OOPS....
To Tom Brady: (verb); to rise against and above all rational odds and somehow come out on top of an impossible situation that was previously considered hopeless by everyone else watching. “I just Tom Bradied the entire poker table and I have all the chips!”
To Tom Brady: (verb); to rise against and above all rational odds and somehow come out on top of an impossible situation that was previously considered hopeless by everyone else watching. “I just Tom Bradied the entire poker table and I have all the chips!”
Got
Bradied: (v –
past tense); the art of having your heart, lungs and soul ripped out and strewn
about by Tom Brady. “That guy never lost
a hand. He Tom Bradied the entire poker
table down to every last man…”
Has
anyone ever seen both of these guys at the same time in the same place???
Roger
That
I saw this commercial post Superbowl and loyal blog reader
added it in the comments yesterday.
My favorite part, WITHOUT QUESTION, is the very end when
the nurse says we’re going to have to get you a bigger locker and Brady’s
response is, “Roger That!!!”
Goodell....should just resign today….
NOT
the Biggest Comeback in Sports History?
Some of you have commented or sent other messages that I
might have been off on my math, the home court or field vs. away venues, etc,
as to why overcoming a 3-1 is a lot closer to what the Pats did to the Falcons
in the Superbowl than what I have suggested or tried to objectively prove with
math.
Fine, whatever. Someone else tried to argue that overcoming a
3-1 is much more difficult in baseball because it’s the World Series. The World
Series being the grandest stage argument fell flat when I simply said, “Uh….Superbowl
is a pretty big stage, dude.”
However, one individual is adamant that the team that’s up
3-1 has to make a blunder along the way somewhere similar to what the Falcons
did. Okay, fine. I’ll give you some lee-way that the same
assumption needs to be in place in a 3-1 comeback. Which is:
The team that’s WAY AHEAD needs to screw up in some way or
multiple ways that have extraordinarily low probabilities of occurring
in order for the other team to win.
Hey
– I’m nothing if not a fair, impartial guy!!! So, let’s modify the matrix and assume that
for the losing teams, there’s an overall probability screw up factor that’s the
same for the remaining games left. But
not each and every game.
So, adding that math:
A 3-1 comeback still has about 28 chances in 1,000 of that
happening. Compared to 9 in the
Superbowl LI. That’s about a 3:1 in
favor of the Superbowl Greatest Comeback Ever!
What
else you got????
I’ll
wait….
Brady
Is NOT The GOAT???
Sigh…Arguing
this one reminds me of arguing with a liberal or a Democrat about…Anything. No matter what “facts” I present, they will
dispute, distrust or discredit the facts with spin, hyperbole or “what if”
scenarios that try to make their argument stand up in spite of the facts I’m
presenting.
My criteria:
How
many rings you got?
How
long have you done it for?
The ultimate success in any league should be the
championship trophy. I know
there’s been a lot of great QB’s that have wonderful statistics for their
careers…Hell, a couple of them even have a ring or two….
But
there’s only 1 with FIVE!!!! And if he lives up to what he’s saying
regarding how long he plays, he will have done it longer than anyone else…
Yet, people still want to argue. The conversation/argument that really bugs
me:
“Well,
if QB “X” had played for Belechick and the Patriots over the same period as
Brady, QB “X” would have probably been a lot better statistically and won just
as many if not more Superbowls because his statistics from his career where he DID
Play were overall better than Brady’s.”
The names most thrown in for “X”: Manning (P), Favre, Rodgers, Elway and
Manning (E). I tire of this one
stupid, idiotic analysis more than any argument out there. Your QB “X” DIDN’T play for the Pats
and had to play the hand he was dealt.
Live with it. Again, sorry – but this
has to be the worst argument of all of them. Get over it and stop with the
nonsense, once and for all. (And on a
side note: Manning (P) never beat his
archrival in college and couldn’t win the Heisman in ‘97….nuff said…)
On top of that, here’s a chemistry between Bill and Brady
that is unsurpassed. Your
QB “X” would have undoubtedly pissed Belechik off at some point and he
would have been traded. So there’s that,
too….
