Is Tom Brady overhyped?

[The New Guy]

Brady won 2 SBs w/ Antowain Smith as his starting RB so obviously even during his first few years they were still trying to replace Curtis but still managed to win thanks to #12.

Antowain Smith was best back NE had since 97. Smith had over 1,100 yards with 12 TD's that year. Smith was not a spectacular back, but don't undervalue his contribution to the team that year. I believe that he was one of the reasons the Pats went from 5-11 the year before to 11-5.

2000 was Belichicks first season w/ NE but it wasn't his first season as a HC, 1994 was Carroll's first chance to be a HC and he at least had us in contention until early December.

Belichick's 1st year in Cle they were 6-10, his last year in Cle they were 5-11. he had ONE winning season in 5 years. Carroll has ONE losing season in 4 years.

Even if you compare just the first seasons of Carrol and Belichick, Belichik was more successful. You can't look at just the win / loss record. Carrol took over an 8-8 team and went 6-10. Anyway you look at it, that is not an improvement.

I know the Browns were in the AFC championship game in 89, but by the time Belichick took over, that team had unraveled. Kosar was playing terrible, and the team was last in the league in rushing and near the bottom in rushing defense. Belichick took over a 3-13 team and went 6-10. A losing season, but still an improvement.

Carrol may have only one losing season in 4 years, but that is only because he took over a good NE team. They progressively got worse every year he was the coach. I really doubt that if has took over the 8-8 team he finished with, that he has the 2 winning seasons he has.

Tougher competition in 1996? The AFC was better in 2001 and the AFC East was comparable in '96 to 2001 and actually AFC east teams won 41 games in 2001 compared to 39 in 1996. Bledsoe also didn't have Curtis to carry him to a SB like he did in 1996.

The 6-10 Cols became 6-10 b/c they had alot of injuries. early in the season they were playing like a playoff team. Indy was 2-0 when they faced them the first time, they then lost to the Raiders before facing the Pats again. So they started 2-3 but in non-Pats games they were 2-1 and they started 4-1 in non Pats games in their first 5 no pats games before things fell apart.

In 2000 Bledsoe couldn't beat 3-13 Cleveland or 5-11 Chicago so why would he have beaten those bad teams they faced in 2001?

I was comparing the 2000 schedule to the 2001 schedule, not the 96 schedule to the 2001 schedule. Things change from season to season. Bledsoe went 6-10 in 95 and could not beat the 7-9 Panthers, or the 7-9 Saints, but lead them to the Super Bowl on a much easier schedule in 96. It is very similar to what the Pats did in 2000 and 2001. Except in 2001, Brady took over and gets all the credit.

Other than the much easier schedule the Pats had in 01, they had a back in Smith that could take some of the pressure off of the QB.

Playing from behind against the Giants he only led them on an 80 yd TD drive to put his team up 4 w/ 2 1/2 to play.

Oh, that.

:foundout:


Not to shabby. But was that Brady, or the Giants D collapsing under the pressure of the Super Bowl?

Or maybe it was the cheating.

Ok, what did he do against the Colts in the AFC Championship game in 06? He threw an interception. :whew!:

Good debate, I like nice, civil discussions.:up:

We are proof to everyone that a Jet fan and a Dolphin fan can have a nice, civil discussion. :)

 

[BobDole]

Because that is the ONLY reason Miami had the opportunity to get slaughtered in the playoffs by Baltimore at home.

no argument here.

 

[Tailgater]

Oh, that.

:foundout:


Not to shabby. But was that Brady, or the Giants D collapsing under the pressure of the Super Bowl?

No, that was the OC finally taking his head out of his azz by having Moss go 10-15yds out instead of going deep the whole game. He was open the whole game, with the db's giving him a huge cushion.

Pats would have won by 2 scores if McDaniels had adjusted earlier in the game.

 

[nyjunc]

Antowain Smith was best back NE had since 97. Smith had over 1,100 yards with 12 TD's that year. Smith was not a spectacular back, but don't undervalue his contribution to the team that year. I believe that he was one of the reasons the Pats went from 5-11 the year before to 11-5.



Even if you compare just the first seasons of Carrol and Belichick, Belichik was more successful. You can't look at just the win / loss record. Carrol took over an 8-8 team and went 6-10. Anyway you look at it, that is not an improvement.

