I just dont understand this Brady-Rodgers stuff. Sorry

[SuperHoss]

Rodgers sums it up



It's the ultimate team game. No dominant QB can do it alone, Brady didn't do it alone. Never did. Never will. Those aren't QB accomplishments.

It is a team game. No QB is doing anything by themselves. Win-Loss records don't tell the whole story and are often overstated.

Same could be said of any stat for a QB. There are way too many factors: quality of coaching, scheme, offensive line play, receiver play, et. al.

You have to ask yourself, how much does this player elevate the team? As QB, Brady is going to have the biggest impact of any player on the team. Though it has been true for decades, with the rules in place now, it has never been more true that the QB is the most important player. We have seen great, dominant QBs. None of them have done or will do what Brady has done.

It is not just his play as QB that sets Brady apart. It is his leadership that makes him GOAT. The increased level of performance of the team across the board, the belief that they could win and the shared commitment the team had, the reduction in penalties, among other things. These things are what made the difference from a playoff team to a World Champion. Why do I give him credit for that? Because the players themselves have given him credit for all those things.

The sheer volume of his winning with a myriad of different casts separates him from many other team players in the conversation for GOAT. Too many to refute.

Many QBs probably could have gotten the Bucs to the SB. Only one guy is taking them to the promised land.

 

[Bamboozled]

It is a team game. No QB is doing anything by themselves. Win-Loss records don't tell the whole story and are often overstated.

Same could be said of any stat for a QB. There are way too many factors: quality of coaching, scheme, offensive line play, receiver play, et. al.

You have to ask yourself, how much does this player elevate the team? As QB, Brady is going to have the biggest impact of any player on the team. Though it has been true for decades, with the rules in place now, it has never been more true that the QB is the most important player. We have seen great, dominant QBs. None of them have done or will do what Brady has done.

It is not just his play as QB that sets Brady apart. It is his leadership that makes him GOAT. The increased level of performance of the team across the board, the belief that they could win and the shared commitment the team had, the reduction in penalties, among other things. These things are what made the difference from a playoff team to a World Champion. Why do I give him credit for that? Because the players themselves have given him credit for all those things.

The sheer volume of his winning with a myriad of different casts separates him from many other team players in the conversation for GOAT. Too many to refute.

Many QBs probably could have gotten the Bucs to the SB. Only one guy is taking them to the promised land.

Brady literally can't make some of the throws his peers can. There are easily more dominant QB's. Brees, Wilson, Manning, and Rodgers are all easily better at playing the QB position. Even when it comes to running advanced concepts, their offenses are much more detailed than Brady. Leadership is such a meme quality in sports. Every player says their starting QB is a great leader. There is no objective way to measure that. Coaching is what builds a good environment, prevents mistakes like penalties, and other things. Mental preparation is not on the QB. It's on the coaching staff. Like I said, every player says so-n-so is the best leader they've ever seen.

The sheer volume of winning is a combination of great 3 phases of the game, incredible coaching, and a bit of luck. If many guys can take them to the SB but you only have 1 guy that doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Literally any QB would love to have that squad to work with. 3 HoF level receivers, a solid RB stable, a top 10 offensive line. Which top QB wouldn't be successful with that?

 

[SuperHoss]

Brady literally can't make some of the throws his peers can. There are easily more dominant QB's. Brees, Wilson, Manning, and Rodgers are all easily better at playing the QB position. Even when it comes to running advanced concepts, their offenses are much more detailed than Brady. Leadership is such a meme quality in sports. Every player says their starting QB is a great leader. There is no objective way to measure that. Coaching is what builds a good environment, prevents mistakes like penalties, and other things. Mental preparation is not on the QB. It's on the coaching staff. Like I said, every player says so-n-so is the best leader they've ever seen.

The sheer volume of winning is a combination of great 3 phases of the game, incredible coaching, and a bit of luck. If many guys can take them to the SB but you only have 1 guy that doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Literally any QB would love to have that squad to work with. 3 HoF level receivers, a solid RB stable, a top 10 offensive line. Which top QB wouldn't be successful with that?

Brees? Lol. It is hard to take you seriously.

More detailed offenses? Silly.

