superbowl in 99 but Bulger is still a great qb. The team didnt know how good it was until there wasa change and it had to rally around the backup qb.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by NE39
How can you blame Warner's injury on a bad O-Line?

You can point to injury, but the fact is Marc Bulger played a lot better than him with the same O-Line.

As for Drew, Brady played a lot better than him with pretty much the same team. When the Patriots won the Super Bowl, Brady was sacked 41 times. That O-Line wasn't much to write home about, but Brady got the job done with limited talent around him.

In Buffalo, did the O-Line suck all of a sudden after 6 games? The first 6 games of 2002 Drew was on fire, then he steadily got worse and finished the season playing poorly. Did the O-Line suddenly get sucky after 6 games?

It isn't like Drew didn't have the running game to take the pressure off, Travis Henry has had some big games while Drew struggled.

Maybe you guys should consider that Drew is what he is, and isn't going to change any more than Rob Johnson did.

:up:

All valid points and I agree 100%.

I just hope the rest of the offense improves enough to overcome Drew's many shortcomings. Actually, I hope JP shows unreal progress in camp/preseason and ends up starting. ;)

Seriously, I read an article today that Bradshaw is strongly promoting that Coughlin should start Eli. The reasons he gives are pretty compelling IMO. I mean, Bradshaw was a rookie starter himself and I think he turned out "okay". ;)

[Goobylal]

Originally posted by NE39
How can you blame Warner's injury on a bad O-Line?

You can point to injury, but the fact is Marc Bulger played a lot better than him with the same O-Line.

As for Drew, Brady played a lot better than him with pretty much the same team. When the Patriots won the Super Bowl, Brady was sacked 41 times. That O-Line wasn't much to write home about, but Brady got the job done with limited talent around him.

In Buffalo, did the O-Line suck all of a sudden after 6 games? The first 6 games of 2002 Drew was on fire, then he steadily got worse and finished the season playing poorly. Did the O-Line suddenly get sucky after 6 games?

It isn't like Drew didn't have the running game to take the pressure off, Travis Henry has had some big games while Drew struggled.

Maybe you guys should consider that Drew is what he is, and isn't going to change any more than Rob Johnson did.
Maybe, just maybe, Tom Brady is the perfect QB for the Patriots' system (and believe me, it IS a system)? Maybe all those new players they added prior to the 2001 season started to jell right when Bledsoe went down, seeing as how they gave up 23 points to the mighty Bengals' offense, and then just 17 to the impotent Colts' offense? Maybe Bledsoe having crap coaches and/or players for most of his career in NE AND in Buffalo, unlike Brady whose had Weis and some great system (again) players? I guess we'll find out this year, because the Bills have some good players AND coaches now, not to mention a good defense.

[ScottLawrence]

Originally posted by Goobylal
Maybe, just maybe, Tom Brady is the perfect QB for the Patriots' system (and believe me, it IS a system)? Maybe all those new players they added prior to the 2001 season started to jell right when Bledsoe went down, seeing as how they gave up 23 points to the mighty Bengals' offense, and then just 17 to the impotent Colts' offense? Maybe Bledsoe having crap coaches and/or players for most of his career in NE AND in Buffalo, unlike Brady whose had Weis and some great system (again) players? I guess we'll find out this year, because the Bills have some good players AND coaches now, not to mention a good defense.


Our O-Line is still pretty bad.

[HenryRules]

That first Super Bowl year in St. Louis Trent Green was supposed to be the starter before he got injured and Warner took over. Neither played in St. Louis the year before (I think Green was in Washington that year).

Bulger wasn't even in the NFL in those days ... this is only his 4th season now.

I don't think any of St. Louis' starting QB's pre-Warner are doing anything.

[saviorbledsoe]

Originally posted by HenryRules
That first Super Bowl year in St. Louis Trent Green was supposed to be the starter before he got injured and Warner took over. Neither played in St. Louis the year before (I think Green was in Washington that year).

