Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gronk is a beast, and healthy the best tight end to ever play the game. Edelman is also phenomenal.
Brady is one of the best ever to play the game at his position. I don't believe in this position there will ever be a greatest ever, but only a select few who belong in the argument - Montana, Manning, etc. In a few more years to build his resume, Rodgers will be there.
The jury is out on Gronk. If he can put together 5 - 7 years of playing at the level he plays at, he will be the best to ever play the game... injuries may negate that....
As for Brady, I can't be objective due to being a life long Pats fan, but how can one not put him in the top 3 given:
The great debate on QBs will always rage and sometimes I think they should be qualified in some way as the supporting cast has a great deal to do with it! How was his O-line over his career, TEs, WRs, etc., and then comparing length of career and when it takes place. I appreciate Peyton's ability at the line, being the general and all that, but I'd take Tom over Peyton.
I'm a Packer fan, I love Aaron but he is 31 and wants to play until he's 40. He is great but that could drop off, depending on the talent around him. He has the benefit of the new rules, too, I'm not blind to that fact. When asked, he talks about Tom, Peyton and Brees. Of course, he and Tom are friends, closer than the other two, both with California connection.
Montana had Rice, Peyton had Harrison. Both had supporting running games. One could argue Tom has done more with less over the span of his career. Maybe yes, maybe no. When you look at the top tiered greats at the QB position, to me it's about consistency. And there are very few QB's that have played at a high level for so long such as Tom. It's a great debate to have, and I'm a lucky fan who has been able to enjoy the entire career on MY team of one of those greatest ever QB's. Been a great ride, and if for nothing else, have 3 SB's in the back pocket.
On the surface, that is correct. The Patriots should beat all 3 of these teams. But this is in the NFL and any team can trip someone up, so hopefully the Patriots play hard to lock down the #1 seed and a valuable bye week to start the playoffs.
Quite correct - but that includes all teams. And the Patriots simply have an easier closing schedule than their closest rival for the #1 seed, Denver.
NEW ENGLAND
Miami
@ NY Jets
Buffalo
The Patriots have home games against 1) a warm-weather team, and 2) a team that will probably no longer be in the playoff hunt when week 17 rolls around. Their only road game is a very short flight in the same time zone to play a terrible team.
DENVER
@ San Diego
@ Cincinnati
Oakland
The Broncos top two remaining opponents are probably better than the Patriots top two remaining opponents, Denver has to play them both on the road, and both will still be in the thick of the playoff hunt when the games go down.
And a bye is almost a lock - remember, there are two byes/conference. In order to miss out on a bye, the Patriots would have to be passed by bioth Denver and Cincinnati. Technically, Indianapolis could still do it, but they'd have to finish 3-0 against an 0-3 Patriots collapse, and I'm guessing everyone understands that the odds of that combination happening are extremely long.
Back to CINCINNATI
@ Cleveland
Denver
@ Pittsurgh
No easy games - all are against teams that will very likely be alive for the playoffs.
So, yeah, New England has the easiest closing schedule of the three teams. Further to their advantage is the fact that the Broncos v. Bengals game in week 16 means one of the other teams also pursuing a bye is guaranteed another loss.
Montana had Rice, Peyton had Harrison. Both had supporting running games. One could argue Tom has done more with less over the span of his career. Maybe yes, maybe no. When you look at the top tiered greats at the QB position, to me it's about consistency. And there are very few QB's that have played at a high level for so long such as Tom. It's a great debate to have, and I'm a lucky fan who has been able to enjoy the entire career on MY team of one of those greatest ever QB's. Been a great ride, and if for nothing else, have 3 SB's in the back pocket.
Thirteen seasons as a starting QB, thirteen winning seasons (I'm discounting 2008, even though he won his single start that season). I'm pretty sure no QB has ever had a career nearly as long, with nothing but winning seasons as a full-time starter.
And as you say, few if any of the great QBs have ever won so much with such a constantly-changing array of supporting staff at RB and WR.
Well it certainly was not pretty, but it was still a win. The Jets are always a tough opponent as their defense always is able to dial up great pressure on Brady.
12-3 and holding onto the #1 seed in the AFC heading into week 17.
Well it certainly was not pretty, but it was still a win. The Jets are always a tough opponent as their defense always is able to dial up great pressure on Brady.
12-3 and holding onto the #1 seed in the AFC heading into week 17.
*crosses fingers* - this could be the year Brady gets his 4th and shuts the world up, as if 3 isn't good enough
I hope he doesn't meet the cowboys brvause would not know what to do
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