Evans will have to continue to play at the same level he played in past years (better than this year) to make it to the HOF. He was far from top 10 this year. Its awfully premature to call Godwin a HOF player. He certainly didn't look like it in the biggest moments of the season. Antonio Brown was only playing for the Bucs because Brady wanted him.

I'm out. You are welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, you don' t know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Bamboozled]

Brees? Lol. It is hard to take you seriously.

More detailed offenses? Silly.

Evans will have to continue to play at the same level he played in past years (better than this year) to make it to the HOF. He was far from top 10 this year. Its awfully premature to call Godwin a HOF player. He certainly didn't look like it in the biggest moments of the season. Antonio Brown was only playing for the Bucs because Brady wanted him.

I'm out. You are welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, you don' t know what the hell you are talking about.

Evans is the only player to have 1k yards every season for his first 7 seasons. Even if I think he's boom or bust, he's putting up an HoF career so far. Godwin is even better. Godwin had some off games, that doesn't diminish is skills or what he did or does during the regular season which ultimately is looked at when it comes to HOF. Antonio Brown was also on a HOF trajectory before the mental breakdown.

You're out because you've realized you have nothing substantial to stand on.

And yes, Brees had a better arm and made harder throws than Brady consistently.

 

[SuperHoss]

Evans is the only player to have 1k yards every season for his first 7 seasons. Even if I think he's boom or bust, he's putting up an HoF career so far. Godwin is even better. Godwin had some off games, that doesn't diminish is skills or what he did or does during the regular season which ultimately is looked at when it comes to HOF. Antonio Brown was also on a HOF trajectory before the mental breakdown.

You're out because you've realized you have nothing substantial to stand on.

And yes, Brees had a better arm and made harder throws than Brady consistently.

When someone takes a stand that is so far outside norm, it is either because they have some particular insight, an x factor that can explain a phenomenon that appears to correlate differently than it appears to most (ie: Occam's Razor, the most simple explanation is the best) or they simply can not accept evidence because of some faulty preconceived notion or the logical conclusion simply does not align with with what they want to believe.

You want to ignore the effects of leadership and instead claim it is just a matter of luck. Of course luck can play some part, but great play often appears to create more "lucky" opportunities. Many of those "lucky" situations are not about luck, they are about execution.

There are few team players I can remember seeing on the same plane as Brady when it comes to leadership. The only two that really come to mind are Peyton Manning and Mark Messier. I am sure there are others, but when you see it, it is very easy to see how it manifests on the culture of a team and elevates their play. Often times that leadership comes from the coaching staff. Sometimes it even comes from ownership or management, but to ignore it is not realistic.

Suggesting that some of these other QBs were running more complicated offenses also seems silly. Every player struggles somewhat when they come to a new team. For all his years in Foxboro, the Pats are notorious for having a complex system that players struggle with. One of the most difficult. When the Pats allocated a fourth QB slot (4 QB slots...unheard of) for Brady, it was not because of his arm strength, his mobility or his good looks. It was because of his incredible work ethic and his ability to pickup complex schemes quickly, a potent combination.

This was on display again this year with the Bucs. QBs always struggle in the first year of Arian's offense, averaging 40 turnover worthy plays in the regular season.

Brady had only 12! It is not just the overall play Brady is familiar with, it includes the minutia of who the offensive line is blocking. That is not common.

It is true that a QB's teammates often speak glowingly and not rarely exaggerate their skill, work ethic or ability. With Brady, it is not in general terms. It is in specific examples. People are not making it up.

I get it, you don't think Brady is a top 5 QB and attribute his success to all the external factors, while completely disregarding his role in changing many of those same factors. I am not going to suggest that there weren't some elements of the Bucs conducive to winning before Brady got there. Many QBs could have gotten that team to a winning record and make the playoffs. The difference is how that team performs in the playoffs. Brady's track record is too deep to ignore the difference maker that he is.

All the bad takes you employ as logic, eg: Brees, et al run more complicated systems, Brees has a better arm, etc.. they have no substance. A team having a better record in the regulars season and going out earlier in the playoffs every year is not evidence of greater or equal success. Yes, the onus is on you to prove that Brady's success is not because of him. That is the generally accepted theory and the one that needs to be refuted because the mountain of evidence suggests that Brady is the biggest reason for all the success that has occurred around him.