Bulger wasn't even in the NFL in those days ... this is only his 4th season now.

I don't think any of St. Louis' starting QB's pre-Warner are doing anything.

Ok but I think we can agree that Trent Green is a great QB.

[HenryRules]

Yes, Green is a great QB.

But neither Green nor Warner (nor Bulger) was the starting QB for the Rams the year before the Super Bowl. You were trying to draw a correlation between Brady taking over for Drew and winning the Super bowl and Warner taking over as a backup in St. Louis, but if that's what you're trying to do, it's not helping your case about Drew. Both Green and Warner played well when they played in the Super Bowl year. Neither played the year before (I can't remember who the crappy QB was that year). The big improvement in that team was in large part due to the big improvement at QB from the year before. Now, since you're drawing comparisons with St. Louis, are you saying that the reason the Pats won that first Super Bowl was because of the big upgrade at QB over the year before?

[Goobylal]

Originally posted by ScottLawrence
Our O-Line is still pretty bad.
Consider this: the Bills' O-line is right now probably better than it was in 2002, when Bledsoe set several single-season (nice alliteration!) passing records, both in terms of talent AND especially coaching. Moreover the Bills have some competent OC'ing that can negate some of the problems on the O-line, as well as a running game that will feature 2 excellent runners.

[Mr. Cynical]

The crappy QB before Warner/Green was Tony Banks. :)

IMO Green is not a great QB. Very competent, yes...even very good....but he cannot will a team to win nor carry it on his back.

[Tatonka]

Originally posted by Goobylal
Got a question for you Tat. Do you consider Kelly a "great QB?" Why or why not.

tough question..

but unfortunately.. i would have to say no.. the only great qbs of my time that i can think of are...

farve
young
montana
brady - god, that hurts

that is about all i can think of at the moment.. i am sure you will notice that they all have rings and led their teams to a couple superbowl wins..

see this is a double edged question.. if i say yes, kelly was great.. which is what my heart tells me.. then it is only a matter of time before you compair him to bledsoe.. in some way shape or form..

if i say no.. then i am ****ting on a buffalo icon.. and it makes me look like a guy that has expectations that are too high..

i will say for the record.. jim kelly is one of my favorite all time players.. but he didnt carry the team on his back.. he had a great team to work with, which his numbers reflect.

all the guys on that list won big games.. and carried their teams.. especially brady.. he won 2 superbowls with no names and no rbs.. being a no name himself.. it really is impressive.. and sucks at the same time.

i look for a guy that is clutch in the big games.. AND has the capability of loading the team on his back when he has to.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by Tatonka
tough question..

but unfortunately.. i would have to say no.. the only great qbs of my time that i can think of are...

farve
young
montana
brady - god, that hurts

that is about all i can think of at the moment.. i am sure you will notice that they all have rings and led their teams to a couple superbowl wins..

see this is a double edged question.. if i say yes, kelly was great.. which is what my heart tells me.. then it is only a matter of time before you compair him to bledsoe.. in some way shape or form..

if i say no.. then i am ****ting on a buffalo icon.. and it makes me look like a guy that has expectations that are too high..

i will say for the record.. jim kelly is one of my favorite all time players.. but he didnt carry the team on his back.. he had a great team to work with, which his numbers reflect.

all the guys on that list won big games.. and carried their teams.. especially brady.. he won 2 superbowls with no names and no rbs.. being a no name himself.. it really is impressive.. and sucks at the same time.

i look for a guy that is clutch in the big games.. AND has the capability of loading the team on his back when he has to.

I agree with 3 of the 4, but I really can't see how you put Brady in there. The reason they won 2 SBs is simple: Belichick. Without his coaching, scheming, etc., the Pats go nowhere. Brady is a solid QB but I don't see him carrying his team or willing them to win. Nor does he have a golden arm.... I dunno, I just don't see it.

To add to your list:

Favre (my all time favorite QB, period)
Montana
Young
Elway
Marino

Each of those guys were/are incredible leaders/motivators and had an incredible grasp of the game, along with some pretty darn good arms (Marino/Favre being tied for first IMO).

