There are 69 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Sorry Tom Brady

That's why I don't bother buying Sports Illustrated. There are MUCH better writers right here in this forum!
Everyone knows brady is a statue behind that offensive line. I particularly hate the bouncing and pointing when he is in the pocket, emphasizing the hour he has to throw the ball. He finally plays a real defense and he crumbles.
[ Edited by JoseCortez on Feb 7, 2012 at 7:52 AM ]
Brady's reputation has now been slightly lowered.

Just goes to show you why it is better to not make it to the Superbowl at all than make it and lose.
His best weapon was at 25% and the other guys let him down (Welker, Branch). Realistically you can blame for the safety and a pick that wasn't a bad decision and really didn't hurt them, but after that he played a stellar football game.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Who would ever thought you could legitimate say Eli is better than Peyton?

You can't - because he's not. If Peyton had Eli's defenses, he'd have 5 rings by now.
Originally posted by kronik:
Why u feel sorry for the luckiest QB ever? He shouldn't had even been in the superbowl this year nor the tuck rule year. And when he is there, he barely plays well

well said....
Originally posted by tjd808185:
His best weapon was at 25% and the other guys let him down (Welker, Branch). Realistically you can blame for the safety and a pick that wasn't a bad decision and really didn't hurt them, but after that he played a stellar football game.

No, it was a terrible throw to a wide open Welker. Welker is not expecting to have to stop and jump backward for the ball. It is pretty much a last minute "Oh s**t" reaction to a terrible throw. Brady didn't execute as the play was practiced: fault Brady.
The Patriots were one 12 men on the field penalty away from the Championship.
Originally posted by HessianDud:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_rosenberg/02/06/brady.legacy/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2

anyone read this on SI? Basically saying that Brady had a great game for a s**tty Pats team and added to his legacy.

Now, I can buy the argument that this Pats team is not the most talented and that they got to the SB on Brady's arm. Sure. And he did for the most part play well, especially in the middle of the game. Fine.

But listen to this s**t:

If you think Montana was better, that's fine. Montana was phenomenal. But if we're going to discuss it, we should at least point out that Brady has been sturdier than Montana, and that midway through Montana's career, the 49ers added the best receiver in history to a contending roster. Jerry Rice did not make Joe Montana; Montana was an alltime great before Rice showed up. But I think it's fair to say Wes Welker is no Jerry Rice.

Basically saying Brady is better than Montana because he doesn't have Jerry Rice. Give me a f**king break. He was an all-time great before he got Randy Moss, no? And I love the charge that Montana wasn't "durable", with no mention of the fact that he played in an era when QB's could get leveled with no regard.

I can buy that the loss didn't hurt Brady's legacy as much as some people are saying, but the above is absolute BS.

They always neglect the phenomenal offensive line Brady has played behind since forever, you know the same OL that allows him to be an immobile statue back there. In the rare instance they allow pressure, he is very average, maybe even less than average.

Montana was a surgeon with the pressure in his face. And without.
Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_rosenberg/02/06/brady.legacy/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2

anyone read this on SI? Basically saying that Brady had a great game for a s**tty Pats team and added to his legacy.

Now, I can buy the argument that this Pats team is not the most talented and that they got to the SB on Brady's arm. Sure. And he did for the most part play well, especially in the middle of the game. Fine.

But listen to this s**t:

If you think Montana was better, that's fine. Montana was phenomenal. But if we're going to discuss it, we should at least point out that Brady has been sturdier than Montana, and that midway through Montana's career, the 49ers added the best receiver in history to a contending roster. Jerry Rice did not make Joe Montana; Montana was an alltime great before Rice showed up. But I think it's fair to say Wes Welker is no Jerry Rice.

Basically saying Brady is better than Montana because he doesn't have Jerry Rice. Give me a f**king break. He was an all-time great before he got Randy Moss, no? And I love the charge that Montana wasn't "durable", with no mention of the fact that he played in an era when QB's could get leveled with no regard.

I can buy that the loss didn't hurt Brady's legacy as much as some people are saying, but the above is absolute BS.

They always neglect the phenomenal offensive line Brady has played behind since forever, you know the same OL that allows him to be an immobile statue back there. In the rare instance they allow pressure, he is very average, maybe even less than average.