 

[Simple Southerner]

When someone takes a stand that is so far outside norm, it is either because they have some particular insight, an x factor that can explain a phenomenon that appears to correlate differently than it appears to most (ie: Occam's Razor, the most simple explanation is the best) or they simply can not accept evidence because of some faulty preconceived notion or the logical conclusion simply does not align with with what they want to believe.

You want to ignore the effects of leadership and instead claim it is just a matter of luck. Of course luck can play some part, but great play often appears to create more "lucky" opportunities. Many of those "lucky" situations are not about luck, they are about execution.

There are few team players I can remember seeing on the same plane as Brady when it comes to leadership. The only two that really come to mind are Peyton Manning and Mark Messier. I am sure there are others, but when you see it, it is very easy to see how it manifests on the culture of a team and elevates their play. Often times that leadership comes from the coaching staff. Sometimes it even comes from ownership or management, but to ignore it is not realistic.

Suggesting that some of these other QBs were running more complicated offenses also seems silly. Every player struggles somewhat when they come to a new team. For all his years in Foxboro, the Pats are notorious for having a complex system that players struggle with. One of the most difficult. When the Pats allocated a fourth QB slot (4 QB slots...unheard of) for Brady, it was not because of his arm strength, his mobility or his good looks. It was because of his incredible work ethic and his ability to pickup complex schemes quickly, a potent combination.

This was on display again this year with the Bucs. QBs always struggle in the first year of Arian's offense, averaging 40 turnover worthy plays in the regular season.

Brady had only 12! It is not just the overall play Brady is familiar with, it includes the minutia of who the offensive line is blocking. That is not common.

It is true that a QB's teammates often speak glowingly and not rarely exaggerate their skill, work ethic or ability. With Brady, it is not in general terms. It is in specific examples. People are not making it up.

I get it, you don't think Brady is a top 5 QB and attribute his success to all the external factors, while completely disregarding his role in changing many of those same factors. I am not going to suggest that there weren't some elements of the Bucs conducive to winning before Brady got there. Many QBs could have gotten that team to a winning record and make the playoffs. The difference is how that team performs in the playoffs. Brady's track record is too deep to ignore the difference maker that he is.

All the bad takes you employ as logic, eg: Brees, et al run more complicated systems, Brees has a better arm, etc.. they have no substance. A team having a better record in the regulars season and going out earlier in the playoffs every year is not evidence of greater or equal success. Yes, the onus is on you to prove that Brady's success is not because of him. That is the generally accepted theory and the one that needs to be refuted because the mountain of evidence suggests that Brady is the biggest reason for all the success that has occurred around him.

don't talk football or basketball w/ that buffoon he knows nothing. Remember mj would be garbage in today's game and tb 12 would be garbage if he played in the 80`s or 90`s
Those 2 guys are overrated they won several rings only because of the system, the coaching, the era they played in , the divisions & conferences they played for.

 

[Bamboozled]

When someone takes a stand that is so far outside norm, it is either because they have some particular insight, an x factor that can explain a phenomenon that appears to correlate differently than it appears to most (ie: Occam's Razor, the most simple explanation is the best) or they simply can not accept evidence because of some faulty preconceived notion or the logical conclusion simply does not align with with what they want to believe.

You want to ignore the effects of leadership and instead claim it is just a matter of luck. Of course luck can play some part, but great play often appears to create more "lucky" opportunities. Many of those "lucky" situations are not about luck, they are about execution.

There are few team players I can remember seeing on the same plane as Brady when it comes to leadership. The only two that really come to mind are Peyton Manning and Mark Messier. I am sure there are others, but when you see it, it is very easy to see how it manifests on the culture of a team and elevates their play. Often times that leadership comes from the coaching staff. Sometimes it even comes from ownership or management, but to ignore it is not realistic.

Suggesting that some of these other QBs were running more complicated offenses also seems silly. Every player struggles somewhat when they come to a new team. For all his years in Foxboro, the Pats are notorious for having a complex system that players struggle with. One of the most difficult. When the Pats allocated a fourth QB slot (4 QB slots...unheard of) for Brady, it was not because of his arm strength, his mobility or his good looks. It was because of his incredible work ethic and his ability to pickup complex schemes quickly, a potent combination.