As for Kelly....agreed, very tough call. I think he is right on the cusp if you ask me. I don't think the Bills go to 4 straight without him, even with all that talent on the team. He was a leader and a general. He also tossed a pretty good ball in his prime. If he had pulled an Elway and won that last one vs Dallas (which was very doable had it not been for that @#&% fumble in the opening of the second half) I believe eveyone's perception would be different.

But winning the big one does not automatically prove you are a great QB as there are guys like Rypien and Dilfer who are obviously not great. And on the flipside, losing them doesn't preclude you from being great either, as you have guys like Marino (and to some extent Elway who was still considered great even before those wins).

Let's just hope we are having this conversation 10 years from now about JP in a favorable light. :D

[Dozerdog]

Gotta put Elway in there.......he took a lot of average talent to the super bowl (and lost)


finally won it with good talent around him.

[colin]

Originally posted by HenryRules
Yes, Green is a great QB.

But neither Green nor Warner (nor Bulger) was the starting QB for the Rams the year before the Super Bowl. You were trying to draw a correlation between Brady taking over for Drew and winning the Super bowl and Warner taking over as a backup in St. Louis, but if that's what you're trying to do, it's not helping your case about Drew. Both Green and Warner played well when they played in the Super Bowl year. Neither played the year before (I can't remember who the crappy QB was that year). The big improvement in that team was in large part due to the big improvement at QB from the year before. Now, since you're drawing comparisons with St. Louis, are you saying that the reason the Pats won that first Super Bowl was because of the big upgrade at QB over the year before?

i think marshal faulk coming aboard might have just a touch to do with that st loius team, don't you?

how about smith being the sack leader, and winstrom coming into his own? could holt breaking out into being a great player contribute a bit?

there are a whole lot more players on a team than the qb.

[Ickybaluky]

I agree with 3 of the 4, but I really can't see how you put Brady in there. The reason they won 2 SBs is simple: Belichick. Without his coaching, scheming, etc., the Pats go nowhere. Brady is a solid QB but I don't see him carrying his team or willing them to win.

You don't watch Brady play on a regular basis. Brady is a huge reason why they won. I don't deny he benefits from great coaching, but so did Joe Montana. Brady would be great in any system, IMO. I don't think it is the system. Also, a big reason for the Pats success is Brady's ability to spread the ball around like a point guard. He has won despite not having a great OL, a consistent rushing attack, or go-to receiver.

[saviorbledsoe]

You guys think Kelly isnt a great QB???????????????????????????


Holy Mother Of God!

Does "Hall Of Fame" mean anything? How about eveything he did in Buffalo. Do I really need to remind you? This season really needs to start in a hurry because there is some deep sh^% happening in here.

[The Spaz]

People have lost their ****ing mind.:shakeno:

[Hemlepp53]

Originally posted by saviorbledsoe
You guys think Kelly isnt a great QB???????????????????????????


Holy Mother Of God!

Does "Hall Of Fame" mean anything? How about eveything he did in Buffalo. Do I really need to remind you? This season really needs to start in a hurry because there is some deep sh^% happening in here.

Agreed... Kelly is a top QB from our era. Also i agree with adding Young, Marino, Farve, Elway, and Montana.

Now heres the hard one. Name the Top 5 Offensive players in the AFC East Currently ??? I will post mine after seeing what others post.

[The Spaz]

People don't remember who turned this franchise around?!:shakeno:

[Goobylal]

I agree with Cynical. Brady is a system QB. He's been made by Weis. Watch any game and you see Brady's first option more often than not is open, and that's the reason he gets the ball out so quickly. Moreover his O-line is stout up the middle and he can step-up into the pocket to avoid the outside rush, and the blockers up-front keep the blitz out of his face pretty well. But it's a team built on their defense primarily and the proof of that is the defense slipping in 2002 and them missing the playoffs.

