Brady Extension, Could play 20 years with pats

[Steve Billieve]

He could be making double what he pulls in now. As the GOAT (it sickens me to say it, but it is true), he should be paid as such. There's got to be some type of back room deal on this. A company Brady owns must be contracting with the chatriots somehow, and he's getting cash like that.

 

That's a bunch of nonsense. It's in his own interest to stay with his team. His money makes way more money than he does in a year. Once he retires he will still be a sought after commodity able to command ridiculous amounts of money.

 

All his best financial plays are PR ones going forward.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Why not, right? Why not extend the suffering a few more years?

[BigPappy]

Every year I tell myself the decline and eventual cliff is coming; each year I'm left disappointed. Here's to hope in 2016.

I have done the same thing. The fact is though, His body is going to catch up with him. It would not surprise me if he takes one vicious hit and gets seriously hurt. Not that I really care mind you. A-holes like him never know when its time to hang it up until its too late.

 

BigPappy

[Mark80]

 

That's a bunch of nonsense. It's in his own interest to stay with his team. His money makes way more money than he does in a year. Once he retires he will still be a sought after commodity able to command ridiculous amounts of money.

 

All his best financial plays are PR ones going forward.

 

So much nonsense that even the Boston Globe wrote a story on the Patriots giving a ton of business to a company that he owns?

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/12/19/patriots-pay-business-owned-tom-brady-and-partner-with-dubious-past/C4zMzcPDgU62WMMg10qeBL/story.html

Edited March 1, 2016 by Mark80

[metzelaars_lives]

Of course there is, but not within the parameters that YOU have set. Your mind is made up, great, good for you. Just remember determining the best ever is a very subjective exercise.

Forget about who the best ever is. I never said that Super Bowl record/Super Bowl victories is the be-all-end-all in determining the best ever. If you think Montana is the best ever, that's fine, you could make that argument. You could probably make an argument that Manning is the best ever. I happen to think Brady is the best ever. But you CANNOT construct an argument that 4-0 in Super Bowls is greater than 4-2. That would necessarily mean that you are giving Montana credit for the times he didn't make it to the Super Bowl! In other words, he was better off losing twice in the NFC Championship game (which again, he did) vs. Brady WINNING the AFC Championship game and then losing a round later in the Super Bowl (which he did twice as well).

 

I realize we are on a Buffalo Bills website so it is difficult to be objective about Tom Brady. I have already said that this is all cheating aside.

 

The simple fact of the matter though, is that 4-2 trumps 4-0. You are basically trying to tell me that Conference Championships are a blemish on one's record if you don't win the Super Bowl and that it is a greater achievement to not even make the playoffs. Really think about what you are saying.

 

And I'm not trying to be argumentative here. If you think that 4-0 is better than 4-2 then I would love to hear your argument. But please include why Jim Kelly going 0-4 is then better than Stan Humphries going 0-1.

Edited March 1, 2016 by metzelaars_lives

[Beerball]

Forget about who the best ever is. I never said that Super Bowl record/Super Bowl victories is the be-all-end-all in determining the best ever. If you think Montana is the best ever, that's fine, you could make that argument. You could probably make an argument that Manning is the best ever. I happen to think Brady is the best ever. But you CANNOT construct an argument that 4-0 in Super Bowls is greater than 4-2. That would necessarily mean that you are giving Montana credit for the times he didn't make it to the Super Bowl! In other words, he was better off losing twice in the NFC Championship game (which again, he did) vs. Brady WINNING the AFC Championship game and then losing a round later in the Super Bowl (which he did twice as well).

 

I realize we are on a Buffalo Bills website so it is difficult to be objective about Tom Brady. I have already said that this is all cheating aside.

 

The simple fact of the matter though, is that 4-2 trumps 4-0. You are basically trying to tell me that Conference Championships are a blemish on one's record if you don't win the Super Bowl and that it is a greater achievement to not even make the playoffs. Really think about what you are saying.

 

And I'm not trying to be argumentative here. If you think that 4-0 is better than 4-2 then I would love to hear your argument. But please include why Jim Kelly going 0-4 is then better than Stan Humphries going 0-1.

Who has a higher average, a hitter who goes 4-4 or one who goes 4-6?

