PDA

View Full Version : A Quetion for Joe and Others.


steelman59
09-12-2008, 03:14 PM
Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

joshinpa
09-12-2008, 03:22 PM
Football is the ultimate team game. You can't win in this league if you aren't getting quality play from both offense and defense plus help from the special teams. There is just nothing that shows you can't win consistently in this league without having the entire team playing together and solid.

However there is no more important position that seperates the good teams from the elite, or the mediocre from the bad as QB. Quarterback play for better or worse seperates you into a different catagory. Tom Brady did impact his offensive line, his receivers and his running game, and for any one to argue that the position of QB is not one that will either elevate or deflate a team is wrong.

steelman59
09-12-2008, 03:27 PM
Football is the ultimate team game. You can't win in this league if you aren't getting quality play from both offense and defense plus help from the special teams. There is just nothing that shows you can't win consistently in this league without having the entire team playing together and solid.

However there is no more important position that seperates the good teams from the elite, or the mediocre from the bad as QB. Quarterback play for better or worse seperates you into a different catagory. Tom Brady did impact his offensive line, his receivers and his running game, and for any one to argue that the position of QB is not one that will either elevate or deflate a team is wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Josh, but how many times has it been said that a qb is just one player on a team?

joshinpa
09-12-2008, 03:32 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you Josh, but how many times has it been said that a qb is just one player on a team?

Ah yes the rhetoric used to try and put a player into a spot when we classify him against his peers. Yes QB play is impacted by the talent around him but the QB's talent and his performance will say if you are a contender or pretender.

steelman59
09-12-2008, 03:34 PM
Ah yes the rhetoric used to try and put a player into a spot when we classify him against his peers. Yes QB play is impacted by the talent around him but the QB's talent and his performance will say if you are a contender or pretender.

There is a reason why the QB is referred to as the General. It starts with him.

philhos
09-12-2008, 03:35 PM
Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

First off, it doesn't knock them out of contention. They're not out of contention 'til they rack up too many losses and miss the playoffs.

Secondly, Cassell is a backup. If he were better than Brady, then he would've started over Brady. Any time you replace a starter with a backup, you're team becomes weaker (even if it's only slightly weaker at say the 3rd WR spot). Thus, it makes it harder to win than if you're fully healthy.

Lastly, if you think Brady or Manning or Big Ben or anyone can win a game by himself, do this: take away the OL, the WRs, the TEs, the RBs, the FBs, the K, the P, and the entire defense and play 1 man versus an entire team. Who do you think will win?

It takes a TEAM to win it and as far as I know, Ghostwriter is the only Steeler fan who seems to understand that.

rplaya28
09-12-2008, 03:36 PM
No one said the Patriots were out of contention. Also look what the Steelers did in 05. You could have put a woman in at QB (which ben is) and the Steelers still would have won the Superbowl. QBs don't make or break a team but if you get a good one it certainly helps. I think the Vikings are still looking for one of those...

sloppy lombardi slaps
09-12-2008, 03:37 PM
Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

matt cassel could be to tom brady what tom brady was to drew bledsoe, or he could bust. saying the pats are done is ignorant, let them play a few games with cassel starting.

joshinpa
09-12-2008, 03:38 PM
There is a reason why the QB is referred to as the General. It starts with him.

There is just so much more to a Great QB than his stats. Does he command a huddle, do his teammates expect him to lead them to wins. Do they trust him with the ball in his hands in the clutch? Does he demand the best from his teammates? You know I obviously don't sit in locker rooms with these guys or stand in the huddle but it's quite clear that Tom Brady has the respect and demands the best of his teammates, while someone like Joey Harrington never gained that from the guys around him.

steelman59
09-12-2008, 03:42 PM
First off, it doesn't knock them out of contention. They're not out of contention 'til they rack up too many losses and miss the playoffs.

Secondly, Cassell is a backup. If he were better than Brady, then he would've started over Brady. Any time you replace a starter with a backup, you're team becomes weaker (even if it's only slightly weaker at say the 3rd WR spot). Thus, it makes it harder to win than if you're fully healthy.

Lastly, if you think Brady or Manning or Big Ben or anyone can win a game by himself, do this: take away the OL, the WRs, the TEs, the RBs, the FBs, the K, the P, and the entire defense and play 1 man versus an entire team. Who do you think will win?

It takes a TEAM to win it and as far as I know, Ghostwriter is the only Steeler fan who seems to understand that.

I also totally get that, if there not out of contention then why the big hub bub about the changes in the power structure of the AFC being changed now because of Brady being hurt? Check out, ESPN, NFL SI any of them and they all say that with Brady being hurt there is now a realignment in the AFC power rankings.

It takes 22 players to play the game, but it all starts with the QB. He is the leader. The chief if you will. Remmeber the old cowboy movies? Take down the chief and the rest fall apart. Its the same thing. WR are successful because the QB has the ability to throw to them. The offense is successful because of the ability of the QB to read defenses. When all this is clicking, the defense gets motivated.

