I could just as easily say that everyone arguing against Brady thinks that the defense carried them to championships and think he's a system QB who would suck without Belichick. And those who think Rodgers is better think that the defense is atrocious and he has an invisible running game, and I'm going to call out those points with facts. Both sides are stupid arguments.
Not once did they rank below 16th in DVOA in any of Brady's SB wins. Some flirt with 16th, but none were ever bad defenses. Some could be debated to be sure. A bad run defense is more of an accessory than a damning trait in this era, however.
The point is many are arguing this team or that teams D sucked
Do a better job at building a well balanced team. There is a cap. So a player's accomplishments shouldn't be predicated on ineptness of his team, coaches or GMs. Players make the decision after their 1st contract (unless ur name is Manning) if they want to win they move on or renegotiate contracts so the team is more competative.
I tend to agree in some respects. I can sorta buy that they were too harshly judged by their soft schedule however at the same time. In weighted DVOA, they were still 11th mind you which is somewhat more useful to me in terms of contenders come playoff time; at least in my opinion. I don't think they were elite by any means, but solid and respectable to be sure; even if flawed at noticeable spots and positions.
Why do you keep bringing up the ring thing? The only time NE fans bring rings into the equation is when trying to seperate QBs of similar stats. Again stats and hardware are both team accomplishments. Sorry fantasy geeks.
Agreed, they definitely played better at the end of the year and you could tell. But everyone knew the competition they faced was pretty bad, especially the QB position.
You won't get an arguement from me.
Why it's about the greatest QB of all time?I'm flabbergasted that this became a Tom Brady thread
