Sustainability in terms of teams’ accruing film on that and defending against it progressively better over time.
The movement outside of the pocket is due to the fact that the Titans pass-pro has been cheeks all year
His wife I believe. However, even IF he did use that, would you not agree that it's much different to use that to recover from a crazy injury than to just cheat because you like to cheat?
No rational person continued the Brady vs Manning debate after SB51. You can maybe try to argue Montana if you're still stuck in 1990 or something and someone might humor you.
Montana was very good in that system, but I’d take Dan Marino over him 10x outta 10 if I were starting a team from scratch. Certainly goes for Brady also. However based on the results? Tom is likely the GOAT.
The part you left out- five cheating scandals for Brady's team, a library of every team's playbooks, a memorization genuis in Ernie Adams and one of the best coaches of all-time in Belichek. Manning had Manning and he played football against other teams. Brady had an evil wizard telling him what to expect every snap. You're crazy if you think that's been 100% Brady throughout the years...it was and always will be Ernie Adams and Belichek. That's why there's zero difference when any other QB starts in NE...they need an obedient game manager, nothing more.
Lol @ Manning had Manning. People are so fast to forget that he had Tony Dungy, followed by another good coach. The hate is so obvious.
When you look at ALL playoff games Peyton, Brady and Montana played instead of just select games you get a very different picture. First of all, everything HAS to be adjusted by era, and let's just look at passer rating since that includes TD's and INT's. Adjusted to 2019 ratings where the league average is currently 90.9, the average rating for all Brady's playoff games is 98.12, for Peyton it's 95.75, and for Montana it's 113.57. So right off the bat we can see that Montana was WAY better on average than both Peyton and Brady in the postseason, and that Peyton and Brady aren't that different (on average). The standard deviations are different though: Brady's is 24.63 while Peyton's is 35.21 and Montana's is 38.48. This tells you that Brady was by far the most consistent of the 3 (spread of ratings is smallest). We can do statistical tests to see what the probabilities are that the ratings "come from the same QB", and the test I'll use called the t-test for unequal sample sizes takes not only differences in means and standard deviations into account but also differences in sample size. Results: The probability Peyton and Brady were "the same QB" in the postseason is 74.6% The probability Peyton and Montana were "the same QB" in the postseason is 9.39% The probability Brady and Montana were "the same QB" in the postseason is 5.65% So as you see, looking at all playoff games paints a very different picture. It's Montana that's the great one in the playoffs. And Peyton and Brady do belong in the same conversation in the playoffs.
What I got out of this thread: The pro-Manning posters think Manning's receivers WRs had no skill (even though DT, Wayne and Harrison were all 1st round picks), Manning is the only reason they are what they are, but the same can't be said about Brady. Brady's receivers made Brady's stats with YAC and Brady had no impact on making anyone better (Wes Welker in Miami says hi). Some of the argumentsmade in this thread are a prime example of a contradiction.
The Patriots were 5-11 in 2000 and had gotten embarrassed Week 1 at Cincy to open 2001 before Brady came in vs the Jets in Week 2 when Mo Lewis murdered Bledsoe. That 2001 team was not expected to do anything. BB at that point had a similar HC record to Rex Ryan. The Pats were the joke that let Parcells get away, lost Curtis Martin for Robert Edwards, and desperately hired a failed Tuna disciple who had already run a star QB out of town (Kozar) and wasn't such a genius when he wasn't coaching Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson and Carl Banks. A lot has changed since then...
What did Welker do different in NE than in Miami? Answer: nothing. Just he got thrown twice as many balls. He still averaged about the same ypc as he did in Miami.
But your argument is that a not great HC, drafted a 6th round pick...and that 6th round pick defied the odds, and became the GOAT. Cheating had nothing to do with. Just magical Brady. I mean, you could be right. Or it could be way more than Brady.
On a different note, was Joe Montana a system QB since Steve Young came in after him and had similar success? But to be fair, Montana had his best season in 1989 without Walsh, which was when the "system" criticism ended for him.
I'm not sure having Tony Dungy is a major plus. Hes basically a super nice version of Jeff Fischer to me.
Guarantee if other teams "cheated" they STILL would not have been a Dynasty for 20 fricken years. Lets all just agree that the Pats didnt really need to "cheat" to still own the league for 20 years.