Brady
Is The GOAT until someone does it better than him.
However, I did start to have one semi-intelligent
conversation with an individual who, ironically, is a buckeye and he agreed
that Brady
is the GOAT. Hands Down. But
then he made an even better observation:
Who would be considered the GOAT if Brady hadn’t been born and
how would that have impacted Superbowl records and outcomes for those QB’s over
the last 15 seasons???
Great
Question!
So, let’s take a look.
We’ll assume for a second that Brady was never born, but the Pat’s were
still as good without Brady with the exception of Superbowls. Meaning Belechick would have gotten there but
lost each one, 7 times. (I know, that
doesn’t seem plausible, but humor me).
The last one is easiest.
Matty Ryan gets his first
ring in the 2015 Superbowl and deserves it as the regular season MVP.
In
2015,
New England beat the Seattle Seahawks and Russel Wilson. Assuming the Seahawks won, Russel Wilson would have one
more ring at this point for a total of 2.
In
2005,
the Pats beat Philadelphia’s Donovan
McNabb which would have given him one Super Bowl Title.
In
2004,
the Pats beat the North Carolina Panthers and Jake Delhomme who would have won
his first Super Bowl ring with the victory.
And Finally,
in 2002, Touchdown Tommy got his 1st
ring beating the St. Louis Rams and Kurt Warner, who would have won 2 Superbowls
if St. Louis wins that game.
So, Touchdown Tommy not being born would have resulted in a
2 Superbowl rings column getting a little crowded and really wouldn’t have
changed the GOAT discussion for the 4 time winners of Montana and Bradshaw. And then I’d still be a Montana guy…
Even though he played for the Domers….Jeez I hate those
guys…
SEE-
I can be IMPARTIAL!!!
The
BETTER Debate Is….
Who is the greatest ATHLETE in their sport and of those
athletes, who is the BEST???
For now, I’m going with this list and if you want to add or
delete someone for whatever reason, I’ll listen:
Baseball: Babe
Ruth
Basketball: Michael Jordan
Football: Brady
Golf: Nicklaus/Woods
Hockey: Gretzky
So, the debate becomes, who is the Greatest of the
Greatest? And what criteria do we use to
measure that?
Again, I have to point to the ultimate achievement for the
sport, which is winning trophies and national titles, (or in the case of golf,
majors and Championships.) In the case
for golf:
Jack leads Tiger with Majors with 18 to Tiger’s 14. But Tiger’s 79 Championships surpass Jack’s
73. And Tiger is still trying to play and Jack
also has several titles in the Bogies for Old Fogies Tour…..Er, the Senior
Tour. However, Tiger changed the
sport and if it wasn’t for injury and cheating on his wife, well, who
knows?
Easy way to decide?
I guess add em up. Jack – 91. Tiger – 93.
So, it’s Tiger. But
I have to go with Jack because, MAJORS.
Equivalent to “BIG GAME” thing….4 majors annually. So, really, divide Nicklaus Majors by 4 to
get 4.5
Ranking
on pure Championships then:
Jordan: 6 NBA Championships (6 Appearances)
Brady:
5 NFL Championships (14 Division
Titles, 11 AFC Championship Games, 7 Super Bowl Appearances)
Nicklaus: 4.5 Majors
Babe
Ruth: 4 World Series
Gretzky: 4 Stanley Cups
So, you MIGHT think I’m going to give the nod
to Jordan, But NO!!!!!!
Why? Your own criteria
said CHAMPIONSHIPS!!! And with that I
agree! BUT…….Let's face it...Brady won in the most demanding sport played today. Hockey fans just shut up and go away. I agree it's a brutal sport with more games. But not everybody takes hits like an NFL QB.
AAANNNNDDDD.....The
NBA and the NFL have a Different number of franchises! And the Bulls and Jordan won three titles when
the NBA was sitting at 26 and 3 titles when there was 28 teams. That means the Bulls had a MUCH
GREATER CHANCE of winning (1/26 and 1/28 for the given years) than the
Pats did for their 5 titles (1/32) with Brady. It’s a math thing….And here it is in all its
ugliness (but I think it’s right….)