As for using 2 rings as your argument, Dilfer would have had 2 rings if the Ravens had kept him. Favre is a MUCH better QB than Brady, and he has one and didn't win MVP even though he played a HELL of a lot better than Brady did in SB XXXV. And Marino, well, you know.

[Tatonka]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
I agree with 3 of the 4, but I really can't see how you put Brady in there. The reason they won 2 SBs is simple: Belichick. Without his coaching, scheming, etc., the Pats go nowhere. Brady is a solid QB but I don't see him carrying his team or willing them to win. Nor does he have a golden arm.... I dunno, I just don't see it.

To add to your list:

Favre (my all time favorite QB, period)
Montana
Young
Elway
Marino

Each of those guys were/are incredible leaders/motivators and had an incredible grasp of the game, along with some pretty darn good arms (Marino/Favre being tied for first IMO).

As for Kelly....agreed, very tough call. I think he is right on the cusp if you ask me. I don't think the Bills go to 4 straight without him, even with all that talent on the team. He was a leader and a general. He also tossed a pretty good ball in his prime. If he had pulled an Elway and won that last one vs Dallas (which was very doable had it not been for that @#&% fumble in the opening of the second half) I believe eveyone's perception would be different.

But winning the big one does not automatically prove you are a great QB as there are guys like Rypien and Dilfer who are obviously not great. And on the flipside, losing them doesn't preclude you from being great either, as you have guys like Marino (and to some extent Elway who was still considered great even before those wins).

Let's just hope we are having this conversation 10 years from now about JP in a favorable light. :D

i guess i see elway much like i do kelly.. a very very good qb.. but not a great one. the superbowls he got, i feel like, were basically due to TD.. terrell davis was unstoppable during that time period.

as for marino.. i guess it is unavoidable that you have to put him on there.. i actually had him on there.. but deleted his name.. but i am not going to argue that point.


Originally posted by Dozerdog
Gotta put Elway in there.......he took a lot of average talent to the super bowl (and lost)


finally won it with good talent around him.

see above post.


Originally posted by saviorbledsoe
You guys think Kelly isnt a great QB???????????????????????????


Holy Mother Of God!

Does "Hall Of Fame" mean anything? How about eveything he did in Buffalo. Do I really need to remind you? This season really needs to start in a hurry because there is some deep sh^% happening in here.

savior.. i am not saying that i didnt love kelly.. he was great for buffalo.. but i dont see him as a clutch game performer.. at least not in the superbowl when we needed him most.. i know it is not all his fault.. and if he would have just won those 4 games... he may be considered the best there ever was.. i liked the guy.. i loved him as our qb.. but i dont use the hall of fame as a measuring stick as to whether or not a qb is great... in kelly's case.. i think he was VERY good.. but he was NOT the guys that i listed above.



Originally posted by The Spaz
People don't remember who turned this franchise around?!:shakeno:

i remember.. but the question was not "did kelly turn around the franchise".. the question was "is kelly a great qb" and in my opinion, he was just below that..

i guess maybe i dont understand how you guys can think a guy was so great that never won a superbowl.. spaz.. you ask if i remember what kelly did... yeah.. i do.. i remember being the laughing stock of the league after losing superbowls to the redskins, and cowboys twice.. kelly had a large hand in that too, unfortunately.

look.. i dont want to get into a pissing match.. i loved kelly.. i have his jersey.. i used to watch games with his brothers (richmond, va locals).. hell.. kelly was the REASON i became a bills fan, because i met him when i was young here in richmond. i have more autographed Kelly stuff than any other athlete..

but my criteria for being a great qb.. is winning..

and i disagree about brady.. i think brady is a clutch qb who is also in a good system.. but not anyone can run that system... as bledsoe made very obvious. and brady won TWO superbowls without a friggin running back.. something marino could not do his whole career.. and marino had the winningest coach in history..

i hate brady.. but he is on my list. sorry.