Take the houston game. The Steeler D destroyed the Houston offense, now how much do you think that inspired the houston defense?

Big Time
09-12-2008, 03:46 PM
First off, it doesn't knock them out of contention. They're not out of contention 'til they rack up too many losses and miss the playoffs.

Secondly, Cassell is a backup. If he were better than Brady, then he would've started over Brady. Any time you replace a starter with a backup, you're team becomes weaker (even if it's only slightly weaker at say the 3rd WR spot). Thus, it makes it harder to win than if you're fully healthy.

Lastly, if you think Brady or Manning or Big Ben or anyone can win a game by himself, do this: take away the OL, the WRs, the TEs, the RBs, the FBs, the K, the P, and the entire defense and play 1 man versus an entire team. Who do you think will win?

It takes a TEAM to win it and as far as I know, Ghostwriter is the only Steeler fan who seems to understand that.

Well said, and I also have said many times that it takes a team to win however, I found a hole in your theory.
I believe the Steelers got better when Tommy Gun went down.
I believe you have said in the past that we would have won the Super bowl that year no matter who our QB was, but I disagree. Ben was an up grade over Tommy Maddox and we would have never won with Tommy under center. I dont believe the Pats would have won with Bledsoe either. It's my opinion,,,it maybe wrong, but I think those two guys are the exception to your theory.

joshinpa
09-12-2008, 03:50 PM
Well said, and I also have said many times that it takes a team to win however, I found a hole in your theory.
I believe the Steelers got better when Tommy Gun went down.
I believe you have said in the past that we would have won the Super bowl that year no matter who our QB was, but I disagree. Ben was an up grade over Tommy Maddox and we would have never won with Tommy under center. I dont believe the Pats would have won with Bledsoe either. It's my opinion,,,it maybe wrong, but I think those two guys are the exception to your theory.


Does someone honestly believe that the Colts would have won the Superbowl with Jim Sorgi as their starter? Look no one is saying that a QB is the only thing that matters but having dependable play by your qb and more than that having your team trust that your QB is going to make plays to help you win ball games is incredibly important. Kyle Boller has a gun but the guy never could win over his teammates. Good quality QB play is what every team is looking for on Sunday.

philhos
09-12-2008, 03:53 PM
I also totally get that, if there not out of contention then why the big hub bub about the changes in the power structure of the AFC being changed now because of Brady being hurt? Check out, ESPN, NFL SI any of them and they all say that with Brady being hurt there is now a realignment in the AFC power rankings.

Don't listen to the media. They don't know what they're talking about. Just over a year ago, I believe, SI predicted the Miami Dolphins would represent the AFC in the Super Bowl (I think they had them losing the big game). Miami then went out and narrowly avoided being the 1st 0-16 team in NFL history.

Heck just go back to when Drew Bledsoe was the starter and went down with injury. EVERYONE said NE was done. A 6th-rounder coming in to start? No way, they'd go anywhere. And what happened?

The media may say there's a shift in power in the AFC, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

It takes 22 players to play the game, but it all starts with the QB. He is the leader. The chief if you will. Remmeber the old cowboy movies? Take down the chief and the rest fall apart. Its the same thing. WR are successful because the QB has the ability to throw to them.

It varies from team to team, though. Generally speaking, the QB is the leader, but that's not the case. Look at the Ravens. Do you honestly think Smith, Flacco or Boller is the leader? No, guys like Ray Lewis are. So, yeah, on some teams, maybe even most, you lose the QB, the leader, then there will be struggle. But, also remember that, he can still lead without playing (though it makes it harder to lead during those difficult times).

The offense is successful because of the ability of the QB to read defenses. When all this is clicking, the defense gets motivated.

Take the houston game. The Steeler D destroyed the Houston offense, now how much do you think that inspired the houston defense?

It can also work the other way. When a defense is playing great getting big time stops and huge hits and nabbing turnovers, the offense will respond and be inspired.

But, either way, it goes back to the point of it taking a WHOLE TEAM to win a game.

philhos
09-12-2008, 03:58 PM
Well said, and I also have said many times that it takes a team to win however, I found a hole in your theory.
I believe the Steelers got better when Tommy Gun went down.

The thing in that instance is that Ben was better than Tommy. The only thing Tom had over Ben was smarts and as was shown, Cowher helped Ben overcome that by not putting too much on him and relied heavily on the running game. Eventually, the smarts caught up to Ben and you can now say he was overwhelmingly better than Tommy.

I believe you have said in the past that we would have won the Super bowl that year no matter who our QB was, but I disagree. Ben was an up grade over Tommy Maddox and we would have never won with Tommy under center. I dont believe the Pats would have won with Bledsoe either. It's my opinion,,,it maybe wrong, but I think those two guys are the exception to your theory.

