It Needs To Be Said

[Yo Tee]

Brady is just as, if not more, important to his team

2008 proves that to be false. Brady goes down to injury, Matt Cassel leads them to 10 wins.

Noone has done that for the Packers. Last year, Packers sucked dick when Rodgers went down. They were 4-1 when he got injured, ended up 7-9 with Brett Hundley. In 2009, they were 5-2 when Rodgers went down, they finish 8-7-1 and the only reason they won the division was because Rodgers came back in the last game against the Bears to do so.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

2008 proves that to be false. Brady goes down to injury, Matt Cassel leads them to 10 wins.

Noone has done that for the Packers. Last year, Packers sucked dick when Rodgers went down. They were 4-1 when he got injured, ended up 7-9 with Brett Hundley. In 2009, they were 5-2 when Rodgers went down, they finish 8-7-1 and the only reason they won the division was because Rodgers came back in the last game against the Bears to do so.

So their only season they missed the playoffs in the last 15 years was also the only season not helmed by Brady is proof? The single greatest dropoff in passing TD's year to year by a team in history was the season Brady went down. And the season that ALMOST got Belichick to be over .500 as coach of the pats when Brady isn't playing?

Since pats drafted Brady in the Belichick era.

197-56 with Brady 39 playoff games, 8 SB appearances, 5 SB wins
18-19 without Brady, 0 playoff games, 0 SB appearances, 0 SB wins



So yes, GB is 6-11-1 without Rodgers, but have Flynn, Tolzien, Hundley, or Seneca Wallace ever won/played like Bledsoe and Cassel?

I would say NE had better backups for Brady when he's gone out. Even Brisett/Garoppolo. So would it be that both are possibly equally bad, just NE gets better consistent QB play when Brady goes down outside of two Flynn games?

 

[TheRangerDude]

So their only season they missed the playoffs in the last 15 years was also the only season not helmed by Brady is proof? The single greatest dropoff in passing TD's year to year by a team in history was the season Brady went down. And the season that ALMOST got Belichick to be over .500 as coach of the pats when Brady isn't playing?

Since pats drafted Brady in the Belichick era.

197-56 with Brady 39 playoff games, 8 SB appearances, 5 SB wins
18-19 without Brady, 0 playoff games, 0 SB appearances, 0 SB wins



So yes, GB is 6-11-1 without Rodgers, but have Flynn, Tolzien, Hundley, or Seneca Wallace ever won/played like Bledsoe and Cassel?

I would say NE had better backups for Brady when he's gone out. Even Brisett/Garoppolo. So would it be that both are possibly equally bad, just NE gets better consistent QB play when Brady goes down outside of two Flynn games?

If you are saying its only bc NE has better backups you are still agreeing with him.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

If you are saying its only bc NE has better backups you are still agreeing with him.

Not really. Brady and Rodgers backups don't affect what they have to work with on the field. The backups have no impact on that. Only on the level of QB play when Brady and Rodgers are NOT available.

See the difference. If GB wins more when Rodgers goes down because they have Drew Brees as a backup, and NE wins less when Brady goes down because they have Jamarcus Russell as a backup, does that mean GB has better talent to win with Rodgers? No, it means they have a better replacement when Rodgers isn't playing.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Put it this way. When Garroppolo went 5-0 last year did we say "man Hoyer and Beathard sure had a lot of help in SF, look how they are winning with option #3". Or did we say "Wow, Garoppolo sure is playing well and getting the most out of that roster".

When Watson came in for Savage last year did we say "look, they are .500 with their backup Watson taking over, this Houston team is really good to be able to do that". Or did we say "Watson sure makes a lot of plays for this Houston team that isn't all that talented".

None of Rodgers backups were able to win anywhere, or even win starting gigs for that matter. Brady had 4 of his backups have more success elsewhere than any of Rodgers.

Where would you rank these backups?

Bledsoe
Flynn
Garoppolo
Hundley
Brissett
Tolzien
Cassel
Wallace

Which 4 would you say were most likely to play well enough to win?

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I hope that makes sense. Like when Romo was able to win after Drew Bledsoe. If Chad Hutchinson or Ryan Leaf had still been their backup would they have still won? Or was the talent of the backup a significant impact to the post-Bledsoe record?