I know the Browns were in the AFC championship game in 89, but by the time Belichick took over, that team had unraveled. Kosar was playing terrible, and the team was last in the league in rushing and near the bottom in rushing defense. Belichick took over a 3-13 team and went 6-10. A losing season, but still an improvement.

Carrol may have only one losing season in 4 years, but that is only because he took over a good NE team. They progressively got worse every year he was the coach. I really doubt that if has took over the 8-8 team he finished with, that he has the 2 winning seasons he has.

I was comparing the 2000 schedule to the 2001 schedule, not the 96 schedule to the 2001 schedule. Things change from season to season. Bledsoe went 6-10 in 95 and could not beat the 7-9 Panthers, or the 7-9 Saints, but lead them to the Super Bowl on a much easier schedule in 96. It is very similar to what the Pats did in 2000 and 2001. Except in 2001, Brady took over and gets all the credit.

Other than the much easier schedule the Pats had in 01, they had a back in Smith that could take some of the pressure off of the QB.


Oh, that.

:foundout:


Not to shabby. But was that Brady, or the Giants D collapsing under the pressure of the Super Bowl?

Or maybe it was the cheating.

Ok, what did he do against the Colts in the AFC Championship game in 06? He threw an interception. :whew!:



We are proof to everyone that a Jet fan and a Dolphin fan can have a nice, civil discussion. :)

Antowain Smith is basically the definition of mediocre. he had one good year in NE but he wasn't scaring any defenses.


Their records w/o Brad tell the story. Carroll was a better coach than Belichick w/o Brady. 8-8 to 6-10 isn't much of a drop and again that team was in contention for the division in early December before they quit. The 8-8 team was also 7-4 and 8-5 before finishing 8-8. This wasn't a good team he took over. It's harder to build on 8-8 then it is to build o 3-13.

Kosar was decent in 1991 and he had Vinny for 3 years so he had stability at QB. In 7 years w/o Brady BB has ONE playoff app, in 4 years as a HC in the NFL Pete had 2 PO apps.

Again, he lost to crappy teams in 2000, why would things have been different in 2001? and why didn't he have success in Buffalo w/ some talented Bills teams that every year were picked to be playoff teams.

Good teams generally have talent, it's not Pete's fault he took over a decent NE team. BB took over 2 teams that had talent to build around.

Against the Colts he had a bad game, it happens. The man is 14-3 in postseason, he's had maybe a bad game or 2 in that span. Compare that to Manning who has had numerous bad games. Also, look at the talent he had in that '06 title game. he had a Corey Dillon at the end of his career and his WRs were Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney. It was absolutely amazing they were even in that game and had a chance to win on the road.

 

[X-Pacolypse]

Brady is certainly overhyped, but he isn't overrated. Love him or hate him the guy is a terrific quarterback. I just don't think he should be treated as the second coming of Christ or any other religious deity.

 

[PhinPhan910]

That'd be pretty big news.

And BTW Bess wasn't third in catches by rookies, he was 5th. WE NEED MORE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE GUY THAT WAS 5TH AMONGST ROOKIES IN CATCHES AND HAD ONE TOUCHDOWN! :dmonster:

3rd among receivers.
He was an undrafted rookie free agent,
its funny how u only mention he had 1 touchdown which is his worst stat.
But if u wanna get into big plays, Jerod Mayo ur linebacker who was i believe 10th overall selected had a forced fumble.
That really blows me away.

 

[TBW12]

3rd among receivers.
He was an undrafted rookie free agent,
its funny how u only mention he had 1 touchdown which is his worst stat.
But if u wanna get into big plays, Jerod Mayo ur linebacker who was i believe 10th overall selected had a forced fumble.
That really blows me away.

Oooooooh third amongst ROOKIE RECEIVERS. Where did he rank amongst rookie receivers who went to Hawaii???? I BET HE'S NUMBER 1!! PUT HIM ON MAGAZINE COVERS!!!!!

And where does Jerod Mayo fit into this? I'm not the one sitting here saying Jerod Mayo should have all this media coverage on him like you're saying about Devone Bess.

 

[The New Guy]

No, that was the OC finally taking his head out of his azz by having Moss go 10-15yds out instead of going deep the whole game. He was open the whole game, with the db's giving him a huge cushion.

Pats would have won by 2 scores if McDaniels had adjusted earlier in the game.

If that indeed was the case, I am very grateful to Mr. McDaniel for one of the most enjoyable Super Bowls I have seen.

Originally Posted by nyjunc
Antowain Smith is basically the definition of mediocre. he had one good year in NE but he wasn't scaring any defenses.