No way to know...but judging by the FACT that they kept doing it, over and over, even after getting caught, kinda speaks the other direction.
There's literally no way of knowing that. If Brady had communication in his headset after the 15 second cutoff, as Flutie alleged, that would be a MASSIVE advantage. The fact is, everyone knows they cheated. Some people want to stick their heads in the sand and act like it didn't help. They use all their wins to justify that position...but that assumed that the cheating didn't help them win
For my money the only real competitor to Steve Young is Otto Graham, but he did his stuff in an era of a smaller league and fewer playoff games.
Ya the whole, "they cheated and didn't even need to" argument is completely farcical...it defeats itself on face value. How can you even try to prove that? In the absence of any possible evaluation of how much cheating helped them, you basically have to defer to it actually helping, since they're so dead-set on doing it.
Yup I’m sure they cheated in every single meaningful playoff game and superbowl with the entire NFL world being paranoid about them even farting in a suspicious way. Why wouldn’t they if it was so important? Belichick obviously used his cloaking device on the advance scout so he could film Pete Carroll’s gum chewing tendencies. And must have drugged up the entire Falcons lockerroom during halftime after getting smoked in the first half.
You literally have zero argument, man. If you play poker with a few buddies every Friday night, and one buddy wins every night that the game is at his place, and 6 months in, you find out he's cheating...would you keep playing poker with him? Would you assume he's not cheating every time he wins after that? We know the Patriots have cheated. It's incredibly naive and unreasonable to assume that the ONLY times they cheated was the times they got caught. That's not how it works. It's like cockroaches...for every one you see, there's a bunch you haven't seen.
I thought everyone did cheat.... This is the problem with the Patriots/Belichick/Brady defenders......your arguments consistently trip over themselves. At some point, there needs to be a logical and cogent explanation for: A formerly failed HC picks a 6th round nobody QB, and they put together a heretofore unheard of dynasty no matter the assistant coaches, or offensive or defensive talent, all while cheating numerous times in numerous ways, but that somehow everyone does, but never get caught, while the "genius" has gotten caught multiple times, risking so much for cheating that supposedly gives them no benefit. i mean, there is no way to make that not sound as insane and absurd as it it. it is literally an unsquarable circle.
I think the jury is still out whether what the Titans' staff is doing is sustainable. The Dolphins were taking their top-10 overall pick quarterback and encouraging him to play in the way that's most effective in the NFL (pocket passing), whereas the Titans are taking a castoff who's making peanuts against their cap and trying to salvage a season that was headed for disaster (the Titans were 2-4 when Tannehill became the starter). That's a "nothing to lose" scenario that allows the Titans to try just about anything, even what may not be effective in the league (i.e., frequent quarterback rollouts) over the long term. Just because Tannehill needs a particular type of offense implemented to suit his strengths and weaknesses doesn't mean that type of offense is most effective in the league. Tannehill's needs could create a team weakness if the team has to function in a way to suit him that isn't as competitive in the league. Again, all things to look at over a more long-term basis.
I disagree, this offense with a better TE and an OL is pretty damn good. I'll be watching closely what they do in the offseason as they (to me) are a team on the rise.
If you're going to run frequent QB rollouts i.e. Mike Shanahan's offense, you definitely need a stud one-cut runner who gets lots of the defense's attention on play-action, and a stud tight end. Lots of those rollout passes are going to the tight end. Again, however, now the issue hinges more on whether those surroundings can be assembled and sustained. As the QB becomes more dependent on his surroundings, then whether the surroundings he needs can be assembled and sustained becomes more of the issue in the quarterback and the team's success. As you pay the quarterback more, that becomes an issue as well, because obviously you have to pay the other players, too.
I think teams have had enough tape on the offense to counter it if they truly would've already. What you are suggesting may very well be a better fit, but they are scoring about 30PPG for half the season as constructed. I like the position the Titans are currently in.
If Tannehill and the titans make the playoffs and beat New England I'm going to be convinced someone made a wish with a genie. They wished Tannehill would out duel Brady in the playoffs, but since genies always mess with the wish, the genie made Tannehill a Titan to do it.