That's mostly smack about winning with anyone at QB. Ben definitely was a huge reason for GETTING to the Super Bowl (though it seemed he did almost everything he could to lose the big game). But, if Cowher used just about any QB the way he did Ben up to the playoffs, the results would've been the same in my opinion (run the ball way more than pass it). However, Cowher changed it up in the postseason that year and that's where only a select few QBs could've done what Ben did. But, then in the Super Bowl, most other quality QBs could've done better than Ben (guys like Carr, Harrington, etc. would've lost the game, but guys like Palmer, Manning, Brady, would've done better and still won).

steelman59
09-12-2008, 04:00 PM
Don't listen to the media. They don't know what they're talking about. Just over a year ago, I believe, SI predicted the Miami Dolphins would represent the AFC in the Super Bowl (I think they had them losing the big game). Miami then went out and narrowly avoided being the 1st 0-16 team in NFL history.

Heck just go back to when Drew Bledsoe was the starter and went down with injury. EVERYONE said NE was done. A 6th-rounder coming in to start? No way, they'd go anywhere. And what happened?

The media may say there's a shift in power in the AFC, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.



It varies from team to team, though. Generally speaking, the QB is the leader, but that's not the case. Look at the Ravens. Do you honestly think Smith, Flacco or Boller is the leader? No, guys like Ray Lewis are. So, yeah, on some teams, maybe even most, you lose the QB, the leader, then there will be struggle. But, also remember that, he can still lead without playing (though it makes it harder to lead during those difficult times).



It can also work the other way. When a defense is playing great getting big time stops and huge hits and nabbing turnovers, the offense will respond and be inspired.

But, either way, it goes back to the point of it taking a WHOLE TEAM to win a game.

I'm not in disagreement with you, however it seems that the so called experts are in total disagreement. I am trying to approach this as I did in college regarding a debate we had.
I was unfortunate enough to get stuck with the abortion issue. I told my instructor that I would really appreciate another topic because I was totally unsure of my stance. I felt that abortion in certain circumstances would be legitimate but in most cases it would not be. The Instructor said, so basically your against abortion, I said yes. I was told to debate the pro side of it. It worked very well.

This is what I am doing here, I am taking the opposite side of my belief's and trying to make a case.

GreggyDigital
09-12-2008, 04:04 PM
QB is the one position you don't want to lose someone. The fact is the QB touches the ball 99 percent of offensive plays. He, for the most part, it the start to every play.

To say the Pats are done is a bit premature. But, when you lose the best NFL QB for the entire season, you're obviously losing some offensive firepower.

Big Time
09-12-2008, 04:21 PM
The thing in that instance is that Ben was better than Tommy. The only thing Tom had over Ben was smarts and as was shown, Cowher helped Ben overcome that by not putting too much on him and relied heavily on the running game. Eventually, the smarts caught up to Ben and you can now say he was overwhelmingly better than Tommy.



That's mostly smack about winning with anyone at QB. Ben definitely was a huge reason for GETTING to the Super Bowl (though it seemed he did almost everything he could to lose the big game). But, if Cowher used just about any QB the way he did Ben up to the playoffs, the results would've been the same in my opinion (run the ball way more than pass it). However, Cowher changed it up in the postseason that year and that's where only a select few QBs could've done what Ben did. But, then in the Super Bowl, most other quality QBs could've done better than Ben (guys like Carr, Harrington, etc. would've lost the game, but guys like Palmer, Manning, Brady, would've done better and still won).

Well said!:thumbsup:

steelman59
09-12-2008, 04:30 PM
The thing in that instance is that Ben was better than Tommy. The only thing Tom had over Ben was smarts and as was shown, Cowher helped Ben overcome that by not putting too much on him and relied heavily on the running game. Eventually, the smarts caught up to Ben and you can now say he was overwhelmingly better than Tommy.



That's mostly smack about winning with anyone at QB. Ben definitely was a huge reason for GETTING to the Super Bowl (though it seemed he did almost everything he could to lose the big game). But, if Cowher used just about any QB the way he did Ben up to the playoffs, the results would've been the same in my opinion (run the ball way more than pass it). However, Cowher changed it up in the postseason that year and that's where only a select few QBs could've done what Ben did. But, then in the Super Bowl, most other quality QBs could've done better than Ben (guys like Carr, Harrington, etc. would've lost the game, but guys like Palmer, Manning, Brady, would've done better and still won).



Phil we ran the ball because Whiz is not Brat, the run was working, why change it up? Ben would have thrown more, if he had to, but like the old saying goes, if it isn't broke why fix it. Everybody says Ben don't throw enough, ok fine, then stop the run.

philhos
09-12-2008, 04:34 PM
Phil we ran the ball because Whiz is not Brat, the run was working, why change it up? Ben would have thrown more, if he had to, but like the old saying goes, if it isn't broke why fix it. Everybody says Ben don't throw enough, ok fine, then stop the run.

