Would You Rather Have

[-X-]

That's because Brady has already proven himself MANY times in the past.

Agreed. It's a double-standard nonetheless though, and you know what I'm talking about. When the Rams won with Bradford at the helm, and he only completed 7 or 8 passes for two TD's, his detractors would make a big deal out of how he didn't do anything. Any time his stat line was modest, he was a non-factor apparently. Yet when any other QB does it (established or no), then it's the QB who's the catalyst for the win. It's all one big girl's locker room out there when it comes to discussing the QB of this team, and how important a team effort really is when the quality of the entire cast (as a whole) is so unproven.

But back to my original post. It's fairly obvious that the entire lot of receivers that have shuffled through here has been either (a) not very good at all, (b) unreliable, or (c) too often injured for the QB (whoever it is) to have any kind of sustainable success. The Rams may not have been a playoff team if Bradford could have traded all 27 of those guys in for Calvin Johnson, but you can believe that his numbers would be exponentially better.

 

[RamFan503]

Can we call a moratorium against the word BRADY on this forum? Besides, we've all seen what happens when he has less than six or eight seconds to deliver the ball. Think there's a mystery about why bellifat picks linemen so high in the draft - consistently?

 

[max]

Regardless of the criticism folks want to toss Brady's way, his team is 12-4. And he's done that with mostly jags. Plus, it's not like the Pats D is anything special. FO has the Pats D rated 21st, while the Rams are 12th.

While we all acknowledge that the Pats are good because of their offense, do we realize that they do it with below average talent around Brady? I mean, he's had Gronk for 6 games. And Danny A has played in 12 but only started 6. Just amazing. They have a great HC and QB, a solid OL, and little else.

 

[Username]

Regardless of the criticism folks want to toss Brady's way, his team is 12-4. And he's done that with mostly jags. Plus, it's not like the Pats D is anything special. FO has the Pats D rated 21st, while the Rams are 12th.

While we all acknowledge that the Pats are good because of their offense, do we realize that they do it with below average talent around Brady? I mean, he's had Gronk for 6 games. And Danny A has played in 12 but only started 6. Just amazing. They have a great HC and QB, a solid OL, and little else.

I wouldn't call having Rodger Goodell in your back pocket or free reign to cheat nothing.

 

[max]

Agreed. It's a double-standard nonetheless though, and you know what I'm talking about. When the Rams won with Bradford at the helm, and he only completed 7 or 8 passes for two TD's, his detractors would make a big deal out of how he didn't do anything. Any time his stat line was modest, he was a non-factor apparently. Yet when any other QB does it (established or no), then it's the QB who's the catalyst for the win. It's all one big girl's locker room out there when it comes to discussing the QB of this team, and how important a team effort really is when the quality of the entire cast (as a whole) is so unproven.

But back to my original post. It's fairly obvious that the entire lot of receivers that have shuffled through here has been either (a) not very good at all, (b) unreliable, or (c) too often injured for the QB (whoever it is) to have any kind of sustainable success. The Rams may not have been a playoff team if Bradford could have traded all 27 of those guys in for Calvin Johnson, but you can believe that his numbers would be exponentially better.

I was listening to Daniel Jeremiah on the radio and he said he was talking to some NFL personnel guys about the Rams talent. They said the Rams will have a ton of talent next year, but they will still lose. There was laughing all around. I guess its a common belief that the Rams have more talent than several playoff teams but won't translate the talent into winning performance. They all agreed on one thing, the Rams have got to get their QB situation right if they are ever going to win. Otherwise, Fisher will be flirting with .500 ball until he is gone.

 

[kurtfaulk]

That's because Brady has already proven himself MANY times in the past.

I honestly think he's slowing down a little. Just look at Brady's numbers before Gronk. He didn't have anyone special then with the exception of Moss for a stint.

his numbers were middle of the pack until he had moss to throw to.

.

 

[max]

I wouldn't call having Rodger Goodell in your back pocket or free reign to cheat nothing.

How has having Goodell in their back pocket helped them this year? They've had some bad call go against them, and yet they still one 12 games. And they have lost a bunch of playoff games without getting any favoritism as well.

Lets face it. They may not be great but they are still very good without the cheating.

 

[max]

his numbers were middle of the pack until he had moss to throw to.

.

Fine. Explain to me how the Pats continue to win all these freaking games then? And it's not the defense.

 

[Username]

How has having Goodell in their back pocket helped them this year? They've had some bad call go against them, and yet they still one 12 games. And they have lost a bunch of playoff games without getting any favoritism as well.

Lets face it. They may not be great but they are still very good without the cheating.

Oh, they're still cheating.