He was scaring defenses more than the combination of Faulk and J.R. Redmond.

Their records w/o Brad tell the story. Carroll was a better coach than Belichick w/o Brady. 8-8 to 6-10 isn't much of a drop and again that team was in contention for the division in early December before they quit. The 8-8 team was also 7-4 and 8-5 before finishing 8-8. This wasn't a good team he took over. It's harder to build on 8-8 then it is to build o 3-13.

Kosar was decent in 1991 and he had Vinny for 3 years so he had stability at QB. In 7 years w/o Brady BB has ONE playoff app, in 4 years as a HC in the NFL Pete had 2 PO apps.

Do you really think Pete Caroll is a better head coach than Belichick?
Do you think that Carrol would have had any winning seasons / playoff appearances had he not been fired after 1 season? I really doubt it.

Bottom line is Carrol's teams consistently got worse. Belichick's team improved.

Again, he lost to crappy teams in 2000, why would things have been different in 2001? and why didn't he have success in Buffalo w/ some talented Bills teams that every year were picked to be playoff teams.

Like I said before; he lost to crappy teams in 95, and things were different in 96. It is possible that he could have done the same in 01. Especially with a vastly improved defense and a much better running game.

Good teams generally have talent, it's not Pete's fault he took over a decent NE team. BB took over 2 teams that had talent to build around.

It is not his fault he took over a good team, but he took that good 11-5 team and turned them into an 8-8 team.

I am not giving all the credit to Belichick, as I think he is also overrated. I just don't feel that Tom Brady is the biggest reason for the Pats dynasty. I am confident that the Pats would have at least won the 01 Super Bowl without Brady. After that, who knows. Bledsoe was getting older and his production started to drop off.

That is just my opinion, and I know that many disagree.

Since we can never know for sure, I can always hold on to the possibility that I am right.

 

[TBW12]

I am not giving all the credit to Belichick, as I think he is also overrated

So you think Belichick and Brady are overrated. You fail. You don't accidently win 3 super bowls, win 4 AFC titles and get to 5 title games.

OH EVERYONE IS JUST OVERRATED EXCEPT TED GINN!:rolleyes2: You want overrated? Overrated is everyone on finheaven capitalizing DEFENDING AFC EAST CHAMPS! like anyone gives a ****.

 

[Mr_Freezetag]

I don't think he is overrated at all. He's def. a HOF. However, I think he's overhyped for the 2009 Season coming off an injury. If Brady goes down, who steps up? It won't matter though in their system. The QB who replaces Brady will be just as good as Cassel, but the sched. will be harder. Cassel benefited from an easy sched. This is why I don't see New England being crowned as the AFC East Champion so early in July. With their defense suspect, it could be a long year for New England if their offense struggles. The AFC EAST title will all come down to the QB position from all 4 teams.

I agree. Everyone has labeled the pats guaranteed AFC East champs in '09 (except most dolphin/jets/bills fans). It is naive to say that just because Brady is back they will claim the top again. Too many factors for me to be shakin' in my boots right now. The division goes through the Phins. simple as that.

 

[Mr_Freezetag]

So you think Belichick and Brady are overrated. You fail. You don't accidently win 3 super bowls, win 4 AFC titles and get to 5 title games.

OH EVERYONE IS JUST OVERRATED EXCEPT TED GINN!:rolleyes2: You want overrated? Overrated is everyone on finheaven capitalizing DEFENDING AFC EAST CHAMPS! like anyone gives a ****.

Yea you don't accidentally win 3 bowls but the SPYTRIOTS must have accidentally cheated.

Pats have had great success but like you said the past is the past. the pats are at the end of their run, hence their desperate moves (fred taylor/joey galloway - sounds like one last push to me) and IF, big IF, Brady can't be the guy taking snaps, whats the future? I wouldn't want to jinx anything by saying tommy boy would get hurt again but we all know how fragile those knees are...

so all in all, they might not be overrated, but deffff cheaters.

disagree?

 

[nyjunc]

If that indeed was the case, I am very grateful to Mr. McDaniel for one of the most enjoyable Super Bowls I have seen.

He was scaring defenses more than the combination of Faulk and J.R. Redmond.



Do you really think Pete Caroll is a better head coach than Belichick?
Do you think that Carrol would have had any winning seasons / playoff appearances had he not been fired after 1 season? I really doubt it.