[Goobylal]

Winning is a TEAM stat, not an individual one. Making the HOF, like Kelly did, IS an individual accompishment. You cannot argue with that.

As for Brady, the fact that he hasn't been voted to the Pro Bowl the last 2 years says a lot, since it's players and coaches who make up most of the voting (and Brady is more a "name" player than Ruben ever was, so you can toss that excuse out). Furthermore Dr. Z called Brady a "role player" in his recent article about future HOF'ers. Lastly I heard someone say that he was listening to NFL Network's "playbook" and Belichick said that most fans think it's all about the QB, but people in the NFL know it's not, and that the Pats won their 2 SB's primarily thanks to their great defense.

[Ickybaluky]

If anything, Brady makes Weis not the other way around. Brady does not have a "stout" OL, he just makes them better because he gets rid of the ball. He is tremendous at reading defenses, and routinely spreads the ball around to 7-8 different receivers. He does this despite not having a running game to take the pressure off, or having a go-to WR like a Randy Moss or Torry Holt. His OL is pedestrian. The Pats offensive tools have improved, but they still aren't near the caliber of offensive talent that Indy or KC has, and yet Brady makes it work. If what Brady does is so easy, how come more QBs don't do it? You make is sound like all he does is hand off and throw dump passes, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

Think about it. Brady is 27 years old and so far has one of the most stirring starts to a career of any quarterback, ever. He's got 69 touchdowns and only 38 interceptions in 48 regular-season games. He's completed 63.9, 62.1 and 60.2 percent of his passes in his three seasons as a starter, and has had quarterback ratings of 86.5, 85.7 and 85.9. He's never lost in overtime, never lost a playoff game, and has directed two of the three final-possession, game-winning Super Bowl drives on record, being named MVP of both games.

Any you know what? He is getting better. 7 of Brady's interceptions last year came in the first 4 games, when the team was struggling (4 against Buffalo, 3 against Washington) and he was recovering from an elbow injury. For the remainder of the season (the Pats 15-game win streak) he only threw 7 ints while throwing 23 TDs. He didn't throw any interceptions at home all season, until the 2nd half of the AFC Championship game against Indy where he had his only one. This year, he has improved offensive talent around him and a running game to compliment him. His play-action fakes, which he does as well as anyone in the league, will have to respected. Now teams have to account for Dillon, so he won't be playing against defenses that are geared to stop him, like he did last year.

[Ickybaluky]

As for Brady, the fact that he hasn't been voted to the Pro Bowl the last 2 years says a lot

Montana only made the Pro Bowl once in his first 4 seasons, in 1981. His 2nd Pro Bowl did not come until his 5th season, 1983. Brady is entering his 5th season.

[Goobylal]

Did Montana ever not make the Pro Bowl in a SB winning season? As for him making Weis, your argument would hold more water if Weis didn't get the best season ever out of Vinny Testaverde while he was the OC of the Jets. And you'll get those gaudy completion percentages when you're throwing screens and slants to guys who get open quickly and CATCH the ball.

Look, Brady is a good QB. He plays within the system well. But as Phil Simms said in the SB last year, his receivers are WIDE OPEN most of the time. It's basically pitch and catch. And it's less about being able to read a defense as it is going with your first option. I guess we'll see when Weis leaves at the end of the year, and I know that Brady is worried about him leaving.

[Goobylal]

My last word on this is Brady doesn't experience near the success he does without his defense and a great FG kicker, who can make 45+ yard FG's easily. Not to mention the help of the refs in the playoffs. The Patriots are a good team who deserved having the 1st round bye in each of their SB seasons, but the officiating was a major factor in them winning both years, as evidenced by the NFL having to review +/- change rules the following year, and I have a problem with that.

[Voltron]

The one thing that Jim did that no other QB of his time did was calling his own plays. Even Montana was not given that kind of control. Kelly may have not had the physical gifts that Marino, Montana, Elway and Young had, but one thing that Jim had more than any of those was the ability to make lightning fast decisions with out screwing up the pace of the game. He was one of the smartest QBs ever to play. We will have to agree to disagree because I think Jim Kelly was a Great QB that was let down by his team 4 years in a row.