This was on display again this year with the Bucs. QBs always struggle in the first year of Arian's offense, averaging 40 turnover worthy plays in the regular season.

Brady had only 12! It is not just the overall play Brady is familiar with, it includes the minutia of who the offensive line is blocking. That is not common.

It is true that a QB's teammates often speak glowingly and not rarely exaggerate their skill, work ethic or ability. With Brady, it is not in general terms. It is in specific examples. People are not making it up.

I get it, you don't think Brady is a top 5 QB and attribute his success to all the external factors, while completely disregarding his role in changing many of those same factors. I am not going to suggest that there weren't some elements of the Bucs conducive to winning before Brady got there. Many QBs could have gotten that team to a winning record and make the playoffs. The difference is how that team performs in the playoffs. Brady's track record is too deep to ignore the difference maker that he is.

All the bad takes you employ as logic, eg: Brees, et al run more complicated systems, Brees has a better arm, etc.. they have no substance. A team having a better record in the regulars season and going out earlier in the playoffs every year is not evidence of greater or equal success. Yes, the onus is on you to prove that Brady's success is not because of him. That is the generally accepted theory and the one that needs to be refuted because the mountain of evidence suggests that Brady is the biggest reason for all the success that has occurred around him.

The simplest explanation for Brady's success is he's had great teams and coaching in a team sport. It's verifiable and not some ridiculously vague "talent" like leadership. If you're going to use Occam's Razor use it correctly.

I also never attributed it to luck, but there are times when that is the only answer. It's not happening ALL THE TIME, it's just happening like when he fumbled vs the Raiders. That call has gotten put both ways after, and he was lucky the referees decided to be on his side that day.

Peyton Manning was an OC at the line, now maybe he is a phenomenal leader, everyone claims he is, like I stated before; everyone in the NFL will say a QB is the best leader they've ever played with. But the thing with Manning, is you can see what he is doing. Tom Brady you're attributing what? Vague leadership abilities. With Manning you can see him walk up, diagnose, call, adjust every down. In Foxboro, the hardest thing to learn is the defense because Bill has packages for everything. That's why losing out on Dont'a Hightower was their biggest loss this season. He is the one who is the conduit between Belichick and everyone else on the field. Their offenses are really not that complex. They were predicated (for the most part) on short routes and an outlet/checkdown for Brady and use of s double TE for blocking, making the reads shorter. The exception was when they had Randy Moss.

Sean Peyton definitely runs a more complicated offense than the Patriots ever did. It was much more aggressive. With that, it needed more set up to bait defenders out of position. Now Bruce Arians offense is more complicated than probably anything Brady had in Foxboro, but that's 1 year vs the rest of his career and the weapons he has in Tampa are way better than what he got to work with in New England. Brady showed multiple times that even when he understood the offense he couldn't make certain throws. Now he might understand it, but dude left a lot out there too.

Wait, you just said averaging 40 turnovers, but Brady only had 12? George Blanda threw 42 in the 60s.

The onus is not on me to disprove something you can't analyze. I can't disprove a negative. You have to prove his leadership is just so much better than anyone else. I can attribute EVERYTHING around him to being successful, whether it's coaching, players, organization, or even when he steps up. I don't attribute everything to Brady. If he were on the Jets or the Jags he'd never have a super bowl. It's that simple.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Aaron Rodgers took a team that was 13-3 under Brett Favre and went 6-10 the following season. Tom Brady took a team that wasn’t expected to make the playoffs under drew Bledsoe and won a super bowl. Sure, but Aaron is more talented.

 

[Viva]

Aaron Rodgers took a team that was 13-3 under Brett Favre and went 6-10 the following season. Tom Brady took a team that wasn’t expected to make the playoffs under drew Bledsoe and won a super bowl. Sure, but Aaron is more talented.

For real.

Rodgers dick riders are just about as cringey as homie's State Farm commercials.

 

[bosox32]

Very very few had TB as a SB pick.

Now it’s “oh it’s so obvious and stacked anyone could have taken them to the SB”

 

[SuperHoss]

The simplest explanation for Brady's success is he's had great teams and coaching in a team sport. It's verifiable and not some ridiculously vague "talent" like leadership. If you're going to use Occam's Razor use it correctly.