But, they went MORE to the run than they normally would. Whiz is no Brat, true, but all OCs know that the best offenses are balanced ones: ones that pass AND run effectively. With Ben being a rookie QB, they couldn't chance his throwing too much, so they ran the ball more than they normally would (and chances are A LOT more considering they viewed Tommy as the passing QB they've lacked in years).

It was very smart. You limit Ben's passing as much as you can (you still pass, but not nearly all that much) until he is able to truly be relied on to throw more. If the running game wasn't so successful for you guys, I firmly believe you would've lost more games just simply from Ben's inexperience and the INTs he would've thrown had he been forced to throw more.

It was a smart move and one that paid off well.

steelman59
09-12-2008, 04:41 PM
But, they went MORE to the run than they normally would. Whiz is no Brat, true, but all OCs know that the best offenses are balanced ones: ones that pass AND run effectively. With Ben being a rookie QB, they couldn't chance his throwing too much, so they ran the ball more than they normally would (and chances are A LOT more considering they viewed Tommy as the passing QB they've lacked in years).

It was very smart. You limit Ben's passing as much as you can (you still pass, but not nearly all that much) until he is able to truly be relied on to throw more. If the running game wasn't so successful for you guys, I firmly believe you would've lost more games just simply from Ben's inexperience and the INTs he would've thrown had he been forced to throw more.

It was a smart move and one that paid off well.

And don't forget that by running the ball you kept the colts and denvers offense off the field, which is always a good thing. It's the 12th man for the defense when you do that. As far as a balanced offense your correct, but again how much did we really need that? I mean the balanced offense is how you establish the run or the pass depending on your offensive philosophy. But when your constantly getting 3 or 4 yards per rush even when they stack the box against the run, again why throw it?

oasiswr
09-12-2008, 06:10 PM
Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?
You don't know if the Pats are done but they do lack strong running and you saw it in the Superbowl without Sammy Morris (best runner in that team).If they can at least keep Sammy running strong the QB doesn't have to be much better than average given the Defense and special teams being really good.For the most part Jacksonville is hurting badly with three offensive lineman gone on injuries,and no strong run game spells doom for them.(No real wide outs)

SteelCity1
09-12-2008, 06:33 PM
No one said the Patriots were out of contention. Also look what the Steelers did in 05. You could have put a woman in at QB (which ben is) and the Steelers still would have won the Superbowl.So what you are saying is the Steelers still would have won it all with Kordell as QB?:hmm:

oasiswr
09-12-2008, 06:47 PM
So what you are saying is the Steelers still would have won it all with Kordell as QB?:hmm:
I believe he almost did if it wasn't for special teams screwing it up or was that a running back fumbling.<_< 2001 fumble debacle.Pats win AFC title.Let me see that was with Tom Brady taken out on a knee injury with them behind mind you then kickoff-----fumble--placing Pats in the 30 yard area. Well at least they had Drew Bledsoe to pass; who was there starter for awhile.

NFL playoffs 2001 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTn653lSYAg)

Dill
09-12-2008, 11:18 PM
The thing in that instance is that Ben was better than Tommy. The only thing Tom had over Ben was smarts and as was shown, Cowher helped Ben overcome that by not putting too much on him and relied heavily on the running game. Eventually, the smarts caught up to Ben and you can now say he was overwhelmingly better than Tommy.



That's mostly smack about winning with anyone at QB. Ben definitely was a huge reason for GETTING to the Super Bowl (though it seemed he did almost everything he could to lose the big game). But, if Cowher used just about any QB the way he did Ben up to the playoffs, the results would've been the same in my opinion (run the ball way more than pass it). However, Cowher changed it up in the postseason that year and that's where only a select few QBs could've done what Ben did. But, then in the Super Bowl, most other quality QBs could've done better than Ben (guys like Carr, Harrington, etc. would've lost the game, but guys like Palmer, Manning, Brady, would've done better and still won).

A first--I agree with everything Philhos says above. Good analysis.

And I think NE will still be in the playoffs this year.

Who2Dey
09-13-2008, 12:08 AM
I think the reason everyone is lowered their expectations for the Pats is that the QB taking over the team hasn't started a game since HS. It is the ultimate team sport, but the QB is one of two players that handles the ball on every play.

Klytus
09-13-2008, 01:25 AM
Perception Is Reality? No one including you knows how the Patriots will play this year now that Tom Brady is gone for the year. Tom Brady has a proven track record of carving up defenses and in leading the offense to victory. The Patriots are facing the greatest challenge as a team that they've faced since Brady took over.

BTW, the Patriots have the weakest schedule in the NFL this year.

GO STEELERS!

meanJoe
09-13-2008, 02:56 AM
If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

Football being a team sport has nothing to do with winning and losing. Look at the Bengals, they still got their QB.

Football is the ultimate team sport because every player has a responsibility on every play, even a play as simple as an extra point. One missed assignment by someone and the kick is blocked.

