Tom Brady out for the year

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I'm glad Belichick said that comparing this situation with 2001 when Brady replaced Bledsoe, is like comparing apples and oranges. Pats fans are trying to talk themselves into Matt Cassel and saying that they will be ok. I think that's crazy, given that Brady is a top 5 all-time QB, and Bledsoe was average at best.

Just wanted to comment on the Brady / Bledsoe comments:

Brady is not a top 5 yet, but very easily could be when all is said and done.

I think we all forget how good Bledsoe was. He is 7th all time in passing yards for pete's sake. 13th in passing TDs. That quite possibly could make him a hall of famer. If he doesn't make the hall, it will still be a good discussion / debate. Let's not forget that the Pats were the doormat of the league until Bledsoe showed up. In the 4 seasons before bledsoe, they were 14-50. In his first 6 seasons, the Patriots made the playoffs 4 times, including a super bowl appearance...and that had NEVER been done in New England. (the 4 playoff appearances in 6 years that is)
So saying he was average at best is way off base.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Just wanted to comment on the Brady / Bledsoe comments:

Brady is not a top 5 yet, but very easily could be when all is said and done.

I think we all forget how good Bledsoe was. He is 7th all time in passing yards for pete's sake. 13th in passing TDs. That quite possibly could make him a hall of famer. If he doesn't make the hall, it will still be a good discussion / debate. Let's not forget that the Pats were the doormat of the league until Bledsoe showed up. In the 4 seasons before bledsoe, they were 14-50. In his first 6 seasons, the Patriots made the playoffs 4 times, including a super bowl appearance...and that had NEVER been done in New England. (the 4 playoff appearances in 6 years that is)
So saying he was average at best is way off base.

Ok maybe Brady is not top 5 all-time, but he has easily been the most dominant player in the past 7 years in one of the toughest conference. Brady made the playoffs with subpar WRs two years ago, and he's been the reason for the success of the Patriots. To think that the Patriots are going to be fine without him is a bit ridiculous. Maybe I underrated Bledsoe, probably b/c of his performance late in his career, but I just don't think it is fair to compare this situation with what happened in 2001.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Ok maybe Brady is not top 5 all-time, but he has easily been the most dominant player in the past 7 years in one of the toughest conference. Brady made the playoffs with subpar WRs two years ago, and he's been the reason for the success of the Patriots. To think that the Patriots are going to be fine without him is a bit ridiculous. Maybe I underrated Bledsoe, probably b/c of his performance late in his career, but I just don't think it is fair to compare this situation with what happened in 2001.

I know this is splitting hairs, and for the sake of argument, I'll say it. Peyton Manning has been more dominant over the past 7 years, Brady has had the better TEAM.

Manning:
29339 yards, 234 total tds, turnovers- 95 int + 37 fumbles = 132 total turnovers, 99.44 rating over the 7 years. 79-33

Brady:
26364 yards, 202 total tds, turnovers- 86 int + 53 fumbles = 139 total turnovers, 92.59 rating over the 7 years. 86-24.

So Manning beats him in every catagory, yet Manning's record over the past 7 years is 79-33, while Brady's is 86-24. Clearly the Patriots team has been better over the years.

I do think you're right about not comparing this to when Brady came in for Bledsoe, however, the Patriots TEAM will be fine. They won't be a super bowl contender, but they will be a playoff team and that speaks to the talent they have aquired, and (gag) the coaching.
I thought the pats were going to win 12 games this year, and after Brady was lost for the season, I think they will win 10 games. If Manning was lost in Indy, I'd expect a 8 win season or so.