I also never attributed it to luck, but there are times when that is the only answer. It's not happening ALL THE TIME, it's just happening like when he fumbled vs the Raiders. That call has gotten put both ways after, and he was lucky the referees decided to be on his side that day.

Peyton Manning was an OC at the line, now maybe he is a phenomenal leader, everyone claims he is, like I stated before; everyone in the NFL will say a QB is the best leader they've ever played with. But the thing with Manning, is you can see what he is doing. Tom Brady you're attributing what? Vague leadership abilities. With Manning you can see him walk up, diagnose, call, adjust every down. In Foxboro, the hardest thing to learn is the defense because Bill has packages for everything. That's why losing out on Dont'a Hightower was their biggest loss this season. He is the one who is the conduit between Belichick and everyone else on the field. Their offenses are really not that complex. They were predicated (for the most part) on short routes and an outlet/checkdown for Brady and use of s double TE for blocking, making the reads shorter. The exception was when they had Randy Moss.

Sean Peyton definitely runs a more complicated offense than the Patriots ever did. It was much more aggressive. With that, it needed more set up to bait defenders out of position. Now Bruce Arians offense is more complicated than probably anything Brady had in Foxboro, but that's 1 year vs the rest of his career and the weapons he has in Tampa are way better than what he got to work with in New England. Brady showed multiple times that even when he understood the offense he couldn't make certain throws. Now he might understand it, but dude left a lot out there too.

Wait, you just said averaging 40 turnovers, but Brady only had 12? George Blanda threw 42 in the 60s.

The onus is not on me to disprove something you can't analyze. I can't disprove a negative. You have to prove his leadership is just so much better than anyone else. I can attribute EVERYTHING around him to being successful, whether it's coaching, players, organization, or even when he steps up. I don't attribute everything to Brady. If he were on the Jets or the Jags he'd never have a super bowl. It's that simple.

If Brady's winning was solely based on the fact that he was on good teams, then more people would have been able to predict his success on those teams prior to the season. After winning, teams look great. Hindsight is 20/20. That is not Occam's razor, Captain Hindsight.

Of course, after Brady won a couple, expectations changed. Brady & Belichick were considered favorites almost every year they were together after year three of their partnership. They were so successful, that after Brady left, people questioned who was more integral to the Pats success. After Brady took the Bucs to the Superbowl and the Pats reverted to the pre-Brady and Browns Belichik level (SEVEN of EIGHT years WITHOUT Brady on his team, Belichick is UNDER .500).

Brady joined an average Bucs teams and elevated them from a playoff contender to World champions. A healthy 2/3 of teams in the league could be classed as playoff contenders. Only a handful of teams are considered Superbowl contenders. At the start of the abbreviated COVID preseason, very few included the Bucs in that conversation.

In fact, Brady could have joined more than half the teams in the league, brought along Gronk, Antonio Brown and recruited Leonard Fournette and would very likely had the same success. What makes that even more special is that it was a COVID shortened season.

Occcam's razor is clear. Brady joining a team elevates teams from average to SB contenders. Though you have all the zeal of a Creationist arguing against Evolution, you share the same quality of arguments.

In regard to the complexity of the Patriots offense, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

https://www.clnsmedia.com/patriots-offense-learns-one-complex-playbooks-nfl/

The Patriots offense might be the most complex system at any level of football.

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/21/nfl-dolphins-chad-oshea-patriots-offense-too-complicated/

New England Wasn’t The Only Team That Struggled To Grasp Patriots’ Complicated Offense In 2019

https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/01/21/tom-brady-patriots-charlie-weis-option-routes

But what truly separates the Patriots’ system is the extensive combination of receiver route adjustments, based on the defense or a defender’s positioning, that all pass catchers—even running backs—have to know. Most offenses include at least a sprinkling of option routes designed, essentially, to use a defense against itself. But New England’s offense is built on them....
That complexity can prove maddening for rookies and veterans imported from other teams who are trying to learn the system

https://nesn.com/2020/10/ex-patriots-receiver-raises-valid-criticism-about-patriots-offense/

It’s fairly well established that the New England Patriots’ offense is complicated and difficut for players to learn.

QBs averaged 40 turnover worthy plays in their first year of Arian's offense. Brady had only 12 with a COVID shortened preseason. I tried to figure out how your comment on Blanda was relevant to that. Your comment makes no sense.

Most teammates will support their QB. That is true. However, the very specific comments many of Peyton's teammates have made about him and even more of Brady's teammates have said about him are not the same kind of comments other players make about their QBs. Nearly every single REPUTABLE analyst considers Brady the GOAT based on his incredible success.

You postulate that he is not because he has been on great teams and because of coaching. Brady has had a winning season in EVERY season he has played. As a starter
20/20 winning seasons, 19/20 making playoffs, 14 Conference Championships, 10 SB appearances, 7 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS

Belichick without Brady, 8 years as Head Coach. 2 winning seasons, 1 Playoff appearance, 1 wildcard win.
Arians without Brady, we'll say 7 years as HC without Brady (including 12 game Indie season), 4/7 winning seasons, 1-2 in the playoffs.

When you throw out a bunch of BS statements, why should I or anyone else take you seriously?

TLDR
Playoffs
Brady with (BB and BA) 34-11
BB without Brady 1-1
BA without Brady 1-2

Lol, that is the reason every RESPECTABLE analyst and nearly every former player and coach considers him the GOAT.

OCCAM's razor: When Brady is on a team, the team goes from average to SB contender, making him the most impactful player in NFL history.

Your OPINION that it is because he was on great teams and had great coaching. Prove it! LOL. You can't.

 

[Bamboozled]

If Brady's winning was solely based on the fact that he was on good teams, then more people would have been able to predict his success on those teams prior to the season. After winning, teams look great. Hindsight is 20/20. That is not Occam's razor, Captain Hindsight.

Of course, after Brady won a couple, expectations changed. Brady & Belichick were considered favorites almost every year they were together after year three of their partnership. They were so successful, that after Brady left, people questioned who was more integral to the Pats success. After Brady took the Bucs to the Superbowl and the Pats reverted to the pre-Brady and Browns Belichik level (SEVEN of EIGHT years WITHOUT Brady on his team, Belichick is UNDER .500).

Brady joined an average Bucs teams and elevated them from a playoff contender to World champions. A healthy 2/3 of teams in the league could be classed as playoff contenders. Only a handful of teams are considered Superbowl contenders. At the start of the abbreviated COVID preseason, very few included the Bucs in that conversation.

In fact, Brady could have joined more than half the teams in the league, brought along Gronk, Antonio Brown and recruited Leonard Fournette and would very likely had the same success. What makes that even more special is that it was a COVID shortened season.

Occcam's razor is clear. Brady joining a team elevates teams from average to SB contenders. Though you have all the zeal of a Creationist arguing against Evolution, you share the same quality of arguments.

In regard to the complexity of the Patriots offense, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

https://www.clnsmedia.com/patriots-offense-learns-one-complex-playbooks-nfl/


https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/21/nfl-dolphins-chad-oshea-patriots-offense-too-complicated/


https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/01/21/tom-brady-patriots-charlie-weis-option-routes


https://nesn.com/2020/10/ex-patriots-receiver-raises-valid-criticism-about-patriots-offense/


QBs averaged 40 turnover worthy plays in their first year of Arian's offense. Brady had only 12 with a COVID shortened preseason. I tried to figure out how your comment on Blanda was relevant to that. Your comment makes no sense.

Most teammates will support their QB. That is true. However, the very specific comments many of Peyton's teammates have made about him and even more of Brady's teammates have said about him are not the same kind of comments other players make about their QBs. Nearly every single REPUTABLE analyst considers Brady the GOAT based on his incredible success.

You postulate that he is not because he has been on great teams and because of coaching. Brady has had a winning season in EVERY season he has played. As a starter
20/20 winning seasons, 19/20 making playoffs, 14 Conference Championships, 10 SB appearances, 7 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS

Belichick without Brady, 8 years as Head Coach. 2 winning seasons, 1 Playoff appearance, 1 wildcard win.
Arians without Brady, we'll say 7 years as HC without Brady (including 12 game Indie season), 4/7 winning seasons, 1-2 in the playoffs.