To win you first need talent and good coaching.

oasiswr
09-13-2008, 05:37 AM
Perception Is Reality? No one including you knows how the Patriots will play this year now that Tom Brady is gone for the year. Tom Brady has a proven track record of carving up defenses and in leading the offense to victory. The Patriots are facing the greatest challenge as a team that they've faced since Brady took over.

BTW, the Patriots have the weakest schedule in the NFL this year.

GO STEELERS!
How so they were in the super bowl long before Brady got there? They also had three pretty good seasons before him with Bledsoe.:thumbsup: Doubt they they will even skip a beat with the defense and special teams they have.It would look better for the Steelers to get beat by Brady than a Backup that hasn't even played a season.

BobGeeFromPGH
09-13-2008, 08:03 AM
Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

Your ? surprises me. It seems quite obvious. The QB has several duties that are unlike all other players .

1 He (sorry Ghosty not typing he or she) handles the Ball from center.

2 He often can change the play at the line of scrimmage. (hope he reads the change correctly)

3 His passing skills are tested constantly (release time, accuracy, and length of throws, )

4 He must watch the tempo of the game and being aware of clock mgmt

5 His position makes him more vulnerable for turnovers. (Besides the interception on bad throws, he is responsible for hand off exchanges, he often is hit when just getting ready to pass with ball exposed in one hand.

6 he makes run, pass, or throw it away decissions on the fly.

7 in case of harm often he is hit when not prepared for it like blind side tackle , or hit while fully extended and unprotected during or after the throws

In the so called "Skill' positions his responsibilities alone seperated him from most others on the team. And his diverse duties seperates him from others.

He touches the ball more on almost every 0ff. play besides the Center with obvious different responsibilites than the Center, So his ball handling skills are paramont

Joe from Florence
09-13-2008, 10:59 AM
Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?
it's the same media who like many others thinks that a team is made up of one person the qb...the same media who has overrated Brady for allthese years....tom brady had one great year, last year...all the others were mediocre but they made him out to be the best that ever walked.

So to answer your question for you...the ones who are now counting the pats out of a playoff chance are the same ones who gave all the credit to Brady for the teams success...so it only makes sense doesn't it?

the ones you refer to are the exact ones i've been talking about for years.

So there is your answer....now to give you a question...if the pats are so bad now because of one player being out...did they win last sunday without brady? I thought so <_<

Blitzberg06
09-13-2008, 11:03 AM
it's the same media who like many others thinks that a team is made up of one person the qb...the same media who has overrated Brady for allthese years....tom brady had one great year, last year...all the others were mediocre but they made him out to be the best that ever walked.

So to answer your question for you...the ones who are now counting the pats out of a playoff chance are the same ones who gave all the credit to Brady for the teams success...so it only makes sense doesn't it?

the ones you refer to are the exact ones i've been talking about for years.

So there is your answer....now to give you a question...if the pats are so bad now because of one player being out...did they win last sunday without brady? I thought so <_<
Even though Brady is out all the QB has to do is put the ball where it needs to be..he has Randy Moss...the guy runs really fast and is tall! The Patriots can still make it to the playoffs..now will they be as good in the playoffs as they usually are? I dunno thats a toss up cause Brady is pretty impressive in playoff game.

philhos
09-13-2008, 11:14 AM
he has Randy Moss...the guy trots like a deer

Randy Moss poops while standing?! :huh:

Blitzberg06
09-13-2008, 11:18 AM
Randy Moss poops while standing?! :huh:

It's early I woke up not to long ago what I mean is the guy runs fast as hell phil!!!!!!!!!

philhos
09-13-2008, 11:20 AM
It's early I woke up not to long ago what I mean is the guy runs fast as hell phil!!!!!!!!!

I got what you were saying. Trotting is a form of movement and doesn't actually involve pooping, though I have heard people use the phrase "I've got the trots" in reference to their diarrhea. That's why I posted what I did.

But, way to take a joke and be all serious and ruin the fun. <_< Thanks a lot. :angry:

:thumbsup:

Blitzberg06
09-13-2008, 11:24 AM
I got what you were saying. Trotting is a form of movement and doesn't actually involve pooping, though I have heard people use the phrase "I've got the trots" in reference to their diarrhea. That's why I posted what I did.

But, way to take a joke and be all serious and ruin the fun. <_< Thanks a lot. :angry:

:thumbsup:

Lol sorry man! It's early but this post made me laugh! :lol:. Did you forget I'm a Steeler fan and we are always serious :angry:

philhos
09-13-2008, 11:35 AM
Lol sorry man! It's early but this post made me laugh! :lol:. Did you forget I'm a Steeler fan and we are always serious :angry:

Always serious and you're life depends on the Steelers doing well year after year. If the Steelers ever have a run like the Bengals or like the Steelers pre-1970, then the mass suicides will lead to mass facepalms by all us non-Steeler fans.