There are so many other factors to add including but not
limited to Championship appearances, play-offs and “Clutch performances”.
Suffice
it to say – Brady is the Best in The MMQ’s Opinion!!!
And
Wojo’s – check out his column today here!
Superbowl
Winnings!!!
Then there’s this guy:
MMPG
If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a half a dozen times this
season….
It’s
a Must-Win Game for the Michigan Cagers tonight…
Sparty comes to town on a 2-game winning streak while
Michigan finds themselves on a bad two game skid. One loss to the aforementioned Sparty and
Saturday to the Suckeyes.
Michigan really, REALLY needs to hold home court and get
that “Big Name Win” over a tough opponent, which, with Sparty winning a couple
has pushed them into the 40’s in the Kenpom rankings.
Great Comments from SuperFan on the state of UM Hoops:
Excellent post on our
GOAT. BTW, a hearty THANKS to LLLLLoyd Carr for failure to recognize and
develop the GOAT. Imagine what a good QB coach and four years as a started
might have wrought for our Wolverines???
PLEASE Tom, when you are done winning SBs and SB MVPs, come back to our program in some official capacity.
Now for hoops, IRVIN IS THE PROBLEM, more so than any other single issue. Between bad passes and poor shot selection and weak defense, he is the worst senior decision maker I have seen since Gardner. He needs to go back to being strictly a 3 specialist and must not be allowed to touch the ball with less than 10 on the shot clock, unless it is to shoot a three.
Beyond that, we just need to focus on three things and we will win far more games: SHOOT THE 3; DENY THE 3; DON'T FOUL. I know, everyone says we need to focus more in the paint. On the surface, the stats show that M is very 3 centric. But how we lose games follows the same pattern nearly every time; we are competitive, we are on D, the opponent either misses a shot or nearly turns it over or something creates a broken play scenario, we collapse on the ball in or near the paint, the opponent feeds to a WIDE open guy outside the arc....splash and the rally is on. Often we follow this with a turnover trying to feed the post, or a missed shot from inside the arc. If Irvin tries one more fade away shot I may explode! I bet that he is 15% on that shot at best! No team in the country can put 5 legit 3 point shooters on the court at the same time. I know it goes against CW, but M needs to be even more focused on the 3. I am sure that they have the skill to hit a high % from the NBA range, so shoot from even further out. Once those start falling, it will be much easier to score the inside goals.
PLEASE Tom, when you are done winning SBs and SB MVPs, come back to our program in some official capacity.
Now for hoops, IRVIN IS THE PROBLEM, more so than any other single issue. Between bad passes and poor shot selection and weak defense, he is the worst senior decision maker I have seen since Gardner. He needs to go back to being strictly a 3 specialist and must not be allowed to touch the ball with less than 10 on the shot clock, unless it is to shoot a three.
Beyond that, we just need to focus on three things and we will win far more games: SHOOT THE 3; DENY THE 3; DON'T FOUL. I know, everyone says we need to focus more in the paint. On the surface, the stats show that M is very 3 centric. But how we lose games follows the same pattern nearly every time; we are competitive, we are on D, the opponent either misses a shot or nearly turns it over or something creates a broken play scenario, we collapse on the ball in or near the paint, the opponent feeds to a WIDE open guy outside the arc....splash and the rally is on. Often we follow this with a turnover trying to feed the post, or a missed shot from inside the arc. If Irvin tries one more fade away shot I may explode! I bet that he is 15% on that shot at best! No team in the country can put 5 legit 3 point shooters on the court at the same time. I know it goes against CW, but M needs to be even more focused on the 3. I am sure that they have the skill to hit a high % from the NBA range, so shoot from even further out. Once those start falling, it will be much easier to score the inside goals.
Couldn’t agree more….
Michigan is hanging around, but is right on the cusp ranked
in the 50 range. I was at the Indiana
game where Michigan literally abused the Hosiers and gave them more then they
could even begin to deal with. If THAT
Michigan team shows up, it’ll be a long night for Sparty…
Otherwise, NIT here we come….
No comments:
Post a Comment