 

[RamFan503]

Meh. I will NEVER compliment the patsies. Just can't do it. I don't look down on anyone who does. That just ain't in my wheelhouse. I'm blinded by hate.

 

[RamFan503]

Now how in the FUCK do the patsies derail a thread on THIS site? Were they even in the discussion? Nope.

Back to our regularly scheduled program.... I'd take Calvin twice on Sundays.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Fine. Explain to me how the Pats continue to win all these freaking games then? And it's not the defense.

They're a well coached team that doesn't shoot itself in the foot in critical situations. Plus they play in such an easy division. And Brady is well protected so he had time to find someone, anyone that's open. And apparently their oline doesn't hold at all.

.

 

[V3]

his numbers were middle of the pack until he had moss to throw to.

.

2005 was good and he had JAGs. I don't consider Dion Branch anything special. Brady made Branch. Just ask Seattle.

 

[-X-]

Fine. Explain to me how the Pats continue to win all these freaking games then? And it's not the defense.

How is a top 10 defense in points allowed not good enough?

Playing 4 games against teams with a winning record also helps.
Whereas, the Rams played 9 games against teams with a winning record.

Brady had a 60% completion percentage
Bradford/Clemens had 58.3%

Brady had 25 TDs to 11 ints
Bradford/Clemens had 22 TDs to 11 ints.

Brady had an 87 QB Rating
Bradford/Clemens were at 84.

The Patriots' O-line had 3 guys who started and finished the season, 1 guy with 15 games (Solder), and a small issue at RT
The Rams had zero guys start and finish the season at their position on the O-line.

I'd give just as much credit to coaching, team health, SOS and luck, than I would to one guy who had an average year by his own standards.

 

[kurtfaulk]

2005 was good and he had JAGs. I don't consider Dion Branch anything special. Brady made Branch. Just ask Seattle.

He also had all day to stand in the pocket and find the open receiver. This is far more important than a stud receiver.

.

 

[max]

How is a top 10 defense in points allowed not good enough?

Playing 4 games against teams with a winning record also helps.
Whereas, the Rams played 9 games against teams with a winning record.

Brady had a 60% completion percentage
Bradford/Clemens had 58.3%

Brady had 25 TDs to 11 ints
Bradford/Clemens had 22 TDs to 11 ints.

Brady had an 87 QB Rating
Bradford/Clemens were at 84.

The Patriots' O-line had 3 guys who started and finished the season, 1 guy with 15 games (Solder), and a small issue at RT
The Rams had zero guys start and finish the season at their position on the O-line.

I'd give just as much credit to coaching, team health, SOS and luck, than I would to one guy who had an average year by his own standards.

That top 10 D in pts allowed is helped in large part because of SOS. They haven't played many good offenses.

And by that measure, their offense is 3rd in pts scored. So how did they do that with the lack of talent on offense?

Explain how they are 3rd in pts scored with a QB who has played no better than Bradford/Clemems?

 

[-X-]

That top 10 D in pts allowed is helped in large part because of SOS. They haven't played many good offenses.

And by that measure, their offense is 3rd in pts scored. So how did they do that with the lack of talent on offense?

Explain how they are 3rd in pts scored with a QB who has played no better than Bradford/Clemems?

You explain it. I gave you all the ingredients. If you only throw for 3 more TDs than the Rams did, what happened? And remember what you said about SOS too, when thinking about this.

Could it be their 19 rushing TDs to our 10?
Could it be their 38 field goals to our 26?

 

[bskrilla]

That top 10 D in pts allowed is helped in large part because of SOS. They haven't played many good offenses.

And by that measure, their offense is 3rd in pts scored. So how did they do that with the lack of talent on offense?

Explain how they are 3rd in pts scored with a QB who has played no better than Bradford/Clemems?

Well one thing that doesn't hurt is having 19 rushing TD's. Ridley, Blount, Vereen and Bolden all averaged over 4 yards a carry and all had at least 1 TD. They also rushed for a combined 2000 yards.

 

[RamFan503]

That top 10 D in pts allowed is helped in large part because of SOS. They haven't played many good offenses.

And by that measure, their offense is 3rd in pts scored. So how did they do that with the lack of talent on offense?

Explain how they are 3rd in pts scored with a QB who has played no better than Bradford/Clemems?

The combined record of their opponents? Could that have anything to do with it?

 

[max]

Well one thing that doesn't hurt is having 19 rushing TD's. Ridley, Blount, Vereen and Bolden all averaged over 4 yards a carry and all had at least 1 TD. They also rushed for a combined 2000 yards.

You think those RB are facing 9 in the box? No way. No one stacking up against the run against Brady. If Stacy was playing for the Pats he'd be lighting it up.

The difference maker is Brady and his OL. That's it on the field, that is. Then there is Belichick.