;)

Blitzberg06
09-13-2008, 11:36 AM
Always serious and you're life depends on the Steelers doing well year after year. If the Steelers ever have a run like the Bengals or like the Steelers pre-1970, then the mass suicides will lead to mass facepalms by all us non-Steeler fans.

;)
Yes it does!! I could not live with myself if they did bad! :lol:

I wouldn't like it but I would still be a big fan.

philhos
09-13-2008, 11:39 AM
Yes it does!! I could not live with myself if they did bad! :lol:

I wouldn't like it but I would still be a big fan.

Two words: Jenny Craig. :ninja:

Joe from Florence
09-13-2008, 12:09 PM
Even though Brady is out all the QB has to do is put the ball where it needs to be..he has Randy Moss...the guy runs really fast and is tall! The Patriots can still make it to the playoffs..now will they be as good in the playoffs as they usually are? I dunno thats a toss up cause Brady is pretty impressive in playoff game.I agree and that is basically my point.

Just because Brady is out doesn't mean they won't make it to the playoffs...they won last week without him didn't they?

If anything that game proved the point i was making for years on here...one guy does not make a team...if that were true then Carson would have 5 SB rings already

Patrick D from 83
09-13-2008, 12:17 PM
I guess we'll find out at the end of the season steel.

If the Patriots don't make the playoffs...you could certainly say Tom Brady being out was a big part of it. For the most part the same team from last year is intact, minus Samuel, but their offense was their driving force all last year anyway.

So if they miss the playoffs now, when many people expected them to win the AFC, we have an argument. Right now its just the media producing news stories to get the people's attention, and nothing more.

steelman59
09-13-2008, 12:24 PM
Always serious and you're life depends on the Steelers doing well year after year. If the Steelers ever have a run like the Bengals or like the Steelers pre-1970, then the mass suicides will lead to mass facepalms by all us non-Steeler fans.

;)

No way, if we ever got an FO like the Bengals have, Art would come back from his grave and kick them out!

steelman59
09-13-2008, 12:25 PM
If the Pats do not make it to the playoffs, can I have a show of hands that agree the media and the fans will say its because they did not have brady?

:thumbsup:

Blitzberg06
09-13-2008, 12:50 PM
If the Pats do not make it to the playoffs, can I have a show of hands that agree the media and the fans will say its because they did not have brady?

:thumbsup:

We know it will be because of that

Patrick D from 83
09-13-2008, 01:06 PM
We know it will be because of that

They could always throw in the "its the NFL and teams records can drastically change year to year argument" :thumbsup:

CatKiller
09-13-2008, 02:00 PM
QBs don't make or break a team but if you get a good one it certainly helps. I think the Vikings are still looking for one of those...

You say that QB's don't make or break a team and then use the Vikings as an example? :huh:
The Vikings are proof that a QB DOES make or break a team. If they had a legitimate QB, with that defense and running game, they would be in contention for the super bowl.

Joe from Florence
09-13-2008, 02:27 PM
You say that QB's don't make or break a team and then use the Vikings as an example? :huh:
The Vikings are proof that a QB DOES make or break a team. If they had a legitimate QB, with that defense and running game, they would be in contention for the super bowl.
you still don't get it do you?

I don't think anyone will ever say a good qb doesn't make a difference...this whole debate is about one thing...if a qb is the sole difference in a team winning or losing....it was proved that what i've said for years is correct, a qb is not the sole reason a team wins or losses...the patriots won last week

BengalsAtOSU
09-14-2008, 12:39 AM
you still don't get it do you?

I don't think anyone will ever say a good qb doesn't make a difference...this whole debate is about one thing...if a qb is the sole difference in a team winning or losing....it was proved that what i've said for years is correct, a qb is not the sole reason a team wins or losses...the patriots won last week

They played a team that probably would have trouble with Ohio State.

Brady WILL be the difference whether or not the Patriots beat GOOD teams...whether in the regular season or in the playoffs. Their schedule is so damn easy that they'll probably be the AFC east winner by default.

jschmid946
09-14-2008, 01:36 AM
No one said the Patriots were out of contention. Also look what the Steelers did in 05. You could have put a woman in at QB (which ben is) and the Steelers still would have won the Superbowl. QBs don't make or break a team but if you get a good one it certainly helps. I think the Vikings are still looking for one of those...The referees took that game from Seattle, what a joke of a super bowl that was!!!!!!!!!!!:angry::angry::angry::angry:

nine``
09-14-2008, 02:42 AM
Lastly, if you think Brady or Manning or Big Ben or anyone can win a game by himself, do this: take away the OL, the WRs, the TEs, the RBs, the FBs, the K, the P, and the entire defense and play 1 man versus an entire team. Who do you think will win?

It takes a TEAM to win it and as far as I know, Ghostwriter is the only Steeler fan who seems to understand that.

