Following is a
treatise generated by my friend and employee�.we�ll give him as screenname�..WoburnJoe.� A Patriot fan, but not one of the legion of
New England assholes, WoburnJoe appreciates the
Pittsburgh Steelers, comes to my house to watch the Steelers, and openly roots
for them when not playing the Steelers.�
Since early in Ben�s rookie year, WoburnJoe
has promoted his special skills, consistenly
preferring Ben�s gifts to those of his own QB.�
The opening paragraph
is WoburnJoe�s current email to me.� The remainder of the piece WoburnJoe generated during last year�s NFL Playoffs.
Rothlesberger is one of the five best active QB's, and has been so, minus his recovery, for the entirety of his career. Brady, despite his numbers, his trophies, and his girlfriends, has never been in the top five, (although always in the top ten). In short, he is a good, maybe very good QB, who has benefitted incalculably from being in the right place at the right time. That is the Krafts, Pioli, Belichick era. I've attached my response to claims of his superiority from last years playoffs, post SD. If I were to modify it now, I would have to fly even more in the face of the Brady cock-suckers, who seem to be multiplying faster than the terroists. Fact is, he has been waiting for a bus all year, and tossing the ball around to wide-open, supremely talented recievers. Last week, when he had his first taste of adversity, he did a great job of keeping the Colts in the game, until the rest of his team, under the unparelleled leadership of Bellichick, overcame the deficiencies in their play, and that of the officials, and Brady! Yes, he did perform very well at the end. If he were truly great, he would not have needed to.
In response to �Brady NFL�s all-time best� claims:
Yes, I've noticed that in the world of professional
sports commentating, there is no shortage of hyperbole. Every spectator
is naturally prone to favor the performers with whom they have a closer connection
over those at a distance. So, I would never quarrel with someone's
"favorite". But, when folks assert their opinion of
"best", that seems to me to require a more sober analysis.
I share with many commentators a focus on the bottom-line criterion: winning.
Yes, Brady does that. So, I've always thought he is a good, maybe even
very good quarterback. But I have never believed he is excellent, and
certainly not the best in the league, never mind all-time. So, how do I
reconcile his stellar winning percentage with my relatively low grade
(admittedly in the minority)? I think the answer is Belichick.
It seems to me that Belichick (with the possibly
essential help of the Krafts and others) developed a
superior system for the creation and maintenance of an NFL franchise, from
global philosophy to personnel selection, to x's and o's, etc. He determined that Brady was capable of
"managing" within his system, and, as usual, he was right.
Brady is exceptionally obedient. He stays within himself, but more to the
point, he stays within Belichick! This results in his being a very important cog in what is
arguably the NFL's all-time greatest machine: the Belichick
machine.
This is not to take anything away from Brady; just to give more to what I
believe is the rightful source of the Pat's success. Look at Brady's
so-called great career. What does he really do? At his best, he
efficiently executes a vastly superior game plan (tactically as well as
strategically). He hits usually wide-open receivers with marginal/good
balls � almost never great. He has little to do with play calling, he's
not among the best at feeling pressure, avoiding sacks, extending the play or
drive with mobility (though he is very tough, and does a good job on QB
sneaks); he�s not especially adroit at quickly checking down to alternate
options, making extraordinary passes into tight coverage (occasionally good at
this, especially on stop-routes), leading touch passes for YAC (quite poor at
this), deep throws (again, not good), or other heroic deeds of improvisation
and individual leadership (his aforementioned most glaring weakness).
Again, that doesn't make him bad. I think he's quite good, and maybe the
best available guy for the job (if Belichick thinks
so, that's good enough for me).
When I think of a great quarterback, I start with
winning, yes, but then I put it in context. I consider the unique position a QB
is in. He's the one who must make and apply successful leadership
decisions, not only when play is going as planned, but most importantly, when
things fall apart. My most negative response to Brady is his inability to
make good things happen when the game plan is failing. On the great Belichick coached teams he has been blessed with, he has
had few occasions to be tested in this way. But taken as a whole, he has
failed on those few occasions.
Another thing: The QB is virtually the only one who
has access to the most potent offensive solution: the pass. I've always
felt that if a QB is not a great passer, it's nearly impossible for him to be a
great QB. That's because, on most teams that aren't led by the superior
genius of Belichick, the QB will be required more
regularly to make extraordinary passes, and other acts of individual
leadership, than Brady has had to. Even from those who deify him, I hear few
credible assertions that Brady is a great passer.
In evidence of my claims of diminishment, I offer last Sunday's game (2006 AFC
Divisional title game). Didn't the Patriots win because Belichick's
coaching was excellent and Scottenheimer�s was
poor? (His foolish bravado of the early 4th down attempt, the
timeout-wasting challenge, and most inexcusably only 23 touches for the
virtually unstoppable LT?!) It seems obvious to me. How significant
was Brady�s contribution to that win?� I
don�t think it's unfair to say that the Pat's won despite Brady.
And I say this granting that he made probably his best pass of the season to
set up the winning score. Considering the Chargers far superior on-field
personnel, they may have easily won, if not for the comically tragic multiple
missteps by Scottenheimer and crew.� Brady wasn't the primary reason they lost (I
award that dishonor to the secondary -- especially the absence of Harrison, by
far the single most important Pats player), but in light of Scottenheimer's
idiocy, the Pat's may have been ahead a couple of touchdown by the middle of
the fourth, if not for Brady's dismal performance (27/51, 2TD, 3INT, including
one on a failed 4th down conversion that would have most probably sealed the
game, if not for Troy Brown's heroics.�
(Now there's a great player.� In
fact, in case your wondering � greatest all-time Pats: Doug Flutie, and Troy
Brown). By the way, I'm not a big fan of QB rating, but I would think the
games "best" should be higher than 75 -- that's 7th out of the
playoff's 12 -- behind such legends as Drew Brees
(96), Tony Romo (89), and Eli Manning (85).
Even Rex Grossman is rated higher!
In the end, despite the great fun I�ve had watching
his teams win Superbowls, Brady�s play always reminds
me that he was a 6th round pick by analysts much smarter than I.
Anyway, I like Brady fine.� He seems like
a good guy, no obligatory rap sheet, bullet scars, or �street cred�, and, oh, yeah, they say he�s handsome (gotta be compared to those ugly balls he throws). And
I will be most happy to amend my opinion if he can lead his team to another
Super Bowl victory this year � or more accurately, at least not get in Belichick�s way.
ps - As I look at the history of football, these are
the QB's that I think are "best": Joe
Montana, Doug Flutie, Bart Starr, Johnny Unitas, Steve Young, Otto Graham, Sammy
Baugh. What do you think?