Can Brady win if he has to do it on his own merit?
-
No. You can use all this legalise you want, and if we are talking about law, sure you got me, you are a lawyer you would know more. But a coach, players, former players would know more about it than you.
The DB used his hands and HIS leverage to INTERFERE with the receiver. Had the DB just ran with the receiver and used the receivers momentum and leverage against him then no PI.
And THAT is exactly what happened.....thank you for putting succintly and accurately. The DB ran with the receiver...and used the receiver's momentum and leverage against him.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you or anyone can read and interpret a rule in the correct way. If that were true, then I am a regular citizen could walk into court and defend someone because I read the law. Having a familiarity with applying the rules is a BIG part of it
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
No, you are seeing them the way you want. He used his hands AND forced the receiver out.
I will all but guarantee that you know more law than I, and I know more football rules than you.
It's obvious you aren't going to change your view of the play no matter what is said, and I KNOW the rule, so instead of arguing I will just let it go and you can go ahead and think you are correct. It's not like the other 95% of people who think they "know" the rules and actually just just formulate an opinion are any different.
Good day and God bless
-
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
.....he has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
And that's where you get into the apples/oranges thing remember Belichick was just learning how to be THE head coach in Cleveland, plus it was a different era, management, etc. The Browns were already headed down. Bill was also very much a defensive guy first, Bernie has some great stories about that!
To combine those records is very misleading to say the least.
.......Belichick began his coaching career in 1975, and by 1985, was the defensive coordinator for New York Giants head coach Bill Parcells. Parcells and Belichick won two Super Bowls together (XXI and XXV), before Belichick left to become the head coach in Cleveland in 1991. He remained in Cleveland for five seasons, and was fired following the team's 1995 season. Belichick then rejoined Parcells, first in New England where the team lost Super Bowl XXXI, and later with the New York Jets.
After being named head coach of the Jets in early 2000, Belichick resigned after only one day on the job to accept the head coaching job for the New England Patriots on January 27, 2000........
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
Fuyuck off arsebag. Are you also a holocaust denier? Do you think the south won the civil war. The fuyucking facts are the fuyucking facts. The AAFC was a better league at the time than the NFL.
Do you actually know why the NFL does not want to recognize the AAFC? Even when every single other entity does? Do you know the fact surrounding that situation?
It was pure resentment and jealousy on the part of Bert Bell....then NFL commissioner AND owner of the Philadelphia Eagles....the defending NFL champs who got there asses stomped by the Browns in the first game played. He got embarassed by his team's arse kicking...and the proclaimed in a snit....."we are not going to recognize the previous accomplishment of AAFC teams". It was a pure petty and vindictive move.
So...now you have been educated about that. It was a pure venal matter
And as I said....every reputable entity other than them does "recognize" it. The Pro Football HOF, the Sporting News....I don't know, all of them...name your favorite.
-
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
I think Brady deserves more of the credit, and I dont care for BB. But he is a GREAT coach.
But your argument is flawed. You use all these guys that he had in the past to prove your point, but don't factor in 2 keys, 1 being his assistants, but more importantly would be growth.
I think it is fair to say that you are a much better lawyer now that you have grown and learned over the years as compared to when you first started.
Would Bill have 5 SB with Brady? Absolutely not. Would Brady have 5 without Bill? Absolutely not. They are great together, but Brady deserves the majority of credit for it
I think Brady deserves more of the credit, and I dont care for BB. But he is a GREAT coach.
But your argument is flawed. You use all these guys that he had in the past to prove your point, but don't factor in 2 keys, 1 being his assistants, but more importantly would be growth.
I think it is fair to say that you are a much better lawyer now that you have grown and learned over the years as compared to when you first started.
Would Bill have 5 SB with Brady? Absolutely not. Would Brady have 5 without Bill? Absolutely not. They are great together, but Brady deserves the majority of credit for it.
....I HAVE said...consistently...if you had paid any attention....that indeed BB had grown as a coach.....that is why I said that he WOULD likely have his teams be consistent playoff contenders. I point out his non-Brady record for two reasons: A. to say...yes...he is now better than this record was in those days...and B. to prove the ultimate point...that you agree on: the majority of credit goes to Brady.
-
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
No, you are seeing them the way you want. He used his hands AND forced the receiver out.
I will all but guarantee that you know more law than I, and I know more football rules than you.