[buffmaniac]

In the one season that Brady's defense did not rank in the top 10 in points allowed, the team went 9-7 and missed the playoffs. Coincidence? Brady is a very good QB but that team has won 2 Super Bowls because of their defense.

As for Drew, in his first 6 seasons Drew averaged 26 sacks a season. He was the same immobile QB then that he is now. And quite frankly he is much smarter and more mature now than he was back then. Give him a decent OL and some open WRs and he will be just fine. You'll see.

[The Spaz]

I don't want to get into this anymore but the last thing I will say is it's not just the stats. or the wins it's the intangibles that Kelly brought to the QB position that makes him great IMO.

[Tatonka]

winning is EVERYTHING... winning is the only thing..

intangibles and all the other garbage doesnt meant crap if you lose the game.

imho.

[buffmaniac]

Originally posted by Tatonka
winning is EVERYTHING... winning is the only thing..

intangibles and all the other garbage doesnt meant crap if you lose the game.

imho.

Winning is everything but its also up to a team to win not just one player. I mean you think if I put Brady on the Cardinals they would have been a winning team last year. I don't think so. This is a team sport. Teams win and lose not just the QBs.

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by buffmaniac
Winning is everything but its also up to a team to win not just one player. I mean you think if I put Brady on the Cardinals they would have been a winning team last year. I don't think so. This is a team sport. Teams win and lose not just the QBs.

Got that right!

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by buffmaniac
In the one season that Brady's defense did not rank in the top 10 in points allowed, the team went 9-7 and missed the playoffs. Coincidence? Brady is a very good QB but that team has won 2 Super Bowls because of their defense.


Exactly (and BB has to be included as well since he is the one driving that bus)



Originally posted by NE39
If anything, Brady makes Weis not the other way around. Brady does not have a "stout" OL, he just makes them better because he gets rid of the ball. He is tremendous at reading defenses, and routinely spreads the ball around to 7-8 different receivers. He does this despite not having a running game to take the pressure off, or having a go-to WR like a Randy Moss or
Torry Holt. His OL is pedestrian. The Pats offensive tools have improved, but they still aren't near the caliber of offensive talent that Indy or KC has, and yet Brady makes it work. If what Brady does is so easy, how come more QBs don't do it? You make is sound like all he does is hand off and throw dump passes, but
that couldn't be further from the truth.

Think about it. Brady is 27 years old and so far has one of the most stirring starts to a career of any quarterback, ever. He's got 69 touchdowns and only 38 interceptions in 48 regular-season games. He's completed 63.9, 62.1 and 60.2 percent of his passes in his three seasons as a starter, and has had quarterback ratings of 86.5, 85.7 and 85.9. He's never lost in overtime, never lost a playoff game, and has directed two of the three final-possession, game-winning Super Bowl drives on record, being named MVP of both games.

See above. Field position is critical and the D constantly put the offense in good field position. That opens the playbook and takes alot of pressure off, which in turn benefits his performance. Starting off on your own 10 vs your 30 yard line makes a huge difference.

And as for the argument of "why didn't Drew have the same success as Brady with the same (more or less) team".... you know as well as I do that Drew is first and foremost a gunslinger and Brady is more of a caretaker. You can't have success in their system holding for the long bomb. Drew was never able to do that and hence got the boot. Brady is by nature that kind of QB and I will argue that you could take any "good" QB who can play that role and he will have the same success.

Again, I am not saying Brady isn't good. He is very solid. But to call him great or put him in the same category as Favre, Montana, Marino, Elway or Young is way off IMO.