Montana was a surgeon with the pressure in his face. And without.

yeah, its just absurd. Brady is one of the all-time greats, for sure. and getting to 5 Super Bowls is incredible. But arguing that what happened last Sunday is somehow proof that he is the greatest of all time is f**king stupid. Sportswriters and commentators today are the dumbest bunch of s**tpiles ever. They are the Joe Montana of retards.
Originally posted by Apone:
You never was and never will be Joe Montana. And after today that comparison should be put to rest.

Why would you assume Tom Brady is trying to be Joe Montana? I would assume he's perfectly happy being Tom Brady. Only fans who are living in the past could possibly care or even think up things like this.
Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_rosenberg/02/06/brady.legacy/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2

anyone read this on SI? Basically saying that Brady had a great game for a s**tty Pats team and added to his legacy.

Now, I can buy the argument that this Pats team is not the most talented and that they got to the SB on Brady's arm. Sure. And he did for the most part play well, especially in the middle of the game. Fine.

But listen to this s**t:

If you think Montana was better, that's fine. Montana was phenomenal. But if we're going to discuss it, we should at least point out that Brady has been sturdier than Montana, and that midway through Montana's career, the 49ers added the best receiver in history to a contending roster. Jerry Rice did not make Joe Montana; Montana was an alltime great before Rice showed up. But I think it's fair to say Wes Welker is no Jerry Rice.

Basically saying Brady is better than Montana because he doesn't have Jerry Rice. Give me a f**king break. He was an all-time great before he got Randy Moss, no? And I love the charge that Montana wasn't "durable", with no mention of the fact that he played in an era when QB's could get leveled with no regard.

I can buy that the loss didn't hurt Brady's legacy as much as some people are saying, but the above is absolute BS.

They always neglect the phenomenal offensive line Brady has played behind since forever, you know the same OL that allows him to be an immobile statue back there. In the rare instance they allow pressure, he is very average, maybe even less than average.

Montana was a surgeon with the pressure in his face. And without.

Brady faces plenty of pressure. What superstars are on Brady's 'phenominal' line? His LG Mankins is the best of the bunch but Brady won all 3 of his super bowls before he was in the league. Matt Light is above average. The rest of the line are pretty much, and always have been, low drafted or undrafted journeymen. Brady makes his line look better than it is, much like Peyton Manning does.
[ Edited by jojomellon on Feb 12, 2012 at 1:47 AM ]
Originally posted by jojomellon:
Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_rosenberg/02/06/brady.legacy/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2

anyone read this on SI? Basically saying that Brady had a great game for a s**tty Pats team and added to his legacy.

Now, I can buy the argument that this Pats team is not the most talented and that they got to the SB on Brady's arm. Sure. And he did for the most part play well, especially in the middle of the game. Fine.

But listen to this s**t:

If you think Montana was better, that's fine. Montana was phenomenal. But if we're going to discuss it, we should at least point out that Brady has been sturdier than Montana, and that midway through Montana's career, the 49ers added the best receiver in history to a contending roster. Jerry Rice did not make Joe Montana; Montana was an alltime great before Rice showed up. But I think it's fair to say Wes Welker is no Jerry Rice.

Basically saying Brady is better than Montana because he doesn't have Jerry Rice. Give me a f**king break. He was an all-time great before he got Randy Moss, no? And I love the charge that Montana wasn't "durable", with no mention of the fact that he played in an era when QB's could get leveled with no regard.

I can buy that the loss didn't hurt Brady's legacy as much as some people are saying, but the above is absolute BS.

They always neglect the phenomenal offensive line Brady has played behind since forever, you know the same OL that allows him to be an immobile statue back there. In the rare instance they allow pressure, he is very average, maybe even less than average.

Montana was a surgeon with the pressure in his face. And without.

Brady faces plenty of pressure. What superstars are on Brady's 'phenominal' line? His LG Mankins is the best of the bunch but Brady won all 3 of his super bowls before he was in the league. Matt Light is above average. The rest of the line are pretty much, and always have been, low drafted or undrafted journeymen. Brady makes his line look better than it is, much like Peyton Manning does.

I disagree. Peyton Manning is a lot better at handling pressure in his face than Brady. Manning makes his line look better than it does, Brady doesn't make it so as much. Too many times I've seen Brady just stand back for over 5 seconds.

It also doesn't matter that there are no superstars on Brady's offensive line. I'm of the belief that collective performance trumps individual personnel when it comes to the offensive line.
[ Edited by 9erfanAUS on Feb 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM ]