off topic Buffalo Bills 2015

[nfreeman]

So the first two times that he, and his coach and his team, got caught don't factor in to this at all?

I just think overall what he did isn't much different from what most teams/QBs do and hasn't created much if any of an advantage. There are still 300-pound maniacs who can run like sprinters trying to break him in half and there are still incredible athletes covering his receivers.

 

If I needed a QB to win a playoff game for my team, I'm taking Montana first and then Brady. Frankly no one else is in the ballpark with those 2. (And Peyton isn't even in the discussion, since he falls apart in the playoffs on a regular basis.)

[Jeanbe]

That's what sucks about this, we really don't know how good he is. He knew the defensive calls for,... we don't know how many games. Maybe even this year. I really don't know nor would I put it past Belichick or their entire organization to do it.

 

They have now been caught three times cheating. THREE.

 

He's not the best ever,… even if he might have been.

Amen to this.  THREE times.   He is a 6th rounder with deflated balls and a heads up on defensive calls.  His image is tarnished as it should be.  He is the Mark McGuire of football.

[That Aud Smell]

Does it really matter if the cheating was successful or not?

I think it does, yes.

[LastPommerFan]

I think it does, yes.

 

interesting.

[shrader]

I just think overall what he did isn't much different from what most teams/QBs do and hasn't created much if any of an advantage. There are still 300-pound maniacs who can run like sprinters trying to break him in half and there are still incredible athletes covering his receivers.

 

If I needed a QB to win a playoff game for my team, I'm taking Montana first and then Brady. Frankly no one else is in the ballpark with those 2. (And Peyton isn't even in the discussion, since he falls apart in the playoffs on a regular basis.)

 

You think most teams are sneaking in after the balls have been measured to alter them?  Sure they all play games of some sort, but I doubt many go that far.  Of course, since every QB likes them a little different, there's going to be that guy who likes the PSI right in the middle of the range and don't have to mess around at all.  The real issue though begins when you go that extra yard to get what you want, get caught, deny it, then blame the league for it.  That's where things start to look really bad.

[inkman]

Amen to this. THREE times. He is a 6th rounder with deflated balls and a heads up on defensive calls. His image is tarnished as it should be. He is the Mark McGuire of football.

Only time will tell but I don't think his legacy will be as affected as you suggest.

[That Aud Smell]

Here's the thing: The competition committee came up with that PSI threshold, presumably for good cause. Otherwise, why have a rule at all? No - the rule exists to prevent teams from seeking a competitive advantage by having bills that are more grippable.

 

Did Tawmmy Terrific *need* 11 psi or whatever in order to excel? Almost certainly not. Because he's so good anyway.

 

Does that in turn give him a free pass because, "hey - no harm, no foul"?

 

Spare me.

 

He knowingly violated, flouted a rule of the game because he thought doing so gave him a leg up, improved his performance. Whether the practice had its intended effect or not is beside the point. (And this is setting aside the consideration of whether he gained a psychological benefit from having the balls under inflated.)

 

It's commonplace for criminals to violate the law, without their actions having their intended effect, or despite the fact that they didn't need to commit the crime in order to achieve a lawful end. Doesn't mean they haven't committed a crime. If Lance Armstrong hadn't doped - but instead modified his equipment in a manner that violated that sport's rules - and won a series of races - *but* then won a bunch more after he was caught - and then lied about his rules violation - should he hafta answer for that? Of course.

 

What if it'd been found that late 90s Hasek had played a season with an over sized glove and pads - but posted a superb save pctg when he went back to equipment that conformed to the rules. Would his rules violation have been a problem? Absolutely.

 

Tom Brady's one of the greatest QB's ever. He's also a funking cheater. And a liar. And a guy who takes gratuitous potshots at hard luck towns like Buffalo.

 

Tom Brady with a rusty saw.

Edited May 8, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[nfreeman]

You think most teams are sneaking in after the balls have been measured to alter them?  Sure they all play games of some sort, but I doubt many go that far.  Of course, since every QB likes them a little different, there's going to be that guy who likes the PSI right in the middle of the range and don't have to mess around at all.  The real issue though begins when you go that extra yard to get what you want, get caught, deny it, then blame the league for it.  That's where things start to look really bad.

 

I think there are a bunch of different ways in which many teams/players break the rules and this is just one example. 

 

I agree that the coverup/lying is worse than the actual cheating and that it makes him look bad.  My point was simply that the cheating itself doesn't create much, if any, of a competitive advantage, and I'd still want him as my QB in a playoff game over any other QB other than Montana.

[LGR4GM]

Here's the thing: The competition committee came up with that PSI threshold, presumably for good cause. Otherwise, why have a rule at all? No - the rule exists to prevent teams from seeking a competitive advantage by having bills that are more grippable.

 

Did Tawmmy Terrific *need* 11 psi or whatever in order to excel? Almost certainly not. Because he's so good anyway.

 

Does that in turn give him a free pass because, "hey - no harm, no foul"?

 

Spare me.

 

He knowingly violated, flouted a rule of the game because he thought doing so gave him a leg up, improved his performance. Whether the practice had its intended effect or not is beside the point. (And this is setting aside the consideration of whether he gained a psychological benefit from having the balls under inflated.)

 

It's commonplace for criminals to violate the law, without their actions having their intended effect, or despite the fact that they didn't need to commit the crime in order to achieve a lawful end. Doesn't mean they haven't committed a crime. If Lance Armstrong hadn't doped - but instead modified his equipment in a manner that violated that sport's rules - and won a series of races - *but* then won a bunch more after he was caught - and then lied about his rules violation - should he hafta answer for that? Of course.

 

What if it'd been found that late 90s Hasek had played a season with an over sized glove and pads - but posted a superb save pctg when he went back to equipment that conformed to the rules. Would his rules violation have been a problem? Absolutely.

 

Tom Brady's one of the greatest QB's ever. He's also a funking cheater. And a liar. And a guy who takes gratuitous potshots at hard luck towns like Buffalo.

 

###### Tom Brady with a rusty saw.

 

[Claude_Verret]

Here's the thing: The competition committee came up with that PSI threshold, presumably for good cause. Otherwise, why have a rule at all? No - the rule exists to prevent teams from seeking a competitive advantage by having bills that are more grippable.

 

Did Tawmmy Terrific *need* 11 psi or whatever in order to excel? Almost certainly not. Because he's so good anyway.

 

Does that in turn give him a free pass because, "hey - no harm, no foul"?

 

Spare me.

 

He knowingly violated, flouted a rule of the game because he thought doing so gave him a leg up, improved his performance. Whether the practice had its intended effect or not is beside the point. (And this is setting aside the consideration of whether he gained a psychological benefit from having the balls under inflated.)

 

It's commonplace for criminals to violate the law, without their actions having their intended effect, or despite the fact that they didn't need to commit the crime in order to achieve a lawful end. Doesn't mean they haven't committed a crime. If Lance Armstrong hadn't doped - but instead modified his equipment in a manner that violated that sport's rules - and won a series of races - *but* then won a bunch more after he was caught - and then lied about his rules violation - should he hafta answer for that? Of course.

 

What if it'd been found that late 90s Hasek had played a season with an over sized glove and pads - but posted a superb save pctg when he went back to equipment that conformed to the rules. Would his rules violation have been a problem? Absolutely.

 

Tom Brady's one of the greatest QB's ever. He's also a funking cheater. And a liar. And a guy who takes gratuitous potshots at hard luck towns like Buffalo.

 

###### Tom Brady with a rusty saw.

Abso-feckin-lutely to every last word.

[Samson's Flow]

I think there are a bunch of different ways in which many teams/players break the rules and this is just one example. 

 

I agree that the coverup/lying is worse than the actual cheating and that it makes him look bad.  My point was simply that the cheating itself doesn't create much, if any, of a competitive advantage, and I'd still want him as my QB in a playoff game over any other QB other than Montana.

Just like if the smartest kid in the class cheated on a final exam. Most likely he/she didn't need the help, but the cheating could have been the difference between a 96 and a 100. That kid is still going to be punished the same way as the C- student who was caught cheating. Cheating is cheating.

 

That there have been consistent and varied accusations of cheating against the Patriots only further validates that this is an intentional and deliberate culture in New England.

[TrueBlueGED]

 

I don't agree with this at all.

Now, I'd pick Montana as the greatest. But Brady is still #2. He got caught cheating and then lied about it, both of which reflect poorly on his character -- but not on his football accomplishments.

 

I think Brady's still firmly in the discussion for best ever. The cheating probably makes him lose any tiebreakers or close calls, so Montana would probably get my nod ahead of him.

 

I just don't think you can have a confirmed cheater, who played for a confirmed cheating coach, rank as the best ever. Do I honestly believe that Spygate and the deflated balls had a major impact on the on-field performance of the team? Probably not, no. But the thing you have to consider when talking about the greatest of all time is the marginal difference between 1,2,3,4 are not especially large either, so ANY cheating could be the tipping point. Brady was never so head and shoulders above the competition for best ever that the cheating can be written off for not mattering that much. And that's not even getting into trying to account for era differences from the offense-happy modern times to when guys like Montana and Elway were in their primes and defenses were allowed to actually play defense. 

 

That's what sucks about this, we really don't know how good he is. He knew the defensive calls for,... we don't know how many games. Maybe even this year. I really don't know nor would I put it past Belichick or their entire organization to do it.

 

They have now been caught three times cheating. THREE.

 

He's not the best ever,… even if he might have been.

 

This is the other thing to consider when trying to figure out where he ranks among the greatest of all time: this is now a pattern of cheating for him and his organization. It should raise legitimate questions about what else they're getting away with that they simply haven't been caught doing. I just don't think you can put a guy in that situation at the top of the mountain...not when other options include Montana, Elway, and Manning. It's isn't like we're comparing a cheating Brady with Trent Dilfer here.

 

I think Brady is top ten...but you have to consider he has had great teams around him and probably the greatest coach(kudos to walsh and oLombardi). If Buffalo had drafted him it would have been a completely different story.

Guys like ken Anderson didn't have the teams/organizations.

 

One of the core principles in my Manning > Brady stance has always been the coaching difference. I think it at least has to be considered (and yes, I think it should be considered that Montana had Walsh).

 

 

 

 

 

Does it really matter if the cheating was successful or not?

 

 

Who's the best hitter ever in baseball?

 

 

 

1) It does because the delta between Brady and the other competitors for greatest of all time was never large, so this simply cannot be ignored. And secondly because it is now a pattern and raises questions of legitimacy regarding what else they have done--no Patriots accomplishment can be taken at face value now.

 

2) I'm honestly not a baseball guy (even at my height of fandom I was casual at best), so I shouldn't even answer this question; nor do I know what advanced stats say about historical hitters in baseball. I'll throw Ted Williams out there anyway, but it's not something I'm confident in or prepared to argue about. 

 

I just think overall what he did isn't much different from what most teams/QBs do and hasn't created much if any of an advantage. There are still 300-pound maniacs who can run like sprinters trying to break him in half and there are still incredible athletes covering his receivers.

If I needed a QB to win a playoff game for my team, I'm taking Montana first and then Brady. Frankly no one else is in the ballpark with those 2. (And Peyton isn't even in the discussion, since he falls apart in the playoffs on a regular basis.)

 

 

And a rules system which prevents most of that from happening. 

Edited May 8, 2015 by TrueBluePhD

[Samson's Flow]

Who's the best hitter ever in baseball?

 

Not to thread-jack, but I read this as an argument for Pete Rose given his cheating/gambling history. The point you were making is even though he leads in all-time hits he's not in the hall of fame due to perceived slight against the integrity of the game?

 

Similar for Barry Bonds et al.

 

Am I close? :unsure: 

[Johnny DangerFace]

Not to thread-jack, but I read this as an argument for Pete Rose given his cheating/gambling history. The point you were making is even though he leads in all-time hits he's not in the hall of fame due to perceived slight against the integrity of the game?

 

Similar for Barry Bonds et al.

 

Am I close? :unsure:

It would be an argument about including arod and bonds

[Eleven]

I think there are a bunch of different ways in which many teams/players break the rules and this is just one example. 

 

I agree that the coverup/lying is worse than the actual cheating and that it makes him look bad.  My point was simply that the cheating itself doesn't create much, if any, of a competitive advantage, and I'd still want him as my QB in a playoff game over any other QB other than Montana.

 

It hurts me so much to say it, but I'd take Marino over Brady and possibly even Montana.  If his Fins team even had a half-assed running back, it would have won multiple SBs.  Running backs were important then, and I think the best they came up with was Bernie Parmalee.  Much as I hate him, I think Marino may be the best QB I've ever seen play the game.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Eleven

[Samson's Flow]

It would be an argument about including arod and bonds

But by that logic, wouldn't you be saying that if Brady is viewed as a verified cheater (pending the league disciple upcoming), then he would be excluded from the all-time great discussions similarly to ARod/Bonds/Rose in baseball? At the time, those guys were top 5 players in their generation easy, but now are dismissed in hall of fame/all-time great discussions.

 

Is this a legacy changing thing for Brady being associated with consistent accusations of franchise cheating?

[nfreeman]

It hurts me so much to say it, but I'd take Marino over Brady and possibly even Montana.  If his Fins team even had a half-assed running back, it would have won multiple SBs.  Running backs were important then, and I think the best they came up with was Bernie Parmalee.  Much as I hate him, I think Marino may be the best QB I've ever seen play the game.

 

Marino was the best passer I've ever seen, but Montana was the best QB.

[Taro T]

Marino was the best passer I've ever seen, but Montana was the best QB.

Hate to say, 'cause I couldn't stand either, but, yep.

[MBHockey13]

Marino was the best passer I've ever seen, but Montana was the best QB.

I don't think it would have mattered who was the Fins running back because Marino would abandon the run by the middle of the second quarter. That was always one reason I thought Kelly was a better QB - he called his own plays and would call more run plays than pass plays if that is what it took to win. I know the Bills had Thurman but Kenny Davis or anyone else would get plays as well.

Edited May 8, 2015 by MBHockey13

[nfreeman]

I don't think it would have mattered who was the Fins running back because Marino would abandon the run by the middle of the second quarter. That was always one reason I thought Kelly was a better QB - he called his own plays and would call more run plays than pass plays if that is what it took to win. I know the Bills had Thurman but Kenny Davis or anyone else would get plays as well.

 

Kelly also beat Marino in the playoffs the only time they met, IIRC.

 

I do think it's fair to say though that Kelly had a better team around him.

[That Aud Smell]

Much as I hate him, I think Marino may be the best QB I've ever seen play the game.

Marino was the best passer I've ever seen

Marino would abandon the run by the middle of the second quarter. That was always one reason I thought Kelly was a better QB - he called his own plays and would call more run plays than pass plays if that is what it took to win. I know the Bills had Thurman but Kenny Davis or anyone else would get plays as well.

 

I'm with nfreeman. Marino was poetry in motion throwing that ball. But I don't think he's the best QB to have played the game.

 

As for Kelly staying committed to the run, it can't be so easily discounted that Kelly had a HOF RB back there. Also, it is no small irony that Parcells strategized his game plan in SB XXV such that Kelly would feel pressured to sling it around in the 4th quarter (which he did, and which he later said he regretted as the reason the team lost).***

 

***cut and paste from an angelfire (!) page that gave me some virus vibes before i could get the URL:

 

"When we finally did set foot on the field, it was with too much of a sense of urgency and we didn't execute as well as we were capable of. Moving fast in the no-huddle is one thing, but when you become as reckless as we were starting to become, you're not going anywhere. I was so caught up in trying to get us a fast score, I forgot to work the right combination of pass and run plays that kept defenses off balance and had gotten us to Tampa in the first place. I just kept looking for the home-run ball, and that's usually when a quarterback begins hurting his performance."

Edited May 8, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[Drunkard]

Kelly also beat Marino in the playoffs the only time they met, IIRC.

 

I do think it's fair to say though that Kelly had a better team around him.

Kelly was 3-0 against Marino in the playoffs. Marino couldn't beat Buffalo in the playoffs until Kelly retired.

[nfreeman]

Kelly was 3-0 against Marino in the playoffs. Marino couldn't beat Buffalo in the playoffs until Kelly retired.

 

Even better.  Thank you sir.

[Eleven]

John Stewart on Brady:  http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/yyhnyn/the-fresh-prince-of-ball-air

 

Don't watch this at work.  Lots of bleeps.

[SwampD]

I don't like the Barry Bonds comparison. He "enhanced" himself to try and be better than his opponent. Still wrong, but different in my eyes. He was still playing the game the same way everyone else was. Now, if he had a guy out in the stands with binoculars looking at the catcher and feeding what pitch was coming next to his earpiece, that would be a good comparison.

 

The ball thing is more like someone who corked their bat.