[Hemlepp53]

Boy This Sure Turned Out Into a Full Blown Discussion. I'm not sure who does what around here.. but maybe a poll is in order.. lol

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Goobylal
Winning is a TEAM stat, not an individual one. Making the HOF, like Kelly did, IS an individual accompishment. You cannot argue with that. :10: :bf1:


Originally posted by Voltron
The one thing that Jim did that no other QB of his time did was calling his own plays. Even Montana was not given that kind of control. Kelly may have not had the physical gifts that Marino, Montana, Elway and Young had, but one thing that Jim had more than any of those was the ability to make lightning fast decisions with out screwing up the pace of the game. He was one of the smartest QBs ever to play. We will have to agree to disagree because I think Jim Kelly was a Great QB that was let down by his team 4 years in a row. Damn straight...he had his good games and his bad games but overall, his abilities elevated the performance of the players around him. That's a big prt of what makes a great QB, IMO....the ability to raise the level of play of those around him.


Originally posted by Tatonka
winning is EVERYTHING... winning is the only thing..

intangibles and all the other garbage doesnt meant crap if you lose the game.

imho. If it weren't a team game, I'd almost agree with you...but you can't put wins-losses solely on the shoulders of one player, no matter the position. Football is the ultimate team game and everyone must do their part for a win.

[Philagape]

To answer an earlier question:

Top 5 offensive players in the AFC East (no order):

Brady, Pennington, Moulds, Moss, Henry

Of course, my answer would have been different 2 weeks ago :D

[BillyT92679]

Know what's interesting? Nobody listed Troy Aikman as one of the great quarterbacks of the era. I disliked him more than Marino, but he did win three Super Bowls. Sure Emmitt and Irvin are/were great, but somebody had to qb that team.

[Mr. Cynical]

Actually Billy I was going to mention Aikman, but as an example of a QB who won the big games and still wasn't a "great" QB. In fact, he is probaby closer to what Brady is, although Troy had more talent on his SB teams.

[HenryRules]

Sorry, my earlier response about Green seems to have been misplaced.

Green is one of the better QB's of his time, but if "great" means "all-time-great" then Green most defintely is not a great QB. I was talking "great" as in "one of the best 5-10 QB's of his peak era.

Also, I do think that Faulk was a key to the Rams initial success (although I think Vermeil was more influential than either Faulk or Warner), but it wasn't me that was trying to compare the Rams situation with the Pats Bledsoe-Brady situation.

I was merely trying to point out how futile it was to compare Bledsoe-Brady with Bulger-Warner (which doesn't even include the appropriate names).

It seems that for SB (or should that be BS) and Dozer, as long as you're not criticizing TD, then it doesn't matter how much you stretch the truth, as long as it makes 17-31 look good.

[Tatonka]

Originally posted by buffmaniac
Winning is everything but its also up to a team to win not just one player. I mean you think if I put Brady on the Cardinals they would have been a winning team last year. I don't think so. This is a team sport. Teams win and lose not just the QBs.


if you put drew on a struggling patriots team, what did they do? lose..

if you put brady on the EXACT same team.. what did they do? win the superbowl.

one player can make a difference. no running back.. no great wr..

brady is a great qb.. i hate him.. but he is great.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
That's a big prt of what makes a great QB, IMO....the ability to raise the level of play of those around him.


If part of what makes a QB great is the performance of those around him ... then why can you not consider the performance of those around a QB when evaluating a QB's performance?

For example, if the team wins the Super Bowl with a QB (Brady) why is that not indicative of Brady performing better than a previous QB that didn't make the playoffs (Bledsoe)?

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by Tatonka
if you put drew on a struggling patriots team, what did they do? lose..

if you put brady on the EXACT same team.. what did they do? win the superbowl.

brady is a great qb.. i hate him.. but he is great.

Gotta call a flag on that play. ;)

It wasn't because brady was "great" that the exact same team won the SB. It was because Drew didn't fit that system and Brady did. That offense doesn't work with a lead footed gunslinger who waits for the big play (Drew). It works with a mobile, methodical caretaker who dinks and dunks and spreads the ball around (Brady).

Brady is not great. Say that out loud and you won't hate him as much. ;)