I agree with that statement and I'm a Steelers fan.....so theres 2 Steelers fans who understand this concept. :Clap: :p

nine``
09-14-2008, 03:13 AM
But, they went MORE to the run than they normally would. Whiz is no Brat, true, but all OCs know that the best offenses are balanced ones: ones that pass AND run effectively. With Ben being a rookie QB, they couldn't chance his throwing too much, so they ran the ball more than they normally would (and chances are A LOT more considering they viewed Tommy as the passing QB they've lacked in years).

It was very smart. You limit Ben's passing as much as you can (you still pass, but not nearly all that much) until he is able to truly be relied on to throw more. If the running game wasn't so successful for you guys, I firmly believe you would've lost more games just simply from Ben's inexperience and the INTs he would've thrown had he been forced to throw more.

It was a smart move and one that paid off well.

After the 2002 season where Tommy had his cinderella season everyone in Steeler Nation thought he was the passing QB that we'd lacked for years....until he showed his true colors in 2003 with a sickly throwing arm, horrendous decision making, and a TD to INT ratio that made a chimpanzee look like a better option for a QB. Also his mobility which there was none of considering his legs were made of cement, and he loved playing possum everytime he got a glimpse of a defensive player who was heading his way which resulted in him getting sacked about 40 some times.(I despised Cement Legs Maddox). I think Cowher and Whiz in 2004 finally realized Tommy's limitations and what he was capable of and were going to be running the ball a hell of a lot more that season regardless. Not saying that they didn't change the program when Ben got behind the helm and most likely ran it a bit more, but I just think after Tommy's KAPUT 03' season they were going to stick to the ground. I assume thats why they picked up Deuce Staley that year...

Joe from Florence
09-14-2008, 01:31 PM
Steelman, i will give you several names to prove the qb isn't the sole responsible player for a teams success.

What do these players all have in common with eachother?

Earl Morrell
Jeff Hoestettler
Kurt Warner
Tom Brady
Jim Plunkett

If you geussed that these were all backup qb's that had to play the season as starters when their teams star qb's got hurt and all led their teams to the playoffs...not only to the playoffs, but to the SB, then you are right...all of these qb's teams also ended up winning the SB in those years. The biggest story had to be the Earl Morrell story when the Dolphins star QB and HOFer Bob Griese gets knocked out in early in the season and Morrell comes in to start the next 12 games leading them to the SB where Griese comes back to start and win it and the Dolphins finish the season as the only team in the NFL history to go undefeated.

So if this isn't proof that a QB is not the sole reason teams win or lose I don't know what is.

All those qb's listed were backups and all had stars in front of them playing...not average qb's but NFL stars at the time.
3 of those listed ended up being SB MVP's also I believe.

So to answer your question again, not only was it proven wrong about NE not being able to win without Brady...they already proved last week they could win without him, but also they still have a good shot at making the playoffs without him.

Joe from Florence
09-15-2008, 08:41 AM
Steelman59

last i checked the Patriots were 2-0

hmmmmmm

and the nail in the coffin to prove my point I made for years is dead on the money....look at the two qb's in yesterdays game....you'd have to admit that Brett Favre is a much better qb than Cassell, but the Jets lost.

Just more proof that a QB isn't the sole responsible player for wins and losses...that it has a ton more to do with the team than anything.

Big Time
09-15-2008, 08:46 AM
Steelman59

last i checked the Patriots were 2-0

hmmmmmm

and the nail in the coffin to prove my point I made for years is dead on the money....look at the two qb's in yesterdays game....you'd have to admit that Brett Favre is a much better qb than Cassell, but the Jets lost.

Just more proof that a QB isn't the sole responsible player for wins and losses...that it has a ton more to do with the team than anything.

Some might say, a head coach is more valuable than a QB.:hmm:

Joe from Florence
09-15-2008, 08:55 AM
Some might say, a head coach is more valuable than a QB.:hmm:
nah....i wouldn't even go that far...tomlin is 2-0 this year isn't he?
i rest my case :lol:

Stickman
09-15-2008, 09:07 AM
nah....i wouldn't even go that far...tomlin is 2-0 this year isn't he?
i rest my case :lol:

Tomlin was a 4th and 1 timeout away from being the idiot of the week. Good thing the Steelers made it anyway on the second try....

Big Time
09-15-2008, 09:28 AM
nah....i wouldn't even go that far...tomlin is 2-0 this year isn't he?
i rest my case :lol:

:Clap::Clap:
Ok, good one....but if Carson doesnt get some help soon he will be wasting away in Bengal Land.
Which by the way, will be a shame. Someone is denying us the privilege of watching a great QB develop into one of the best. Instead we are watching him waste away.:hmm:
Who is responsible for that?

steelman59
09-15-2008, 11:20 AM
nah....i wouldn't even go that far...tomlin is 2-0 this year isn't he?
i rest my case :lol:

Yep and Marvin is 0-2

I rest my case. :lol:

steelman59
09-15-2008, 11:21 AM
Tomlin was a 4th and 1 timeout away from being the idiot of the week. Good thing the Steelers made it anyway on the second try....