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Not really. Brady and Rodgers backups don't affect what they have to work with on the field. The backups have no impact on that. Only on the level of QB play when Brady and Rodgers are NOT available.

See the difference. If GB wins more when Rodgers goes down because they have Drew Brees as a backup, and NE wins less when Brady goes down because they have Jamarcus Russell as a backup, does that mean GB has better talent to win with Rodgers? No, it means they have a better replacement when Rodgers isn't playing.

Jesus Christ dude. If the argument is that New England wins more when Brady goes down because they have a better backup QB than Green Bay has when Rodgers goes down, then that just means that New England has a better front office and HC than GB. And they do. Which is why Rodgers is MORE IMPORTANT to his team than Tom Brady. His HC isn't that good. The GB team is just not good without him.

Notice the word the key words here, "MORE IMPORTANT". Not even necessarily better.

Damn, how many hoops we gotta jump through to defend Brady here. No one is really attacking his play on the field, we're simply attacking his fondness for mouth kissing little boys.

 

[TheRangerDude]

Not really. Brady and Rodgers backups don't affect what they have to work with on the field. The backups have no impact on that. Only on the level of QB play when Brady and Rodgers are NOT available.

See the difference. If GB wins more when Rodgers goes down because they have Drew Brees as a backup, and NE wins less when Brady goes down because they have Jamarcus Russell as a backup, does that mean GB has better talent to win with Rodgers? No, it means they have a better replacement when Rodgers isn't playing.

I get ya but I disagree overall. The way I see it is NEs main ingredient for success relies on the system, the game plan, and adjustments made to that game plan. Brady is excellent at executing of those things and most players for the pats either know that system or they don't last long. Rodgers just makes things happen in the clutch, well off script, and GB relies much more on that than the system they have in place. Since they lean on his improv skills more than the game plan, that makes him more valuable to his team IMO. Basically, NE has better coaching.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Jesus Christ dude. If the argument is that New England wins more when Brady goes down because they have a better backup QB than Green Bay has when Rodgers goes down, then that just means that New England has a better front office and HC than GB. And they do. Which is why Rodgers is MORE IMPORTANT to his team than Tom Brady. His HC isn't that good. The GB team is just not good without him.

Notice the word the key words here, "MORE IMPORTANT". Not even necessarily better.

Damn, how many hoops we gotta jump through to defend Brady here. No one is really attacking his play on the field, we're simply attacking his fondness for mouth kissing little boys.

Not defending Brady here. Just saying that NE has not been a .500 team without Brady since he's been drafted. And have been easily the best in the league with him.

And if the argument is based on them putting more talent around him, the one position who's talent doesn't affect a team when the starting QB is healthy is the backup. So that needs to be looked at if that's the claim.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Jesus Christ dude. If the argument is that New England wins more when Brady goes down because they have a better backup QB than Green Bay has when Rodgers goes down, then that just means that New England has a better front office and HC than GB. And they do. Which is why Rodgers is MORE IMPORTANT to his team than Tom Brady. His HC isn't that good. The GB team is just not good without him.

Notice the word the key words here, "MORE IMPORTANT". Not even necessarily better.

Damn, how many hoops we gotta jump through to defend Brady here. No one is really attacking his play on the field, we're simply attacking his fondness for mouth kissing little boys.

So the argument is that despite NE having the better HC, he is 18-19 without Brady, while McCarthy is 27-22-1 without Rodgers, that makes Rodgers the more important one? Got it.

And not a Brady fan. lol And yeah, the mouth kissing is weird.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Not defending Brady here. Just saying that NE has not been a .500 team without Brady since he's been drafted.

Okay, that's a bit misleading. They are 13-6 without him since 2002 which is a higher winning percentage than any other team has in that time period. Obviously they're better with him, but they technically win at a higher rate than everybody else without him too even if that is a small sample size.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

So the argument is that despite NE having the better HC, he is 18-19 without Brady, while McCarthy is 27-22-1 without Rodgers, that makes Rodgers the more important one? Got it.

And not a Brady fan. lol And yeah, the mouth kissing is weird.

