Brady's Bedtime Buddies

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If Brady was the Tom Brady from NE...not a whole lot would be different. Brady still plays a really conservative game. I mean, certainly you've realized this. Why do you think his INT totals are so low? He plays it safe.

If we asked him to open it up, inevitably we'd get more mistakes.

Of course Brady>Brunell. He's considerably younger and a bit more efficient. No one is arguing the contrary. But its a reasonable comparision because they approach offense fairly similarly.

Aggressive does not always equal better. Aggressive is one thing. Better is something else.

I don't know about that. I watch this guy constantly throw deep over the middle to the TE all the time. I mean all the time. And I've seen them open it up many times. Example. Minnesota on Mon. night. They just went to 4-5 wr sets the whole game. Didn't even bother running the ball that much casue they knew it was going to be tough to run against Minn. So they just said the hell with this. We will just throw it on these guys. I also remember NE doing the same thing to Chi. Just the fact that they would even try that type of game plan w/ below average wr's tell's you the confidence the coaching staff has in Brady. No way could our offense EVER do that, or would we ever even try and do that. W/ our offense we have the "we must run to win" mentality. And that is what I love about the NE coaching staff. They have the "do what it takes to win" mentality.

Brady's INT totals are low because he's a great QB who see's the entire field. He has the ability to come off to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th options. It's not because he isn't aggressive. Not at all.

I'm hoping we see a little more of an open offense this year. It's all going to depend if JC can handle it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I don't know about that. I watch this guy constantly throw deep over the middle to the TE all the time. I mean all the time. And I've seen them open it up many times. Example. Minnesota on Mon. night. They just went to 4-5 wr sets the whole game. Didn't even bother running the ball that much casue they knew it was going to be tough to run against Minn. So they just said the hell with this. We will just throw it on these guys. I also remember NE doing the same thing to Chi. Just the fact that they would even try that type of game plan w/ below average wr's tell's you the confidence the coaching staff has in Brady. No way could our offense EVER do that, or would we ever even try and do that. W/ our offense we have the "we must run to win" mentality. And that is what I love about the NE coaching staff. They have the "do what it takes to win" mentality.

Brady's INT totals are low because he's a great QB who see's the entire field. He has the ability to come off to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th options. It's not because he isn't aggressive. Not at all.

I'm hoping we see a little more of an open offense this year. It's all going to depend if JC can handle it.

Ok. You have some solid points with the flexibility of the NE offense, and having a QB of Brady's caliber certainly gives them that flexibility, but spreading the defense out does not necessarily imply aggression. I mean they can be and usually are very safe and smart with their throws, and it's a credit to Tom Brady's patience as a QB.

And Mark Brunell certainly did not display the same level of patience as Brady did this year, but that was as much a function of some inconsistent protection as it was with age and fragility.

But once given the clear differences between a great 28 year old QB in the prime of his career and a once great 36 year old QB in the twilight of his career, its still not hard to see that they do a lot of stuff similar, even this year. Brady is obviously in a better situation as far as system and protection goes, whereas Brunell is in a better situation after the completion with guys like Moss and Cooley who excell after the catch.

Both guys do a great job in taking what the defense gives them. That doesn't translate to wins if you have the 32nd ranked defense, but both guys do their jobs.

Brady's INT totals are low because he's a great QB who see's the entire field. He has the ability to come off to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th options. It's not because he isn't aggressive. Not at all.

Replace "Brady's" with "Brunell's" and the statement stays accurate. I mean, the term "great" is quite subjective, but as far as 36 year old QBs go, I'd say Brunell is great for his age.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ok. You have some solid points with the flexibility of the NE offense, and having a QB of Brady's caliber certainly gives them that flexibility, but spreading the defense out does not necessarily imply aggression. I mean they can be and usually are very safe and smart with their throws, and it's a credit to Tom Brady's patience as a QB.

And Mark Brunell certainly did not display the same level of patience as Brady did this year, but that was as much a function of some inconsistent protection as it was with age and fragility.

