So just say you think he comes up roses either way. Even if there was no evidence of that whatsoever to that point and finding a QB is incredibly hard especially during that era. If he didn't really need Brady and his 100 game sample of mediocrity was just a mere blip on the radar to a more prosperous future that was all but preordained then that's your opinon. If you think the 0-2 start with a backup QB coming in doesn't mean he is likely headed to another lost year and then the clock starts ticking then I guess it doesn't. You are rating his immunity to fragility higher than I would in that spot (as well as others reading this I'd imagine)
Also fwiw, I took the original question as "Who was more valuable to NE success" point blank...Who had a bigger impact on the other guys success is obviously an ESPN/sports radio way to phrase the question. What does that even mean? All that matters is who had more valuable to NE success and is a much easier way to frame the debate. Regardless of your opinion on what the answer is.
Anyway, I would take Manning/Rodgers (and I think incredibly highly of both of these guys) in their primes over BB as well. I say in post #208 why to answer your previous question. As far as right now? I mean he's almost 70, wouldn't really know how to answer that but I don't think any of the current top guys would warrant that type of praise. Also, I think it is getting easier to find a QB (more guys going to elite QB camps at younger age, rule changes, guys playing longer thus hurting scarcity) and we're talking about a previous era now (which is a point I tried to make earlier but it got lost in the bombardment of posts)
Also fwiw, I took the original question as "Who was more valuable to NE success" point blank...Who had a bigger impact on the other guys success is obviously an ESPN/sports radio way to phrase the question. What does that even mean? All that matters is who had more valuable to NE success and is a much easier way to frame the debate. Regardless of your opinion on what the answer is.
Anyway, I would take Manning/Rodgers (and I think incredibly highly of both of these guys) in their primes over BB as well. I say in post #208 why to answer your previous question. As far as right now? I mean he's almost 70, wouldn't really know how to answer that but I don't think any of the current top guys would warrant that type of praise. Also, I think it is getting easier to find a QB (more guys going to elite QB camps at younger age, rule changes, guys playing longer thus hurting scarcity) and we're talking about a previous era now (which is a point I tried to make earlier but it got lost in the bombardment of posts)
The 2nd half of the 80's....From 85-89 they went to 3 conference championships and made the playoffs all 5x. He took over in 1991. The way we think of the Browns now is not the organization he took over. They were a successful franchise previous to him taking over. Yeah the roster needed some overhauls, but is that really your worst 1st job? Not like I'm dissing him for his run there anyway, just saying he clearly met Brady at the right time.
So this isn't like taking over say, the Lions in 2019.
You really couldn't look that up about the Browns previous 5-10 years before he tookover? Help me out here man.
Yes...I'm not sure what you want me to say? They made 3 title games in 5 years in the 2nd half of the 80's. Obviously when people say "It was the browns", that didn't mean the same thing in 1991. They were a barren bunch but it isn't like this is some organization that had no track record of winning whatsoever and was a joke. They were one of the best AFC teams just a few years removed from his hire.
Seems relatively straightforward what my point was. Whereas a debate like Glenn Sather vs Wayne Gretzky will probably rage on basically until the end of time.
Actually, I never said I'd take Sather over Gretzky, YOU made that stupid comparison since your entire frame of reference is hockey. Why even bother commenting in this football thread since you know nothing about the subject? Mocking you for worshiping Gretzky is FUN, given the fact he won his cups with literally a team full of all-stars and HOFs. But don't let the inconvenient facts get in your way. Gretzky never won anything outside of that dynasty, not even a sniff in the finals, well, except one year against a less talented Habs...and Gretzky had all-stars like Robitaille and Rob Blake in LA, and Brett Hull and Chris Pronger in St. Louis. Interesting Pronger won his cup with Ryan Getzlaf as his center who is more of a Messier 'type' power forward, while Blake won with Sakic.
I'd say stick to hockey, but poor diva house league coach just doesn't have a clue.
Well you kinda saying it now
Relax
I think there is probably only 1 person on earth who believes Sather was more important then Gretzky and it ain’t PatsF
LOL, swing and a miss. Good back track on Sather tho, haha
Gretz made Kurri bro. Jari was a sniper. Gretz made players around him better-- but how would u know that ? you never played sport
oh, it was Blake and Robitalile that got it done in LA ? then why didnt the LA kings win without Wayne, U twit ? why were they bottom feeders before he arrived
Joe, youre embarrassing yourself
(btw, im more of a Lemieux fan than a Gretz guy. Not worshipping Wayne, im using Greats from other sports as a different frame of reference)
Jordan, Brady, Wayne over their respective coaches. But its clear u dont know why
No ,no one is taking Messier over Gretz lol .
Gretz and Lemieux as the greatest, they could take over a game . Mario's career was riddled with injury . His numbers would have been a lot closer to Wayne 's. Those two were outliers ,freaks .closest over the last 20 yrs is McDavid
Crosby is more like a Brady.