Bottom line is Carrol's teams consistently got worse. Belichick's team improved.


Like I said before; he lost to crappy teams in 95, and things were different in 96. It is possible that he could have done the same in 01. Especially with a vastly improved defense and a much better running game.




It is not his fault he took over a good team, but he took that good 11-5 team and turned them into an 8-8 team.

I am not giving all the credit to Belichick, as I think he is also overrated. I just don't feel that Tom Brady is the biggest reason for the Pats dynasty. I am confident that the Pats would have at least won the 01 Super Bowl without Brady. After that, who knows. Bledsoe was getting older and his production started to drop off.

That is just my opinion, and I know that many disagree.

Since we can never know for sure, I can always hold on to the possibility that I am right.

It's easy to improve off of 3-13, he took over and Cle wet 6-10, 7-9 and 7-9. Is that really improvement? he then led them to the playoffs at 11-5 but the following year they were 5-11. he took over an 8-8 team in NE(just like PC did in NY w/ the Jets) and led them to a 5-11 record(1 game worse than the 6-10 PC led the Jets to).

Do I think Carroll is a better coach? I don't know. He was better in the NFL than BB has been w/o Brady and he's one of the all time great college coaches.

'95 the Pats were coming off their first playoff season since the 80s, it's hard adjusting to teams coming after you again. They had a down year. Bledsoe was more of an unknown back then anyway and he was a better player. He was the man in charge of NE getting worse every year, they were not going to be close to being a playoff team had Brady not started week 3.

There's just no way they win in '01 w/o Brady so obviously I disagree. heck, if they don't beat us in Dec we win the division and NE isn't going to the SB. From the 2nd meeting of '97 through the first meeting of 2001 we went 6-1 against NE w/ the only loss being a game we had a Punter at QB for the majority of the game. Against the Brady led Pats we have gone 2-11 against NE from '01-'07. He made the difference on those teams.

 

[PhinPhan910]

Oooooooh third amongst ROOKIE RECEIVERS. Where did he rank amongst rookie receivers who went to Hawaii???? I BET HE'S NUMBER 1!! PUT HIM ON MAGAZINE COVERS!!!!!

And where does Jerod Mayo fit into this? I'm not the one sitting here saying Jerod Mayo should have all this media coverage on him like you're saying about Devone Bess.

What im saying is 99.99% of media coverage in the nfl goes to tom brady and its unfair, they should give him the same amount of coverage as everyone else in the nfl.
U never hear anything about Davone Bess, Ronnie Brown, Ted ginn or pretty much anyone on the dolphins and most other teams.
And im also saying its pretty amazing how a rookie undrafted receiver has the 2nd most receptions for anyone in their rookie year has had in nfl history, while also starting just 6 games. Thats pretty awesome if u ask me.

 

[nyjunc]

What im saying is 99.99% of media coverage in the nfl goes to tom brady and its unfair, they should give him the same amount of coverage as everyone else in the nfl.
U never hear anything about Davone Bess, Ronnie Brown, Ted ginn or pretty much anyone on the dolphins and most other teams.
And im also saying its pretty amazing how a rookie undrafted receiver has the 2nd most receptions for anyone in their rookie year has had in nfl history, while also starting just 6 games. Thats pretty awesome if u ask me.

Brady is THE marquee player in the sport, just like Marino used to get a ton of coverage when he was a marquee player.

Were you upset Chrebet didn't get alot of attention in 1995? he had better rookie #s than Bess and he was also undrafted.

 

[TBW12]

And im also saying its pretty amazing how a rookie undrafted receiver has the 2nd most receptions for anyone in their rookie year has had in nfl history, while also starting just 6 games.

What is wrong with you? I showed you earlier that he was 5th in the league in 2008, so how in the world could he have had the 2nd most catches in a season by a rookie in NFL history?

The truth is, and you're gonna hate the truth, but the Dolphins don't have any marquee players. Nobody outside of Miami cares about Ted Ginn, Ronnie Brown and Davone Bess. It's just the way it is. It doesn't mean they suck (well for Ted Ginn maybe). Of course Tom Brady is going to get more media coverage. The guy is coming back from a torn ACL and is one of the best QBS ever, whether you agree or not. The last season Tom Brady played in he threw 50 touchdowns and had a rating of 117 while his team won 18 straight before losing in the Super Bowl. You don't think thats a big story? You think Ted Ginn should get just as much coverage as a guy who's resume reads like Tom Brady's?