But once given the clear differences between a great 28 year old QB in the prime of his career and a once great 36 year old QB in the twilight of his career, its still not hard to see that they do a lot of stuff similar, even this year. Brady is obviously in a better situation as far as system and protection goes, whereas Brunell is in a better situation after the completion with guys like Moss and Cooley who excell after the catch.

Both guys do a great job in taking what the defense gives them. That doesn't translate to wins if you have the 32nd ranked defense, but both guys do their jobs.

Replace "Brady's" with "Brunell's" and the statement stays accurate. I mean, the term "great" is quite subjective, but as far as 36 year old QBs go, I'd say Brunell is great for his age.

"and a once great 36 year old qb" Are u serious? I loved Brunell's game in his prime. He was a poor man's Steve Young. But he was never a great QB. I know you love the guy to death but keep it real.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

"and a once great 36 year old qb" Are u serious? I loved Brunell's game in his prime. He was a poor man's Steve Young. But he was never a great QB. I know you love the guy to death but keep it real.

Great to me does not mean hall of famer for the record. I'm guessing it does to you, but let's not assume that because I'm calling a guy great, I'm stamping his ticket to Canton.

Brunell in his prime was certainly great, IMO. He would probably rank in the top 40 all time, part because good QBs were rare prior to the Young, Marino, Elway era. He's still capable of doing good things, and did a lot for this team last year, but you and I both know hes best suited to be a backup now.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Great to me does not mean hall of famer for the record. I'm guessing it does to you, but let's not assume that because I'm calling a guy great, I'm stamping his ticket to Canton.

Brunell in his prime was certainly great, IMO. He would probably rank in the top 40 all time, part because good QBs were rare prior to the Young, Marino, Elway era. He's still capable of doing good things, and did a lot for this team last year, but you and I both know hes best suited to be a backup now.

I think the word great is thrown around way too much. Right now I would say the NFL has two great QB's. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. And then the 2nd tier is McNabb, Palmer, Brees and possibly Bulger. But all those 2nd tier guys have the chance to be great.

You are probably just too young to remember but in the 70's and early 80's the NFL had plenty of really good QB's. Dan Fouts and Ken Stabler were two of my old time favorites. And no one threw as nicer looking ball than Warren Moon in his prime. Do you realize that Warren Moon would hold almost every single passing record if the NFL didn't pass him over? But alot of the the stats of the old timers don't match up w/ today's Qb's becasue the passing game and the rules have changed so much. In the old days DB's could just kill wr's. Now they can't touch them. It's the Mel Blount rule.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I think the word great is thrown around way too much. Right now I would say the NFL has two great QB's. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. And then the 2nd tier is McNabb, Palmer, Brees and possibly Bulger. But all those 2nd tier guys have the chance to be great.

You are probably just too young to remember but in the 70's and early 80's the NFL had plenty of really good QB's. Dan Fouts and Ken Stabler were two of my old time favorites. And no one threw as nicer looking ball than Warren Moon in his prime. Do you realize that Warren Moon would hold almost every single passing record if the NFL didn't pass him over? But alot of the the stats don't match up w/ today's Qb's becasue the passing game and the rules have changed so much. In the old days DB's could just kill wr's. Now they can't touch them. It's the Mel Blount rule.

Duely noted and I think its a great point. But I also think that Brunell in his hey day was very comprable to those 2nd tier guys you named. So if that gave him a chance to be great, then he's guilty as charged.

Fouts, Stabler, and Moon were great QBs. You can run their era-adjusted numbers, or just watch the old NFL-films highlight reels, and you arrive at that conclusion. But then again, those guys are all hall of famers, so I don't think you are exactly going out on a limb here.

Throw Ken Anderson on that list too. This guy is easily one of the 15 best QBs ever to play.

But back then, the emphasis in the college game was not on the passing game. Thus, less kids became quarterbacks, and even fewer became NFL QBs. There just werent enough good QBs to go around 20-30 years ago because an NFL caliber talent came out once every 2-3 years.

Now, 3-4 QBs each year have NFL caliber skill with a ton more catching on as backups. With a certain percentage of these players becoming great, it isnt surprising that there are so many more HOF worthy QBs playing today when compared with yesteryear.