When you throw out a bunch of BS statements, why should I or anyone else take you seriously?

TLDR
Playoffs
Brady with (BB and BA) 34-11
BB without Brady 1-1
BA without Brady 1-2

Lol, that is the reason every RESPECTABLE analyst and nearly every former player and coach considers him the GOAT.

OCCAM's razor: When Brady is on a team, the team goes from average to SB contender, making him the most impactful player in NFL history.

Your OPINION that it is because he was on great teams and had great coaching. Prove it! LOL. You can't.

THE BUCS WERE BETTER THAN AVERAGE THEIR TURNOVER RATIO CAN BE DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO LOSSES

Holy fuck you you don't get it.

 

[SuperHoss]

THE BUCS WERE BETTER THAN AVERAGE THEIR TURNOVER RATIO CAN BE DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO LOSSES

Holy fuck you you don't get it.

30 TD, 30 INT
Their wins were also correlated to the TDs.

7-9 <.500 below average (This is what OCCAM's razor looks like)

Bill Parcells

You are what your record says you are.

 

[Bamboozled]

30 TD, 30 INT
Their wins were also correlated to the TDs.

7-9 <.500 below average (This is what OCCAM's razor looks like)

Bill Parcells

holy shit, you don't understand TD's are not equal to turnovers. This is some ESPN bullshit you don't understand a god damn thing. Turnovers aren't just potential loss of points because you aren't guaranteed to score, it's time of possession AND opportunities lost AND loss of field position which usually ends up in the favor of the team who got the turnover in case they need to punt it.

Football games are lost more often than they are won. This Madden level analysis is fucking mindblowing.

 

[SuperHoss]

holy shit, you don't understand TD's are not equal to turnovers. This is some ESPN bullshit you don't understand a god damn thing. Turnovers aren't just potential loss of points because you aren't guaranteed to score, it's time of possession AND opportunities lost AND loss of field position which usually ends up in the favor of the team who got the turnover in case they need to punt it.

Football games are lost more often than they are won. This Madden level analysis is fucking mindblowing.

Lol, who said TD= INT? Not me. I just said 30 TD contributes to win totals. You can't take one and ignore the other.

All I am saying is that 8-8 is average. 7-9 is below average.

Tampa Bay in 2019, 7-9, slightly below average.

Tompa Bay in 2020, 15-5, World Champs.

 

[Bamboozled]

Lol, who said TD= INT? Not me. I just said 30 TD contributes to win totals. You can't take one and ignore the other.

All I am saying is that 8-8 is average. 7-9 is below average.

Tampa Bay in 2019, 7-9, slightly below average.

Tompa Bay in 2020, 15-5, World Champs.

Lmao @ throwing post season into overall record of regular season

Also Brees was 43-19 TD/INT ratio and the Saints were 7-9 in a season

Or a plethora of seasons where QBs have great numbers that dont correlate to wins, just stopp

 

[SuperHoss]

Lmao @ throwing post season into overall record of regular season

Also Brees was 43-19 TD/INT ratio and the Saints were 7-9 in a season

Or a plethora of seasons where QBs have great numbers that dont correlate to wins, just stopp

 

[rearnakedchoke]

THE BUCS WERE BETTER THAN AVERAGE THEIR TURNOVER RATIO CAN BE DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO LOSSES

Holy fuck you you don't get it.

What did the Bucs add to their D from 2019 to 2020 to go from 7-9 and missing the playoffs to 11-5 and going 4-0’in the playoffs to win the super bowl?

 

[Bamboozled]

What did the Bucs add to their D from 2019 to 2020 to go from 7-9 and missing the playoffs to 11-5 and going 4-0’in the playoffs to win the super bowl?

Arguably the DROY in Winfield Jr. on a team with their worst aspect being their secondary that's a damn good pick up.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Arguably the DROY in Winfield Jr. on a team with their worst aspect being their secondary that's a damn good pick up.

Sure it is. But taking them from 7-9 to super bowl champs?


Rodgers had 1st and goal and made three poor passes and turned down a chance to get yardage on a run against the Bucs with time running out. Brady gets that in the end zone and doesn’t settle for a fg.