It's obvious you aren't going to change your view of the play no matter what is said, and I KNOW the rule, so instead of arguing I will just let it go and you can go ahead and think you are correct. It's not like the other 95% of people who think they "know" the rules and actually just just formulate an opinion are any different.
Good day and God bless
No, you are seeing them the way you want. He used his hands AND forced the receiver out.
No, ..he didn't ..you just want it to be that way.
I will all but guarantee that you know more law than I, and I know more football rules than you.
What makes you think that? Prove your credentials.
It's obvious you aren't going to change your view of the play no matter what is said, and I KNOW the rule, so instead of arguing I will just let it go and you can go ahead and think you are correct. It's not like the other 95% of people who think they "know" the rules and actually just just formulate an opinion are any different.
Good day and God bless
You can know the rules upside down and sideways......that does not mean that you are any better at applying them to the facts than any Joe on the street. I don't change my view of the play....because I VIEWED the play. From what I saw....your statement earlier....of the rule....absolutely applies...the DB ran with the receiver and used his momentum against him. The fact...the view as I saw it...matched your statement of the rule precisely.
Now Texas AG says that he has seen a different camera angle of the play.....Show me that...and if I see something different...I can be willing to change my mind. But you must provide your evidence.
-
.....he has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
And that's where you get into the apples/oranges thing remember Belichick was just learning how to be THE head coach in Cleveland, plus it was a different era, management, etc. The Browns were already headed down. Bill was also very much a defensive guy first, Bernie has some great stories about that!
To combine those records is very misleading to say the least.
.......Belichick began his coaching career in 1975, and by 1985, was the defensive coordinator for New York Giants head coach Bill Parcells. Parcells and Belichick won two Super Bowls together (XXI and XXV), before Belichick left to become the head coach in Cleveland in 1991. He remained in Cleveland for five seasons, and was fired following the team's 1995 season. Belichick then rejoined Parcells, first in New England where the team lost Super Bowl XXXI, and later with the New York Jets.
After being named head coach of the Jets in early 2000, Belichick resigned after only one day on the job to accept the head coaching job for the New England Patriots on January 27, 2000........
And that's where you get into the apples/oranges thing remember Belichick was just learning how to be THE head coach in Cleveland, plus it was a different era, management, etc. The Browns were already headed down. Bill was also very much a defensive guy first, Bernie has some great stories about that!
To combine those records is very misleading to say the least.
No.....BBs own mentor said it: You are what your record is.
.......Belichick began his coaching career in 1975, and by 1985, was the defensive coordinator for New York Giants head coach Bill Parcells. Parcells and Belichick won two Super Bowls together (XXI and XXV), before Belichick left to become the head coach in Cleveland in 1991. He remained in Cleveland for five seasons, and was fired following the team's 1995 season. Belichick then rejoined Parcells, first in New England where the team lost Super Bowl XXXI, and later with the New York Jets.
After being named head coach of the Jets in early 2000, Belichick resigned after only one day on the job to accept the head coaching job for the New England Patriots on January 27, 2000........
And what has this to do with the price of tea in China.
BB was a great DC....but a fairly bad HC...until he got Brady.
-
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
Fuyuck off arsebag. Are you also a holocaust denier? Do you think the south won the civil war. The fuyucking facts are the fuyucking facts. The AAFC was a better league at the time than the NFL.
Do you actually know why the NFL does not want to recognize the AAFC? Even when every single other entity does? Do you know the fact surrounding that situation?
It was pure resentment and jealousy on the part of Bert Bell....then NFL commissioner AND owner of the Philadelphia Eagles....the defending NFL champs who got there asses stomped by the Browns in the first game played. He got embarassed by his team's arse kicking...and the proclaimed in a snit....."we are not going to recognize the previous accomplishment of AAFC teams". It was a pure petty and vindictive move.
So...now you have been educated about that. It was a pure venal matter
And as I said....every reputable entity other than them does "recognize" it. The Pro Football HOF, the Sporting News....I don't know, all of them...name your favorite.
Fuyuck off arsebag. Are you also a holocaust denier? Do you think the south won the civil war. The fuyucking facts are the fuyucking facts. The AAFC was a better league at the time than the NFL.
Do you actually know why the NFL does not want to recognize the AAFC? Even when every single other entity does? Do you know the fact surrounding that situation?
It was pure resentment and jealousy on the part of Bert Bell....then NFL commissioner AND owner of the Philadelphia Eagles....the defending NFL champs who got there asses stomped by the Browns in the first game played. He got embarassed by his team's arse kicking...and the proclaimed in a snit....."we are not going to recognize the previous accomplishment of AAFC teams". It was a pure petty and vindictive move.
So...now you have been educated about that. It was a pure venal matter
And as I said....every reputable entity other than them does "recognize" it. The Pro Football HOF, the Sporting News....I don't know, all of them...name your favorite.
No matter what mumbo jumbo you use to rationalize it the NFL does not and will never recognize the AAFC titles.
This shit ain't nothing to me, man. -
So...gip...
.jpg.04fecb9700bd9a7c6ea846b28067dfcc.jpg)
This shit ain't nothing to me, man. -
And the faux-british crap calling everyone arsehole only makes you look like a pretentious twat.
This shit ain't nothing to me, man. -
Fuyuck off arsebag. Are you also a holocaust denier? Do you think the south won the civil war. The fuyucking facts are the fuyucking facts. The AAFC was a better league at the time than the NFL.
Do you actually know why the NFL does not want to recognize the AAFC? Even when every single other entity does? Do you know the fact surrounding that situation?
It was pure resentment and jealousy on the part of Bert Bell....then NFL commissioner AND owner of the Philadelphia Eagles....the defending NFL champs who got there asses stomped by the Browns in the first game played. He got embarassed by his team's arse kicking...and the proclaimed in a snit....."we are not going to recognize the previous accomplishment of AAFC teams". It was a pure petty and vindictive move.
So...now you have been educated about that. It was a pure venal matter
And as I said....every reputable entity other than them does "recognize" it. The Pro Football HOF, the Sporting News....I don't know, all of them...name your favorite.
No matter what mumbo jumbo you use to rationalize it the NFL does not and will never recognize the AAFC titles.
No matter what mumbo jumbo you use to rationalize it the NFL does not and will never recognize the AAFC titles.
And it does not matter what the NFL does. They are not the keeper of Football History recognition or approval. They are actually perhaps the least authoritative source on the subject. I mean...that would be like saying that the Trump White House is the only approved source of news.
http://www.profootballhof.com/football-history/history-of-football/
-
So...gip...
So...gip...
But...that applies far more to you...and to the NFL.
-
And the faux-british crap calling everyone arsehole only makes you look like a pretentious twat.
And the faux-british crap calling everyone arsehole only makes you look like a pretentious twat.
Hello, McFly...is anybody home? I do that because they now have this silly autocorrect BS going on where A-S-S is change to something else.
Here is an experiment: pooper.
Edit...see what I mean.
-
No, you are seeing them the way you want. He used his hands AND forced the receiver out.
No, ..he didn't ..you just want it to be that way.
I will all but guarantee that you know more law than I, and I know more football rules than you.
What makes you think that? Prove your credentials.
It's obvious you aren't going to change your view of the play no matter what is said, and I KNOW the rule, so instead of arguing I will just let it go and you can go ahead and think you are correct. It's not like the other 95% of people who think they "know" the rules and actually just just formulate an opinion are any different.
Good day and God bless
You can know the rules upside down and sideways......that does not mean that you are any better at applying them to the facts than any Joe on the street. I don't change my view of the play....because I VIEWED the play. From what I saw....your statement earlier....of the rule....absolutely applies...the DB ran with the receiver and used his momentum against him. The fact...the view as I saw it...matched your statement of the rule precisely.
Now Texas AG says that he has seen a different camera angle of the play.....Show me that...and if I see something different...I can be willing to change my mind. But you must provide your evidence.
Prove my credentials with what? I need not prove a thing to you or anyone else.
You are just some guy who thinks he knows everything about everything. Ghoolieesque.
I can use my knowledge of being involved in the game for a good amount of time vs that of a fan. Or I can use the knowledge of many who played the game at an elite level for year or the eyes of some guy on a message board.
See there is a HUGE difference in how people involved in the game watches and sees a game vs that of a fan. Not saying that either way is better, heck it may even be fun to watch a game as strictly a fan, but it is what it is.
Either way, you can have your opinion and that is perfectly fine. But I am not going to go back and forth over something irrevalent because something thinks something.
Good day and God bless
-
You still sound like a douche. And the NFL only begrudgingly acknowledges pre super bowl era titles to begin with much less the completely defunct AAFC.