OMG buddy, I'm like 99% sure that 27-22-1 McCarthy record without Rodgers is mostly with Brett fucking Favre as the starter. You realize it's a pretty big jump from Brett Favre to Matt Cassel right? Isn't this the exact argument you were making in favor of Brady earlier? That he just has had better people start in his place?

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Okay, that's a bit misleading. They are 13-6 without him since 2002 which is a higher winning percentage than any other team has in that time period. Obviously they're better with him, but they technically win at a higher rate than everybody else without him too even if that is a small sample size.

So why doesn't the time with Brady before he was starter count? I mean Belichick was on his way to being fired before he made the move to Brady. Kinda the biggest part you have there.

My point was more about those saying those records without the main guy prove that NE has the better pieces around the QB. Well the one piece that doesn't help the QB is his backup. And the level of players there have been much more favorable to NE. Those QB's for GB can't win in the NFL period. The ones backing up Brady have proven they can (Brissett is questionable but I kinda like him. Def adequate).

That's a big part I think.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

OMG buddy, I'm like 99% sure that 27-22-1 McCarthy record without Rodgers is mostly with Brett fucking Favre as the starter. You realize it's a pretty big jump from Brett Favre to Matt Cassel right? Isn't this the exact argument you were making in favor of Brady earlier? That he just has had better people start in his place?

There you go!

Now you are on the train, see how important those other QB's become when talking records!

Thanks, that was all I was making the point about. Glad I could get that through to you. Have a great day!

 

[Cave_Johnson]

There you go!

Now you are on the train, see how important those other QB's become when talking records!

Thanks, that was all I was making the point about. Glad I could get that through to you. Have a great day!

Hahahahahahaha.

The difference between Brett Favre and Matt Cassel and Matt Cassel and Brett Hundley is huge. But yeah you sure got me dude. Wow do I feel stupid.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

So why doesn't the time with Brady before he was starter count? I mean Belichick was on his way to being fired before he made the move to Brady. Kinda the biggest part you have there.

My point was more about those saying those records without the main guy prove that NE has the better pieces around the QB. Well the one piece that doesn't help the QB is his backup. And the level of players there have been much more favorable to NE. Those QB's for GB can't win in the NFL period. The ones backing up Brady have proven they can (Brissett is questionable but I kinda like him. Def adequate).

That's a big part I think.

Yeah, Brady was better than Bledsoe. Nobody questions that. But it does seem disingenuous to put so much weight into Belichick's first season in New England and just ignore how good they've been since Josh McDaniels came around and they implemented the spread system which really let the offense shine. But fine, include that first season. That 18-19 mark is still a better record than McCarthy has without Rodgers since he became the starter, which upon a quick count is 5-12-1 (and I may be off by a game or two here).

Also, Jimmy G, Brissett, and Cassel are the only guys I can think of to start for the Pats in the last 10 years other than Brady. Only Jimmy has a winning record and has looked like an actual starter. Again, misleading to say they've all proven they can win.

 

[broncosmitty]

I agree with that. The Patriots have only had 2 1,000 yard rushers since 2011 and only 5 since 1999.

How many 100 yard rushing games have they had out of, ohhh, the last 70 games?

 

[nebearsfan70]

Explain to us how that "bunch of mediocre players" beat the Bears last year with Brett Hundley at QB. I got time...

Who said the Bears were even mediocre last year? They sucked. Congrats on beating a horrible team last year.

Still doesn't change the fact that the Packers are mediocre without AR. BTW, I know you and other Packer fans will lose your shit but... The Packers window is closing, fast. Remember last season? Get used to it.

 

[Montalban]

2008 proves that to be false. Brady goes down to injury, Matt Cassel leads them to 10 wins.

Noone has done that for the Packers. Last year, Packers sucked dick when Rodgers went down. They were 4-1 when he got injured, ended up 7-9 with Brett Hundley. In 2009, they were 5-2 when Rodgers went down, they finish 8-7-1 and the only reason they won the division was because Rodgers came back in the last game against the Bears to do so.

I believe that is simply a product of better coaching, better preparation and a better system; certainly not a better player.

 

[Yo Tee]

So their only season they missed the playoffs in the last 15 years was also the only season not helmed by Brady is proof?

Yes. Because that doesn't happen when Rodgers goes down.