 

 

You've decided that brady's record is better because he got there more often. Others would say that Montana's better because he never lost the big one. I'm not sure why you are (always) so determined to bring others to your point of view. tomato, tomahto

[metzelaars_lives]

Who has a higher average, a hitter who goes 4-4 or one who goes 4-6?

 

 

You've decided that brady's record is better because he got there more often. Others would say that Montana's better because he never lost the big one. I'm not sure why you are (always) so determined to bring others to your point of view. tomato, tomahto

OK so by that logic a hitter who goes 1-1 (Dilfer, Brad Johnson, et al) has a higher average than a hitter who goes 2-4 (Peyton Manning) or even Brady (4-6). Similarly, Kelly (0-4) is way worse than Stan Humphries (0-1), having lost 4 big ones. Getting to the big one is an accomplishment in and of itself, hence the Bills having 8 HOF'ers from that era- which of course they wouldn't have had they never made it to the Super Bowl. Getting an at bat in baseball is not an accomplishment. I guess I would ask you very simply, do you consider the Bills'/Jim Kelly's four straight Conference Championships an accomplishment? It sounds to me like you consider it a detriment to their legacy and a blemish on their record. Personally, I consider it a great accomplishment.

Edited March 1, 2016 by metzelaars_lives

[MarkyMannn]

ok had to step in here....he is still second to montana. Montana had no losses in superbowls which trumps 2 losses. Second, montana wasnt accused of cheating (except by his wife) so bradys last bowl was an asterisk win which in my book counts as less than a win. I give brady 3.9 wins minus 2 losses =1.9 vs Joes 4.0 its still not close. neither player can account for their teams talent aside from their own, so not a factor. Pats D was better than san frans anyway. Pats also lost last game of a perfect season scoring what 14pts? Joe didnt ever even sweat.

 

If you ever read my post on this youd know only one person can sell his soul and be the "greatest of all time" and Joe did that way before Brady tried.

IDK. Montana had some great talent on those teams on both O & D. Brady has had not much of anything around him

[metzelaars_lives]

IDK. Montana had some great talent on those teams on both O & D. Brady has had not much of anything around him

Very, very true also. Those Niners teams had excellent defenses by and large. Granted, so did most of Brady's teams but Brady won three Super Bowls with very little running game (as has always been the case) and Troy Brown and David Givens as his primary receiving threats. It's nice that most people seem capable of being objective about the guy and where he stands as an all time great. I realize he has owned us for the better part of two decades but as a football fan, you should be able to take a step back and see the bigger picture. I'm sure LA Rams fans found ways to minimize Montana's greatness in the 80's as well.

Edited March 1, 2016 by metzelaars_lives

[PromoTheRobot]

Brady will be 50 and still playing at a high level and no one will think it's odd.

[metzelaars_lives]

Brady will be 50 and still playing at a high level and no one will think it's odd.

I think most people already think the level he's playing at right now is rather odd considering his age.

[enlightener]

I think most people already think the level he's playing at right now is rather odd considering his age.

FIrst I want to point out Beerball and I have the same opinion on this...interesting.

 

Second, While you claim its hard for us to be impartial to Brady on here, You are the one who is being partial to Jim Kelly and afc championships, which is how you derive your opinion on brady being better than montana. For us to discount bradies 2 SB loses and give Joe credit for not having made it to another 2 SB's It would mean we would also be discrediting all of Kellys SB's And we rightly should if we're judging "greatest of all time" This honor would have to go to someone who has won a superbowl..or 4 and has nothing to to with just being great, like Kelly was. You can judge kelly on his probowls, stats and afc championships etc. But for greatest of all time you certainly should look at 2 losses where Brady couldnt figure out how to make a win happen with relatively very little points on the board from the other teams. He almost had a third loss which his defense handed to him as a last second victory, then theres was the cheating to get to 4. But back to the two losses. Lots of teams make it to the SB, lose and are forgotten. Lots of teams go and win and the QB is forgotten because he was a nobody and the teams defense and skill players won the SB for them more than they did as QB. Brady lost two SBs while having a hall of fame coach and many all pro defenders in tow. Also having continuity of a system year after year and a couple studs on offense at times too. Randy Moss, Corey DIllon, wes welker. Since its a team sport we cant know for sure who really lost those 2 SBs for the Pats but I saw Brady sucking in those games and with Joe...no one ever has to wonder. Perfection in winning is harder than consistent winning. It has a synergy makes those wins larger in value than 4. Its a perfect 4. Could have been a perfect 3 and I still might say Joe is better than a boring, safe throw making Superbowl losing QB like Brady. I dont think Brady is nearly as "great" as Joe for many reasons actually, but the 2 losses,to me, detract and are a negative to his legacy.

 

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle, Yo JOE!

[TheFunPolice]

I think Brady's passing skills have diminished quite a bit, actually.

 

He's still VERY GOOD but he has become more inaccurate than he ever was. He's still pretty accurate, but he has more stinker games where he is off right from the get go than he ever did before.

 

Maybe it's 2-3 games out of 18 they play, but he really doesn't make tough throws. It's all easy short stuff and hardly anyone can cover Edelman, who catches a 3 yard pass and runs for 11 yards.

 

He'll be 39 next year. Most of the men chasing him down and covering those WRs are 10 years younger (or more), more athletic than ever, and bigger, stronger, and faster than ever.

Edited March 3, 2016 by TheFunPolice

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/03/03/deflategate-appeal-nfl-tom-brady-roger-goodell

 

 

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14895314/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-lawyer-was-grilled-deflategate-appeal

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/sports/football/tom-brady-deflategate-appeals-court.html?_r=0

 

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/report-tom-brady-destroyed-in-deflategate-appeal-hearing-2016-3

[3rdand12]

He found the Patriots roster in a program?

Why not, right? Why not extend the suffering a few more years?

f this f'g f'r.

This is a guy i could injure and think later about feeling guilt. oopsies! my bad.

 

is that unreasonable on my behalf? I am a pretty easy going fellow.

[aristocrat]

I think Brady's passing skills have diminished quite a bit, actually.

 

He's still VERY GOOD but he has become more inaccurate than he ever was. He's still pretty accurate, but he has more stinker games where he is off right from the get go than he ever did before.

 

Maybe it's 2-3 games out of 18 they play, but he really doesn't make tough throws. It's all easy short stuff and hardly anyone can cover Edelman, who catches a 3 yard pass and runs for 11 yards.

 

He'll be 39 next year. Most of the men chasing him down and covering those WRs are 10 years younger (or more), more athletic than ever, and bigger, stronger, and faster than ever.

 

4770 yards last year. 36 tds

[Beef Jerky]

He needs to get injured again.

[metzelaars_lives]

FIrst I want to point out Beerball and I have the same opinion on this...interesting.

 

Second, While you claim its hard for us to be impartial to Brady on here, You are the one who is being partial to Jim Kelly and afc championships, which is how you derive your opinion on brady being better than montana. For us to discount bradies 2 SB loses and give Joe credit for not having made it to another 2 SB's It would mean we would also be discrediting all of Kellys SB's And we rightly should if we're judging "greatest of all time" This honor would have to go to someone who has won a superbowl..or 4 and has nothing to to with just being great, like Kelly was. You can judge kelly on his probowls, stats and afc championships etc. But for greatest of all time you certainly should look at 2 losses where Brady couldnt figure out how to make a win happen with relatively very little points on the board from the other teams. He almost had a third loss which his defense handed to him as a last second victory, then theres was the cheating to get to 4. But back to the two losses. Lots of teams make it to the SB, lose and are forgotten. Lots of teams go and win and the QB is forgotten because he was a nobody and the teams defense and skill players won the SB for them more than they did as QB. Brady lost two SBs while having a hall of fame coach and many all pro defenders in tow. Also having continuity of a system year after year and a couple studs on offense at times too. Randy Moss, Corey DIllon, wes welker. Since its a team sport we cant know for sure who really lost those 2 SBs for the Pats but I saw Brady sucking in those games and with Joe...no one ever has to wonder. Perfection in winning is harder than consistent winning. It has a synergy makes those wins larger in value than 4. Its a perfect 4. Could have been a perfect 3 and I still might say Joe is better than a boring, safe throw making Superbowl losing QB like Brady. I dont think Brady is nearly as "great" as Joe for many reasons actually, but the 2 losses,to me, detract and are a negative to his legacy.

 

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle, Yo JOE!

I'm not partial to the Bills' four Super Bowl appearances. I know exactly where the Bills stand from an historical perspective. You can write a book trying to dissuade me but the bottom line is that winning a conference championship and then losing in the Super Bowl > losing in the conference championship. To argue otherwise defies logic. Who has a greater legacy? The Bills team that lost four Super Bowls or the Eagles team that kept losing in the NFC championship game? Your argument is that the Eagles team is necessarily a greater all time team and that McNabb is necessarily a greater all time QB than Kelly for having lost prior to the Super Bowl. I'm almost factually right on this one. You're trying to tell me that in your book, a QB gets 1 point for winning the Super Bowl, -1 point for losing a Super Bowl and breaks even for going 3-13 and not making the playoffs. I would contend that a QB gets 5 points for winning a SB and maybe 2 points for getting there and losing. Too bad Kurt Warner took that upstart Cardinals team to the SB and lost in a nailbiter, that really tarnished his legacy. If only he'd lost in the Wild Card round that year, he would be viewed as a greater all time QB. I could go all day on this one. Edited March 4, 2016 by metzelaars_lives

[enlightener]

I'm not partial to the Bills' four Super Bowl appearances. I know exactly where the Bills stand from an historical perspective. You can write a book trying to dissuade me but the bottom line is that winning a conference championship and then losing in the Super Bowl > losing in the conference championship. To argue otherwise defies logic. Who has a greater legacy? The Bills team that lost four Super Bowls or the Eagles team that kept losing in the NFC championship game? Your argument is that the Eagles team is necessarily a greater all time team and that McNabb is necessarily a greater all time QB than Kelly for having lost prior to the Super Bowl. I'm almost factually right on this one. You're trying to tell me that in your book, a QB gets 1 point for winning the Super Bowl, -1 point for losing a Super Bowl and breaks even for going 3-13 and not making the playoffs. I would contend that a QB gets 5 points for winning a SB and maybe 2 points for making it to a Super Bowl.

wow way to miss the point entirely. guess you didnt read more than one line in what i wrote and then restated the argument to make sense only to yourself. Did you read or understand anything about being perfect and not losing, period? Also Brady has played more seasons than montana and his defense won his last superbowl for him in the last 2 minutes. Who are you to assign the values to afc championships? no one cares about those really, or superbowl losers. If you hadnt ever noticed, the Bills are looked down on for their appearances only to lose, its judged as a completely negative accomplishment even though it actually isnt. But again the argument is greates qbs. If a qb can make sure a superbowl you arrived at is won, and he did it with some proficient offensive output...it is a bigger accomplishment than going only to end up losing once there. Last point. Would Montana have looked better had he made it back with the cheifs and lost? NO, he would have come off as too old and flawed, instead of Joe montana- worlds greatest QB. if you cant accept this logic, i dont know what more i can tell you to fix your flawed perspective on this.

[metzelaars_lives]

wow way to miss the point entirely. guess you didnt read more than one line in what i wrote and then restated the argument to make sense only to yourself. Did you read or understand anything about being perfect and not losing, period? Also Brady has played more seasons than montana and his defense won his last superbowl for him in the last 2 minutes. Who are you to assign the values to afc championships? no one cares about those really, or superbowl losers. If you hadnt ever noticed, the Bills are looked down on for their appearances only to lose, its judged as a completely negative accomplishment even though it actually isnt. But again the argument is greates qbs. If a qb can make sure a superbowl you arrived at is won, and he did it with some proficient offensive output...it is a bigger accomplishment than going only to end up losing once there. Last point. Would Montana have looked better had he made it back with the cheifs and lost? NO, he would have come off as too old and flawed, instead of Joe montana- worlds greatest QB. if you cant accept this logic, i dont know what more i can tell you to fix your flawed perspective on this.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the whole point. Of course he would have. So Montana is a more accomplished QB in your eyes because he lost the 1994 AFC Championship game at Buffalo rather than had he won it?? Think about what you're saying. The fact that he TOOK another team to the Super Bowl would have been yet another feather in his cap. Someone please help me out with this one. Kurt Warner. Period, end of story. Is his legacy tarnished because the Cardinals lost that Super Bowl? NO!!!!! It solidified him as a Hall of Famer!!!!!

Edited March 4, 2016 by metzelaars_lives