This shit ain't nothing to me, man. -
I understand your driving need to be right about everything and that as a scumbag lawyer arguing is in your DNA but nobody and I mean nobody recognizes the AAFC titles as historical NFL titles. And since the browns play in the NFL with every other team that's actually all that matters.
This shit ain't nothing to me, man. -
Prove my credentials with what? I need not prove a thing to you or anyone else.
You are just some guy who thinks he knows everything about everything. Ghoolieesque.
I can use my knowledge of being involved in the game for a good amount of time vs that of a fan. Or I can use the knowledge of many who played the game at an elite level for year or the eyes of some guy on a message board.
See there is a HUGE difference in how people involved in the game watches and sees a game vs that of a fan. Not saying that either way is better, heck it may even be fun to watch a game as strictly a fan, but it is what it is.
Either way, you can have your opinion and that is perfectly fine. But I am not going to go back and forth over something irrevalent because something thinks something.
Good day and God bless
Prove my credentials with what? I need not prove a thing to you or anyone else.
You claim you know the NFL rules backword an forward. And that you have qualifications that evidence that your experience in the game is OH so much more than mine. So...yes...prove your claim.
You are just some guy who thinks he knows everything about everything. Ghoolieesque.
Not at all. I just know what I see and hear. So far, I see nor hear nothing from you that evidences your claim of this tremendous knowledge of the game....and its rules.
I can use my knowledge of being involved in the game for a good amount of time vs that of a fan. Or I can use the knowledge of many who played the game at an elite level for year or the eyes of some guy on a message board.
See there is a HUGE difference in how people involved in the game watches and sees a game vs that of a fan. Not saying that either way is better, heck it may even be fun to watch a game as strictly a fan, but it is what it is.
Either way, you can have your opinion and that is perfectly fine. But I am not going to go back and forth over something irrevalent because something thinks something.
Well...OK, you claim that you have knowledge from being involved in the game. Yet you provide no such information.
Beyond that, I don't care how much you may have been involved in the game....unless I see something different from another angle...your eyesight is NO better than mine. You can see that play no better than I can.
Good day and God bless
-
You still sound like a douche. And the NFL only begrudgingly acknowledges pre super bowl era titles to begin with much less the completely defunct AAFC.
You still sound like a douche. And the NFL only begrudgingly acknowledges pre super bowl era titles to begin with much less the completely defunct AAFC.
Your own statement makes you sound young and stupid. Are you young...or just stupid. History is history. And the NFL is the least credible entity when it comes to history.
You do know that we fought a Revolution to be free from England who had colonized us. Or, do you want to deny that history. And why on Earth do you feel proud about sounding like a Steeler fan who thinks the Earth was created in 1972?
-
And really if the AAFC was so superior why were only 3 teams admitted to the nfl? - key word, admitted not merged like the AFL was, and one of those teams folded. True the other two teams had great runs - the browns immediately and then never again...and the 49ers 30 years later but still. It was a different league and it never merged with the NFL.
This shit ain't nothing to me, man. -
Sorry your argument doesn't hold water. Ask yourself as a lawyer if you could make a case in which you could force the NFL to recognize the browns' AAFC titles. I think we both know the answer to that.
-
I understand your driving need to be right about everything and that as a scumbag lawyer arguing is in your DNA but nobody and I mean nobody recognizes the AAFC titles as historical NFL titles. And since the browns play in the NFL with every other team that's actually all that matters.
I understand your driving need to be right about everything and that as a scumbag lawyer arguing is in your DNA but nobody and I mean nobody recognizes the AAFC titles as historical NFL titles. And since the browns play in the NFL with every other team that's actually all that matters.
I don't have a driving need to be right. I am simply almost always right because I either know things...or have this amazing resource at my disposal to look things up, so that I get them right. I do research...and lo an behold...I get answers from my research.
And....everybody actually recognizes the AAFC titles except one single entity....and I educated you on why that was. (but you are apparently not smart enough to listen and to learn).
And...what, do you think you are being coy? by saying that the AAFC are not historical "NFL" titles? Well, no shite Sherlock (yes...and Englishism to avoid the autocorrect). But they ARE historical titles.
By the way...those AAFC titles were won by a team called the Cleveland Browns. Ever hear of them? Ever learn any history about them? Or does that all come as a surprise to you. But, be happy....even if you haven't...others have done their research and know about them and their history. You know, like authoritative sources. Say...the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The Sporting News. Any and every source on earth..but one in fact.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login