Yes its a wonderful thing when a coach has confidence in his team, maybe someday the Bengals will know that feeling.

steelman59
09-15-2008, 11:28 AM
Steelman59

last i checked the Patriots were 2-0

hmmmmmm

and the nail in the coffin to prove my point I made for years is dead on the money....look at the two qb's in yesterdays game....you'd have to admit that Brett Favre is a much better qb than Cassell, but the Jets lost.

Just more proof that a QB isn't the sole responsible player for wins and losses...that it has a ton more to do with the team than anything.

2-0 and those 2 wins were against whom?

They have yet to play a legitimate team.

The Jets? LOL. Sure they have favre, but one man does not make a team.

The Chiefs? Thats even funnier then the jets.

Heck Joe even the bengals could probably beat these teams.

philhos
09-15-2008, 12:14 PM
Sure they have favre, but one man does not make a team..

You say this in the same thread where you say this:

If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

/facepalm

steelman59
09-15-2008, 12:49 PM
You say this in the same thread where you say this:



/facepalm

Yep and its also the same thread I stated this.

I'm not in disagreement with you, however it seems that the so called experts are in total disagreement. I am trying to approach this as I did in college regarding a debate we had.
I was unfortunate enough to get stuck with the abortion issue. I told my instructor that I would really appreciate another topic because I was totally unsure of my stance. I felt that abortion in certain circumstances would be legitimate but in most cases it would not be. The Instructor said, so basically your against abortion, I said yes. I was told to debate the pro side of it. It worked very well.

This is what I am doing here, I am taking the opposite side of my belief's and trying to make a case.


You should try reading all the posts Phil.

Joe from Florence
09-15-2008, 02:49 PM
:Clap::Clap:
Ok, good one....but if Carson doesnt get some help soon he will be wasting away in Bengal Land.
Which by the way, will be a shame. Someone is denying us the privilege of watching a great QB develop into one of the best. Instead we are watching him waste away.:hmm:
Who is responsible for that?

it all starts at the top....i'll leave it at that, i know you know who and what i mean

Joe from Florence
09-15-2008, 02:53 PM
2-0 and those 2 wins were against whom?

They have yet to play a legitimate team.

The Jets? LOL. Sure they have favre, but one man does not make a team.

The Chiefs? Thats even funnier then the jets.

Heck Joe even the bengals could probably beat these teams.so NOW your saying....it only counts as a team if they lose because of how the team is bad...or it only counts as a win because you played bad teams....you confuse me steelman...is it because of the QB if a team wins or losses, or is it because of the team itself? or is it the qb is responsible when it fits your argument, and the teams responsible when it fits that side of your argument?

so if i understand you correctly the pats didn't need brady in the first place because the pats would of won no matter what? doesn't that again support my side of the argument that it's the team not the qb that is responsible for wins?

thanks for proving that point.

steelman59
09-15-2008, 03:07 PM
so NOW your saying....it only counts as a team if they lose because of how the team is bad...or it only counts as a win because you played bad teams....you confuse me steelman...is it because of the QB if a team wins or losses, or is it because of the team itself? or is it the qb is responsible when it fits your argument, and the teams responsible when it fits that side of your argument?

so if i understand you correctly the pats didn't need brady in the first place because the pats would of won no matter what? doesn't that again support my side of the argument that it's the team not the qb that is responsible for wins?

thanks for proving that point.

Thank You Joe. I firmly believe that it is a team effort. Did you read what I typed about the college debate? The reason it worked then is the reason it is working now.

You see I am taking the opposite stance and trying to make a case and in so doing, I am actually supporting what I do believe in. Like the pro abortion stance, trying to backup what I don't believe, actually supported what I do believe.

I hope that clears it up.

BobGeeFromPGH
09-15-2008, 03:17 PM
Yes its a wonderful thing when a coach has confidence in his team, maybe someday the Bengals will know that feeling.

AHHH Hmmm Steelman59.....as long as M Brown and his family are working and owning the Bengals ....I doubt their team will ever know that "feeling" that the Steelers, Ravens, and last years Brown teams have had.:hmm:

steelman59
09-15-2008, 03:23 PM
Yes its a wonderful thing when a coach has confidence in his team, maybe someday the Bengals will know that feeling.

AHHH Hmmm Steelman59.....as long as M Brown and his family are working and owning the Bengals ....I doubt their team will ever know that "feeling" that the Steelers, Ravens, and last years Brown teams have had.:hmm:

I know thats why I said maybe. Maybe bengal fans are going about this all wrong. Some have posted about boycotting the bengals, maybe what they should do is lure him away into something that can be more profitable. Like Casino's :rotf: